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
tomsworkshop - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
the 25% extra cost u paid only give u 2.5% performance increase in realityGuspaz - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Depends on what you're doing. Want to encode a video? Then the 25% extra cost will cut render times in half (or better).bigboxes - Sunday, August 3, 2014 - link
Seriously, WTF? People that are encoding are not going to buy an APU. Stop with the fanboi nonsense. I have a quad core i7 processor in my main rig. I do whatever I want. However, I don't give a crap about gaming so I just have an $200 card just so I could do whatever I wanted without the machine hiccuping.My wife doesn't encode, game, video edit or just about anything cpu intensive. So I got her an AMD APU recently after Athlon 64 X2 finally crapped out. Paired with a SSD and 8gb of ram it flies for her all important tasks of surfing the internet, typing Word documents, streaming Hulu/YouTube videos and the occasional online survey. Tell me why she needs a Pentium/i3/i5 or whatever super premium cpu you nerds can come up with? Tell me how she would even notice the difference? She doesn't even know what WinRAR is let alone understand how she could save a couple of seconds in packing/unpacking such a file. Yeah, it could be such a bitchin' machine if only... duh. All I care about is reliable and quick for her purposes. She'll be able to do anything she wants to do and it will breeze through any of those tasks. We had the internet go down yesterday and she couldn't figure out how to unplug the cable modem for the Time Warner rep and you're worried that she will take too long to convert her videos? Face it. She waits for me to come home and do it all for her. Of course, she sounds like a techie when it comes to her mother. Yeah, there's no place for an AMD apu. </sarcasm>
Guspaz - Sunday, August 3, 2014 - link
Wowzers, you're really missing the point. You think people don't need the cost/performance of the i5, which offers 100%+ more performance for 25% more money? Fine, that's a perfectly valid argument.Except the i3-4330 included in this very review was significantly faster than the a10-7800, used less power... and costs at least $15 less.
In terms of accusing me of "fanboi nonsense", I've owned multiple AMD processors, and multiple AMD GPUs, stretching all the way back to the K6-2. But their current CPU product lineup is simply not competitive, except possibly at the very low end... and the a10-7800 is *NOT* at the very low end. It gets outperformed by cheaper and cooler Intel processors.
bigboxes - Sunday, August 3, 2014 - link
I forgot she checks her email too. She desperately needs more processing power. :eyeroll: I think I'll stick with the superior on board video. Thanks.Andrew Lin - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
sounds to me like she doesn't even need the integrated GPU either. the integrated graphics of and core i3 sound more than suited to what you're wife is doing, from the sound of it. so what is she using the "superior on board video" of the more power hungry amd apu for again?bigboxes - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link
Look, I buy Intel chips for my high end rig. I use the horsepower. The price difference is negligible between the competing processors. The power usage doesn't matter to me in the slightest. To me the Kaveri will be sipping on the juice. I keep my boxes on 24/7 and I just don't have that high of an electrical bill. I only have my wife turn off her pc at night because of the fan controller's bright blue lights (her pc in in our bedroom). My wife likes to stream shows from the computer to an HD television while surfing the net on her monitor. I figure the extra headroom on the AMD APU would drive that without issue. Whatever the case, I just don't think the purchase is a waste like many are making it out to be.eanazag - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Where's the 45W performance numbers?Where's the power consumption numbers in 65W and 45W?
How well does it work in the low power mode? Is there not speculation that it took so long because there were issues with the product?
What are the clocks in 45W mode?
Most of the commenters below are remarking about dGPUs, Crossfire, and budget PCs.
johnny_boy - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Check out Anand's review. You want someone to reproduce it in full here in the comments?johnny_boy - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
The price difference is significant. If you add a "decent" GPU then plan to spend around $200-300 more (including taxes) than the AMD system. That covers the costier i5 and a half-decent GPU like an R9 270.