ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

AMD Kaveri Review: A8-7600 and A10-7850K Tested

 by Ian Cutress & Rahul Garg on January 14, 2014 8:00 AM EST
380 Comments | Add A Comment
380 Comments

Testing Platform

For our Kaveri testing AMD sent us two APUs – the top 95W A10-7850K SKU and the configurable TDP version of the A8-7600 APU, the latter of which can be set at 45W or 65W through the BIOS. The A8-7600 was tested in both power configurations, ultimately the difference between them both being only a few hundred MHz. The 65W configuration is only 200 MHz off the A10-7700K base frequency, and incidentally they both turbo to the same frequency of 3.8GHz.

Kaveri will be the first APU put through the mangle in terms of my new 2014 benchmarking suite, focusing on more compute tasks, video conversion in different software, and more real world scenarios geared for the prosumer.

We must thank the following companies for their contribution to the test beds:

Our test setup for AMD is as follows:

AMD APU TestBed
  SKU Cores CPU /
Turbo		 DRAM
MHz		 Power IGP SPs GPU
MHz
Kaveri APUs A10-7850K 2M/4T 3.7 GHz
4.0 GHz		 2133 95W R7 512 720 MHz
A8-7600 2M/4T 3.3 GHz
3.8 GHz		 2133 65W R7 384 720 MHz
A8-7600 2M/4T 3.1 GHz
3.3 GHz		 2133 45W R7 384 720 MHz
Richland APUs A10-6800K 2M/4T 4.1 GHz
4.4 GHz		 2133 100W 8670D 384 844 MHz
A10-6700T 2M/4T 2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz		 1866 45W 8650D 384 720 MHz
A8-6500T 2M/4T 2.1 GHz
3.1 GHz		 1866 45W 8550D 256 720 MHz
Trinity APUs A10-5800K 2M/4T 3.8 GHz
4.2 GHz		 2133 100W 7660D 384 800 MHz
A8-5500 2M/4T 3.2 GHz
3.7 GHz		 1866 65W 7560D 256 760 MHz
Memory AMD Radeon 2 x 8 GB DDR3-2133 10-11-11 1.65V
G.Skill RipjawsX 4 x 4 GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 1.65V
G.Skill RipjawsZ 4 x 4 GB DDR3-1866 8-9-9 1.65V
Motherboards ASRock FM2A88X Extreme6+
ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+
Power Supply OCZ 1250W ZX Series
Storage OCZ 256GB Vertex 3 SSDs
Operating System Windows 7 64-bit SP1 with Core Parking updates
Video Drivers Graphics Driver Build 13.300 RC2 for Radeon R7
Catalyst 13.12 for all others

Unfortunately we were not able to source a 65W Richland part in time, however a midrange 65W Trinity part was on hand. The important thing to note is that within each power bracket, both the CPU frequencies and the supported memory changes depending on the architecture and the binning process AMD uses. The benchmarks in this review are run at the processors' maximum supported frequency, rather than any AMD Memory Profiles which the processor can also support via overclocking. This has implications in conjunction with the IPC or MHz difference.

For this review we also took a few Intel processors of varying TDPs:

Intel TestBed
  SKU Cores CPU /
Turbo		 DRAM
MHz		 Power IGP SPs GPU
MHz
Sandy Bridge i5-2500K 4C/4T 3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz		 1600 95W HD 3000 12 850
Ivy Bridge i3-3225 2C/4T 3.3 GHz 1600 55W HD 4000 16 550
i7-3770K 4C/8T 3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz		 1600 77W HD 4000 16 550
Haswell i3-4330 2C/4T 3.5 GHz 1600 54W HD 4600 20  
i7-4770K 4C/8T 3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz		 1600 84W HD 4600 20  
i7-4770R
+ Iris Pro		 4C/8T 3.2 GHz
3.9 GHz		 1600 65W HD 5200 40  
Memory ADATA XPG 2 x 8 GB DDR3L-1600 9-11-9 1.35V
Motherboards ASUS Z87 Gryphon
Power Supply OCZ 1250W ZX Series
Storage OCZ 256GB Vertex 3 SSDs
Operating System Windows 7 64-bit SP1 with Core Parking updates
Video Drivers 15.28.20.64.3347 for HD 3000
15.33.8.64.3345 for HD 4000+4600

Unfortunately our stock of i5 and i3 processors is actually rather limited – Intel prefers to source the i7s when we review those platforms, but I was able to use a personal i3-3225 from my NAS and we sourced the Haswell i3 as well. Given that Ganesh has the BRIX Pro in for review, I asked him to run as many benchmarks from our gaming suite as I could, to see how well Intel's Haswell eDRAM (Crystalwell) equipped processors stand up to Kaveri’s GCN mêlée.

For reference we also benchmarked the only mid-range GPU to hand - a HD 6750 while connected to the i7-4770K.

Overclocking and Underclocking the A10-7850K

As part of the final testing for this review we did some basic overclocking on the A10-7850K processor. Despite our processor being an engineering sample, we would assume that it is as close/identical to the retail silicon as you can get, given that this is meant to be a review on which people make purchasing decisions.

Our A10-7850K CPU starts out with a peak voltage under load of 1.24 volts when running OCCT. From this point we clocked back to 3.5 GHz and 1.100 volts, with a full-on CPU load line calibration and adjusted turbo mode to equal the base clock. Our standard overclocking test applies – OCCT for five minutes, PovRay, and new for 2014, a run of LuxMark. At our settings, we test the system for stability by running these tests. If the system fails, the CPU voltage is raised 0.025 volts until the system is stable during testing. When stable, the system multiplier is then raised and our testing moves on to the new MHz range.

Our results are as follows:

There was an unexpected jump in the voltage required to move from 3.5 GHz to 3.6 GHz (likely hitting the limits of what we can easily attain on this process). The system would not remain stable until 1.225 volts as set in the BIOS.

We also did the power tests, measuring the power draw at the wall as the delta between idle and OCCT load:

As expected, raising the voltage has a significant effect on the power consumption of the processor. One thing I should point out is that even at stock, the power delivery VRMs were getting very hot to touch – so much in fact that the system generated significant errors without an active fan on them. This got worse as the system was overclocked. I am not sure if this is an effect of the platform or the motherboard, but it will be something to inspect in our motherboard reviews going forward.

The Kaveri Socket and Chipset Line Up: Today and Q1, No Plans for FX or Server(?) CPU Performance
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

380 Comments

View All Comments

  • extremesheep49 - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    I don't know if anyone will even see this now but...

    "The reality is quite clear by now: AMD isn't going to solve its CPU performance issues with anything from the Bulldozer family. What we need is a replacement architecture, one that I suspect we'll get after Excavator concludes the line in 2015."

    I don't know that this conclusion is very fair considering this statement if you compare it to a previous article linked below. The linked article recommends a (currently) $100 100W A8-5600K. The Kaveri equivalent is a $120 45W CPU of approximately the same performance.

    Doesn't the linked article's recommendations contradict your Kaveri conclusion at least for some cases? Kaveri's CPU performance probably is sufficient for many discrete GPU setups.

    http://anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-c...

    Quote from link:
    "Recommendations for the Games Tested at 1440p/Max Settings
    A CPU for Single GPU Gaming: A8-5600K + Core Parking updates"

  • Novaguy - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link

    Gaming performance is usually (but not always) GPU bottlenecked, not CPU bottlenecked.

    The reason why a trinity was getting recommended in a lot of gaming boxes was that in dollar limited scenarios, you'll often get better gaming performance mating a $120 quad core trinity with a $300 gpu, versus a $220 i5 with a $200 gpu.

    For even better results, mate an $80 Athlon II X4 750K if you're going discrete gpu, but I don't think the gpu-less trinity chip was available then.

  • PG - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I wanted to compare Kaveri to some other cpus not in this review. Bench would be perfect for that, but the Kaveri cpus are not listed there. Why? Can they be be added?

  • Cptn_Slo - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link

    Well at least this shows that AMD is able to increase performance significantly given the appropriate die shrink. I'm a big Intel fan but a healthy company/market needs competition, and looks like AMD is able to offer that in at least some areas.

  • zobisch - Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - link

    I have an h60 cooler on my 7850k with 2400mhz ram OC'd to 4.4ghz and I love it... I think the corner for APU's will really turn when DDR4 boards come out. I also would like to see an 8core, 24 compute gpu as well but that's probably a die shrink or more away.

  • vickfan104 - Tuesday, May 6, 2014 - link

    An Xbox One/PS4-like APU is what I'm still looking for from AMD. To me, that seems like the point where an APU becomes truly compelling as opposed to CPU + discreet GPU.

  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    I still can't understand why anyone would be insane enough to pay the outrages high price for a AMD APU simply because it has a built in GPU that can play some games! When for the same price you can get a high end i5 CPU and mid range GPU for a few dollars more! Or for the exact same price you can get a AMD quad and a mid range GPU. Either choice would bloaw any AMD APU out of the water! Yes you can crossfire the APU, But you can also crossfire and SLI regular GPU's. Besides by the time you paid the money for a AMD APU and a GPU to crossfire with it you could have got a nice i3 or FX 6300 or even a last gen IVY i5 with a GPU like a R9 270 or a GTX 660. And either one of those would blow away a APU/Crossfire setup! What are you people thinking? I swear people today would not only buy the Brooklyn bridge once but more than once!

  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    Most logical thing to do is buy FX-6300 for $119 and a Motherboard for $60 and then buy a GTX 660 or a R9 270 and buy a 1600x900 resolution monitor and then you will be able to max out anything.

  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    Besides 60fps on Medium/High at only 1280x1024 is a laugh! A GT 740 and a R7 250 can do better than that!

  • kzac - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    After living with the processor on a gigabyte main board for the past several months, I can honestly say its bested both the core i3 and i5 systems (some quad core) I have used in the past. What it might not score on benchmarks for all out throughput it makes up for in its multitasking capability. What normally crashes my i3 and makes my i5 struggle while multitasking (many things open and operating at the same time), doesn’t tend to effect the A10 APU. The core i3 i am using is the later 3220 chip which completely chokes with anything above average multitasking under W7pro, even though it has 12 gig of 1600 ram. The core i5 was better at multitasking than the core i3 but still not near as effective at multitasking as the AMD A10 7850. Where I cannot speak to the performance of the AMD A10 for gaming, for multitasking is very effective.
    For gaming I have used the FX series AMD processors, both Quad Core and 8 core.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now