AMD A10-7800 Review: Testing the A10 65W Kaveri
by Ian Cutress on July 31, 2014 8:00 AM ESTGaming and Synthetics on Processor Graphics
The faster processor graphics become, the more of the low end graphics market is consumed - if the integrated graphics are better than a $50 discrete GPU, there ends up being no reason to buy a discrete GPU. This might seem a little odd for AMD, who also have a discrete GPU business. The counter argument is that integrated graphics is only comparable to low-end GPUs, which are historically low margin parts and thus might encourage users to invest in larger GPUs, especially as demands in resolution and graphical eye-candy increase. The compute side is also important, and the homologation of discrete to integrated graphics architectures helps software optimised for one also be accelerated on the other.
F1 2013
Bioshock Infinite
Tomb Raider
Sleeping Dogs
Company of Heroes 2
CompuBench 1.5
CompuBench is a new addition to our CPU benchmark suite, and as such we have only tested it on the following processors. The software uses OpenCL commands to process parallel information for a range of tests, and we use the flow management and particle simulation benchmarks here.
3DMark Fire Strike
The simple answer is this: for anything related to processor graphics, AMD's Kaveri wins hands down and by a large margin in the same power envelope for cheaper.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
147 Comments
View All Comments
Homeles - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Unfortunately, Ian's been omitting power consumption numbers lately. Wish he weren't :\Stoneburner - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
" News from Intel might change that with Broadwell, as back in May an announcement regarding a socketed, overclockable Iris Pro CPU would be coming to market."That sentence gave me a migraine :(
leopard_jumps - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
price wise is A8 6600KBlack Obsidian - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Kaveri: Fantastic if you absolutely require IGP gaming. Otherwise, humiliated by a $60 Pentium.I'm sure that AMD must have done the research, but I'd be astonished if the intersection of:
1) Willing to buy non-Intel CPU
2) Interested in gaming
3) Unwilling to invest in a dGPU
Is big enough to be profitable.
Or perhaps it's just the least-unprofitable niche that AMD feels it can compete in, having largely ceded the server and high-end desktop markets to Intel, in addition to their questionable mobile story.
I miss the AMD of yore, but buying up ATI seems like a better decision with each increasingly-lackluster CPU release...
ArcticCoder - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
To make matters worse, you can get a G3258 with an Z97 motherboard from Microcenter for $100. (Overclocked mine to 4.3 GHz).meacupla - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
damn, that's a good deal.But the average price for PAE and a Z87/97 mobo is around $160~$180.
Computer Bottleneck - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
See this thread for overclocking on Non-Z motherboards:http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=23899...
silverblue - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
I haven't found enough benchmarks to suggest anything about the 7850K vs. the G3258 barring the price differential...bebimbap - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Having bought a i7-920, pentium 3220, i7-3770k, i7 4770k, I can say CPU speed matters way more than iGPU if you are not gaming.General use - internet/email, you may think cpu speed doesn't matter, but it does. You might get your email to open "instantly" instead of waiting 1-2 seconds.
watching videos - "gpu acceration" with a gtx 670 just irritates me as the pixels are all meshed and audio becomes out of sync when you seek through the video. I just use the cpu.
creating videos into 264h content - if you use gpu acceleration, no to encoding runs will produce the same result, in the end, you'll want to use the cpu for consistent results, unless you want to do a quick rip to your ipod, in that case just use quick sync, it's very fast.
file compression/extraction - cpu speed matters here especially compression.
file copy - cpu speed matters. If you ever run a low end cpu and try to copy at 100MB/s you start using a non-significant portion of your cpu.
I've never run into a case outside of gaming where even the GMA 900 with the 915G chipset wasn't good enough, and what ever iGPU intel is using now is much better than that. If you are a "light gamer" and play mostly flash or shockwave, i would say intel igpu is still "good enough." If you are doing "budget" build your monitor would probably be on the "budget" side too, and wouldn't be good enough to display your games at high res or without significant ghosting at high frame rates.
I'm not an intel fan boy or an amd fan boy, I just go with what suits my needs best. In the end, I ALWAYS read what AMD is up to because the one thing I am waiting for is, AMD manages to run all their cpu-floating point operations through their iGPU. THAT would be very interesting. Similar to the FPGA added to the upcoming line of intel XEON processors.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Intel needs competition. Unfortunately, AMD isn't providing it.