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
bsim500 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Precisely. vs an i3-4330, an A10 7800 = 20% higher TDP + 10-20% lower performance even in quad-core optimised apps (Handbrake, etc) and up to 47% slower per core. It's better at games, assuming you "enjoy" playing PC games like it's still 1997 (1280 x 1024 5:4 aspect ratio + low quality textures + no-AA), which is about as useful as those old THG's benchmarks testing every game at 640x480 to "prove a point". The number of gamers looking to buy a modern CPU with a 19" 5:4 monitor is "ultra niche" to put it politely (unless that res was chosen precisely because it cannot handle smooth gaming at 1600 x 900 / 1920 x 1080)...Seriously people, if you're playing any modern games, just end the "brave masochism" and buy a 2nd hand budget discrete card. I've saw 4x 7790's going for under $40 on EBay the other day and 1x 7850 for not much more. That small premium is worth it regardless of CPU for a +150-200% boost in fps and the ability to actually play with 21st century resolutions...
Anonymous Blowhard - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Both the XB1/PS4 are struggling to get anywhere beyond 792p/900p and 30fps so IMO it's a fair comparison to them.That's about the only space I can see Kaveri making any sense, in the extremely-small-form-factor boxes designed to sit under a TV unobtrusively. Board $75, memory $75, chip $150, HDD $50, case and PSU $50 ... comes out nicely to the $400 mark for a "complete system" (still needs KB/M/OS) that would be able to game about as well as the current-gen consoles and still be a PC when it needs to be.
Though frankly I'd rather the vastly improved performance at the same price point by allowing space for a dGPU and building a 750K or G3220 system with a 260X.
Morawka - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
xbox one and ps4 soc has over double the SP's, Cache, and die size than this part, and much more cores. It can do 1080p just fine, but developers are prioritizing high polygon and high res textures over 60 fps gaming.tomsworkshop - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link
Unless you absolutely need fast, single threaded CPU performance, the AMD Kaveri APU still offer the most balance computing experience.frozentundra123456 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Would have been nice to have seen gaming results with some of the three games included in the free bundle, as well as some more demanding games. Also no cpu test results from a low end i5, which is only about 30 or 40 dollars more than the A10 and would have made the cpu performance look even worse.Really, unless you are using some application that uses HSA or open CL, or trying to build a SFF gaming box without a discrete card, dont see much place for this processor. The price is also still to high. Should be a 120.00 at the most.
meacupla - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
I just checked newegg today, but I haven't seen the A6-7400k being listed, since it's supposed release in feb.Might as well buy a Pentium AE and discreet video card for the asking price of an A10.
Essence_of_War - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Ian,I was surprised that there were no platform power consumption benchmarks, was there a reason for not doing/including those? I'd like to see what kind of real-world power savings you pick up from 95W TDP 7850k -> 65W TDP 7800.
Boogaloo - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Seriously, that's the first thing I looked for. I don't care what the number on the box says as much as the actual consumption.zodiacsoulmate - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
Yea me tooalacard - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
If i recall correctly they completely stopped adding power consumption numbers around the time ivy bridge came out, and in every single cpu article a few people ask for them and in every single cpu article those people get totally ignored.My view is someone at intel is putting pressure on anand, and until i will believe it until i hear otherwise.
Ian, time to set the record straight buddy.