AMD A10-7800 Review: Testing the A10 65W Kaveri
by Ian Cutress on July 31, 2014 8:00 AM ESTConclusions
When AMD launched their 95W Kaveri APUs and we had the opportunity to test the top A10 model, it offered some of the best integrated graphics performance for a desktop we had seen. The fact that the die is partitioned such that more than 50% of it is for the graphics, along with expanding HSA and OpenCL support, means that for applications that can be computationally enhanced by integrated graphics, AMD has the edge for the single chip solution.
In our testing, because the A10-7800 shares the same processor graphics configuration and speed as the A10-7850K, results were fairly similar despite a +100 MHz advantage to the A10-7850K. This means that, at stock, AMD is offering a similar CPU for $18 less.
If we remove the price from the equation, the biggest contender for the title of ‘best processor graphics’ is Intel’s Iris Pro. The upside of AMD’s Kaveri at the minute is not only the price, but also the form factor – Iris Pro is only available as a soldered on (BGA) CPU at this point in time whereas Kaveri is in both soldered and socketed form. Also, Iris Pro relies on an extra L4 cache, which adds size to the CPU package as well as cost and power consumption. 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. We have not the slightest clue when AMD will have this competition, but it looks good for AMD given that recent reports suggest that Broadwell for the desktop may be delayed beyond the expected launch of 14nm Core-M in Q1 2015.
In that respect, it may give AMD some time to prepare for their new 64-bit x86 architecture, or give AMD another chance to leap forward in with their Carrizo APUs (still based on modules and GCN) if they are launched in 2015.
Back to the A10-7800 reviewed today, and as it stands it is the most cost effective processor graphics solution available. Here is all the speed of the A10-7850K for $18 cheaper, and more performance than the A8-7600. The 45W configurable TDP makes it even more enticing as a lower power consumption part.
The only issue users might come across is the speed and feel when running single threaded tasks that do not utilise OpenCL or HSA – our web benchmarks put the AMD APUs behind many of our 55W Intel samples for the last couple of generations. But for anything that uses OpenCL as an accelerant, such as the software on which PCMark8 is based or anything compute, AMD comes out on top.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
147 Comments
View All Comments
wintermute000 - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link
not enough cores for a virt platform. I am aware its fine for say freenas.tcube - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
They tested hd resolution as that is a valid scenario for most: play modern or slighly older games on hd maxed out with 30-60 fps or more. This excelent. The simplicity of kaveri the noise level and heat outup are quite ok plus the less hassle with one extra fan for the dgpu. You can even play aaa games of this year on these chips and they are perfectly smooth on hd. Moving to fullhd you will need to tone down the graphics a bit to get smooth frames...Cerb - Sunday, August 3, 2014 - link
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/31/amd-a-...Power usage actually looks quite decent. Nothing that's going to worry Intel, but I can see why HP is willing to put slow ones into new Elitebooks.
Conficio - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
I would like to see a validation of the 45W performance difference claims. Would it be possible to run the same benchmarks in 45W mode?zodiacfml - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link
Compelling GPU performance.....yet, I don't game anymore. I hope AMD could catch up with CPU performance, at this rate, the CPU will become the bottleneck for their integrated GPUs.johnny_boy - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link
I know DDR3 2400 isn't officially supported but given how cheap CL10 stuff is these days (a few more bucks than 2133) it would be nice to see gaming benchmarks for 2400 too.johnny_boy - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link
Given the nearly identical performance of the A8-7600 and its ability to run at 45W TDP and its significantly lower price (over 30 euros here), I see no reason to buy the A10-7800.Valantar - Saturday, August 2, 2014 - link
Will the benchmark results from this review be added to Bench soon?beck2050 - Sunday, August 3, 2014 - link
Most applications are not optimized for Open Cl so Intel's solutions are better genererally.Allan_Hundeboll - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
Like a lot of people these days I'm unemployed and have to save money wherever I can.My overclocked q6600 is fast enough for almost everything except some of the most demanding new games. Here in Denmark electricity is very expensive, so I'm thinking about upgrading to something more efficient, but because my funds are limited I can't replace all my components in one month. After reading about power efficiency and and game performance, a dirt cheap motherboard, 4GB DDR3 and the overclockable pentium anniversary edition seem like the best route. Then I will "recycle" my Nvidia gtx 260 graphics card until I can afford the power efficient gtx 750ti. Of Course 4GB isn't optimal but that's also easy to upgrade later.
I dont like the idea of upgrading my old quad with a dualcore without HT but looking at gaming benchmarks it seem I would need a 6 "core" amd to keep up with that, and that wouldn't be power efficient. The small pentium AE is dirt cheap and with a intel socket 1150 based motherboard I can upgrade the CPU to a i5 when games start to require 4 cores. Hopefully I can get a new i5 cheap in a year or so...
But I do fear that AMD can't survive because they seem so far behind intel. This is really sad because I do remember intels pricing before AMD "conroed" the cpu war with the mighty Athlon.
So please support AMD a bye their products, sadly I can't afford to do so!