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

  • 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...
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now