AMD Kaveri Review: A8-7600 and A10-7850K Tested
by Ian Cutress & Rahul Garg on January 14, 2014 8:00 AM ESTLlano, Trinity and Kaveri Die: Compared
AMD sent along a high res shot of Kaveri's die. Armed with the same from the previous two generations, we can get a decent idea of the progression of AMD's APUs:
Llano, K10 Quad Core
Trinity and Richland Die, with two Piledriver modules and processor graphics
Kaveri, two modules and processor graphics
Moving from Llano to Trinity, we have the reduction from a fully-fledged quad core system to the dual module layout AMD is keeping with its APU range. Moving from Richland to Kaveri is actually a bigger step than one might imagine:
| AMD APU Details | ||||
| Core Name | Llano | Trinity | Richland | Kaveri |
| Microarch | K10 | Piledriver | Piledriver | Steamroller |
| CPU Example | A8-3850 | A10-5800K | A10-6800K | A10-7850K |
| Threads | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Cores | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| GPU | HD 6550 | HD 7660D | HD 8670D | R7 |
| GPU Arch | VLIW5 | VLIW4 | VLIW4 | GCN 1.1 |
| GPU Cores | 400 | 384 | 384 | 512 |
| Die size / mm2 | 228 | 246 | 246 | 245 |
| Transistors | 1.178 B | 1.303 B | 1.303 B | 2.41 B |
| Power | 100W | 100W | 100W | 95W |
| CPU MHz | 2900 | 3800 | 4100 | 3700 |
| CPU Turbo | N/A | 4200 | 4400 | 4000 |
| L1 Cache |
256KB C$ 256KB D$ |
128KB C$ 64KB D$ |
128KB C$ 64KB D$ |
192KB C$ 64KB D$ |
| L2 Cache | 4 x 1MB | 2 x 2 MB | 2 x 2 MB | 2 x 2 MB |
| Node | 32nm SOI | 32nm SOI | 32nm SOI | 28nm SHP |
| Memory | DDR-1866 | DDR-1866 | DDR-2133 | DDR-2133 |
Looking back at Llano and Trinity/Richland, it's very clear that AMD's APUs on GF's 32nm SOI process had a real issue with transistor density. The table below attempts to put everything in perspective but keep in mind that, outside of Intel, no one does a good job of documenting how they are counting (estimating) transistors. My only hope is AMD's transistor counting methods are consistent across CPU and GPU, although that alone may be wishful thinking:
| Transistor Density Comparison | ||||||||
| Manufacturing Process | Transistor Count | Die Size | Transistors per mm2 | |||||
| AMD Kaveri | GF 28nm SHP | 2.41B | 245 mm2 | 9.837M | ||||
| AMD Richland | GF 32nm SOI | 1.30B | 246 mm2 | 5.285M | ||||
| AMD Llano | GF 32nm SOI | 1.178B | 228 mm2 | 5.166M | ||||
| AMD Bonaire (R7 260X) | TSMC 28nm | 2.08B | 160 mm2 | 13.000M | ||||
| AMD Pitcairn (R7 270/270X) | TSMC 28nm | 2.80B | 212 mm2 | 13.209M | ||||
| AMD Vishera (FX-8350) | GF 32nm SOI | 1.2B | 315 mm2 | 3.810M | ||||
| Intel Haswell 4C (GT2) | Intel 22nm | 1.40B | 177 mm2 | 7.910M | ||||
| NVIDIA GK106 (GTX 660) | TSMC 28nm | 2.54B | 214 mm2 | 11.869M | ||||
If AMD is indeed counting the same way across APUs/GPUs, the move to Kaveri doesn't look all that extreme but rather a good point in between previous APUs and other AMD GCN GPUs. Compared to standalone CPU architectures from AMD, it's clear that the APUs are far more dense thanks to big portions of their die being occupied by a GPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
380 Comments
View All Comments
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
I did a look back to C2D this time last year: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6670/dragging-core2d...When I get into the swing of testing for Gaming CPU viability again, I'll make sure it is part of the testing matrix.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
I've been reading Anadtech since I was in high school and that has to be my favorite article. I reference that article constantly.It's so hard to find reliable & exhaustive benchmarks of old CPUs. If you could update it every 2 years, I would love you forever!
just4U - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link
I read that article and it got me to thinking.. Maybe what is needed is not a direct comparison with new and competing products (which companies may not like..) but rather something stand alone that gets refreshed like your E6400 article. It sets the bar on what the reviewer (and likely most of us) think is needed these days..I know for myself I see a lot steps sideways in the computer industry but it's no longer leaps ahead like it once was.alyarb - Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - link
That would be great. I have a C2Q at 3.7 GHz and a 5850 at 800 MHz. Sure, that is >350W under load, but it still gets the job done at 1080p even in 2014. I have tried and can't justify replacing it all just yet.Similarly I'm not surprised to see Llano is not at the bottom of these charts and is still within striking distance of Kaveri in a lot of the tests. One day I'd like to see the past 8 or 10 years of CPUs all put through the same battery of 2013-2014 tests.
Integration and new features are all welcome, but let's take a look, as performance skeptics, at how far we've really come all this time.
anubis44 - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link
"I have a C2Q at 3.7 GHz and a 5850 at 800 MHz. Sure, that is >350W under load, but it still gets the job done at 1080p even in 2014. I have tried and can't justify replacing it all just yet."Try playing Company of Heroes 2 (my current favourite) on that rig, and understand the meaning of the word 'obsolete'. That game will bring that system to it's knees, and it won't be pretty.
just4U - Sunday, January 19, 2014 - link
Throw in a 760 or a 280x then.. see if it's still brought to it's knees.. Hell a 270/x might do.. it's substantially faster than the 5850 as well.SofS - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
Careful when comparing older processors regarding the memory subsystem since without the integrated controller they are very sensitive to memory performance or at least my C2Q 9550 @3410MHz seems to be. In my case the upgrade to to a G.Skill F3-12800CL6-2GBXH dual kit I made some years ago was meaningful and some other readers here on similar platforms might find that only upgrading the RAM would give them headroom enough to avoid a whole new system purchase for a while longer. Currently I also own a i7-4800MQ based notebook with dual KHX1600C9S3/8G and while noticeably faster for some cases it does not really enable me to game at higher settings than my desktop system given the GPU being a GTX 765M. Going forward a GPU upgrade to the desktop system is all I am looking for.RussianSensation - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
Sorry, but you may have a confirmation bias here. You bought new memory expecting the system to perform much faster but years and years of personal ownership of C2D/C2Q systems and online reviews show that it hardly performed faster with faster memory. That architecture in fact performed faster with tighter latency. Your kit doesn't even have 5-5-5-15 timings. C2Q 9550 @ 3.4ghz is a slow CPU compared to Core i7 4770 @ 4.5ghz for gaming. Your memory upgrade may have netted you an extra 2-3% increase on average at best.SofS - Friday, January 17, 2014 - link
Come to think of it, maybe the amount was more important, besides going down to CL6 previously it was 2x1GB instead of 2x2GB. If that is the case then my 765M must be holding the 4800MQ back for gaming or something else is very wrong. Currently the only games I play that do not perform properly at 1080p are Witcher2 and Tomb Raider, probably that has more to do with the GPU than the CPU/RAM tough the real question is if a better next generation mid range GPU would still be able to work properly with them.Albangalo - Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - link
While it's not to do with Kaveri, Tom's Hardware did some articles comparing current cpus with older ones:Intel Ivy vs c2d & c2q: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wol...
AMD fx vs k10: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10...