First Radeon HD 8000M GPU Benchmarked

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Radeon HD 8000M GPU Benchmarked

Posted by timothy on Friday December 21, 2012 @01:39PM from the some-good-some-bad dept.

J. Dzhugashvili writes "As Slashdot noted earlier this week, AMD has a new line of mid-range Radeon GPUs aimed at notebooks. The chips are based on the Graphics Core Next microarchitecture, and they're slated to show up in systems early next year. While the initial report was limited to specification details, the first review of the Radeon HD 8790M is now out, complete with benchmark data from the latest games. The 8790M is about 35% smaller than its 7690M predecessor but offers substantially better gaming performance across the board. Impressively, the new chip has similar power draw as the outgoing model under load, and its idle power consumption is slightly lower. Notebook makers should have no problems making the switch. However, it is worth noting that this new mobile GPU exhibits some of the same frame latency spikes observed on desktop Radeons, including in games that AMD itself has sponsored."

42 of 68 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-21 13:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The subject might look like I'm trying to troll, but... I'm actually referring to TFA. AMD sent the TechReport reviewer a Gigabyte Z77 motherboard with an Intel i7-3770K processor. So it says on the first page of TFA.
AMD... sent an Intel processor... to review an AMD GPU...
Talk about lack of faith in your own products.
1. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by zenlessyank · 2012-12-21 13:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I believe AMD licenses its technology to Intel since the Itanium sucked. Intel might know how to fabricate the 'engine' better, but AMD DESIGNS better engines. So AMD is getting paid whether it is an Intel or AMD proc.
2. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 14:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually they cross license.
3. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by cbhacking · 2012-12-21 15:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Depends on your definition of "suck". Price-for-price, AMD and Intel are fairly comparable right now (each one is better at some things, sometimes embarrassingly so, but in most cases they aren't far apart). However, Intel's line goes a lot higher than AMD's. A top-of-the-line AMD desktop processor is currently around $200 (less on sale, which isn't hard to find this time of year). A top-of-the-line Intel CPU will run you over $1000, and that's on sale. The 3770K isn't top of the line, but it is well over $300 on sale. Note that that's not including the cost of the motherboards either, which also seem to be higher for Intel chipsets.
  To people who want the absolute best performance and money is no problem, Intel is the current king. Since the goal of the benchmarking is to test the graphics processor, they wanted to make sure that the performance wouldn't be CPU bottlenecked.
  I'm saying this by way of giving you the benefit of a doubt, but since anybody who pays attention to current benchmarks and hardware prices knew it already, it really does in fact look like you're trolling.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
4. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Rockoon · 2012-12-21 15:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anyone who has spent some time listing their alternatives within any sort of normal budget margin knows that there will be a lot of AMD chips under consideration and very few Intel chips under consideration.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
5. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by glsunder · 2012-12-21 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends on what you're doing and what you're spending. If your task can use all 8 cores of a piledriver cpu, it's very competitive. I have to wonder if a large part of amd's problem is intel is at 220nm, while amd is still stuck at 320nm. It would take an incredible design to be competitive.
6. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-21 18:40 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not trolling, and I've owned a few AMD CPUs in my day (four, I think? Does the Geode count?), I was just flabbergasted that AMD would send out Intel CPUs to review their GPUs with. I mean, eating your own dogfood is kind of a fundamental thing, and when you do something like this, it sends the message that your own products aren't good enough for the purpose. I chose an inflammatory title to highlight how ridiculous this is.
  I would actually argue that AMD only holds an advantage at the extremely low-end, below the $40 pricepoint (you can get a dual-core sandy bridge for about that), and even then only if you don't care about power. I feel bad for AMD, because I owned a long string of AMD processors, and they were fantastic products. I started on the K6-2 and ended on the Athlon XP, and they were all great. With the Athlon 64, they really hit it out of the park, and had a fantastic run, and then... nothing. It didn't help that Intel had a fantastic chip with the Conroe, but AMD had flop after flop that wasn't even up to their own previous standards. They managed to get some of the worst problems under control to produce decent chips again, but by then they had fallen far enough behind Intel that they could only compete on price, and that approach was driving them bankrupt (hence the whole selling off Global Foundries).
  I don't WANT Intel to dominate the CPU market, but AMD just isn't a credible competitor anymore. They haven't been able to compete on the performance front for years, their server chips have kept some of the hope alive but at this point need twice as many cores just to stay anywhere remotely performance competitive, their power efficiency hasn't been competitive for ages, and while their APU stuff has turned out some interesting products, they have a pretty limited market since they have better GPU performance and worse CPU performance than comparable Intel products, and Intel's GPU performance got "good enough" for the kinds of uses that you'd find those chips in anyhow.
  In terms of competing on the ultra-low end prices, now ARM is starting to creep up in that market, and AMD is being sandwiched in-between. I think they're a more credible competitor to Intel at this point, but with Microsoft crippling Windows 8 on ARM by refusing to allow you to run Win32 apps not made by Microsoft, we're never going to see ARM competing for the desktop or laptop market (unless Windows 8 is a big enough flop itself). We might see ARM make inroads into the lower-end of the market, which could be enough to keep Intel on their toes, but that doesn't really leave much room for AMD...
  CPUs take years to go from concept to market, and I really do hope that AMD has something fresh in the market that puts them on a competitive playing field with Intel. Being a full process node behind Intel hurts, but the power savings we see from die shrinks on Intel's products isn't enough to make it completely impossible to compete from one process node behind. So I do hope that we can bring some competition to the x86 CPU market in the future, but at the current point in time, they don't really have anything worth buying over its Intel counter-part, and sending out Intel's products to review AMD's GPUs really isn't helping things.
7. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-21 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's not the point, the point is that recommending people use your competitor's product over your own is never something a company should do, unless you're in full mea culpa mode like the Apple Maps fiasco.
  In the marketing world, you're always supposed to at least PRETEND that your products are superior.
8. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-21 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think the fact that AMD's server chips need twice as many cores just to keep up with Intel's parts is kind of indicative of the problem, and I really do hope that they have something competitive in the market. Intel's current products are great, but only because AMD kicked them in the ass with the Athlon 64 years ago. If they go too long without a real competitor in the higher end of the market (beyond where ARM can reach), they'll stagnate.
9. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by cbhacking · 2012-12-21 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Nitpick: 22nm, 32nm. You may be thinking of Angstroms, which are 1/10 of a nanometer. Also, AMD has 28nm in their GPUs; I'm not sure why their CPUs are still using a 32nm process.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
10. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Noishe · 2012-12-21 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't AMD be targeting the 8000M for intel boards? If you're going to get an AMD cpu and integrated graphics, they want you to go for a Trinity solution.
11. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by amorsen · 2012-12-21 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  In the marketing world, you're always supposed to at least PRETEND that your products are superior.
  Only to be refuted by a bunch of reviewers all at once. Do you really believe that is the better outcome?
  It would be a bit silly of AMD to let the CPU division sink the GPU division.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
12. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by gagol · 2012-12-22 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, Joe six pack goes to a store where the advices he receives is from a salesman paid in part by commission.
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
13. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-22 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I would actually argue that AMD only holds an advantage at the extremely low-end, below the $40 pricepoint (you can get a dual-core sandy bridge for about that),
  Why? For multithreaded benchmarks, the latest AMD ones seem to slot in somewhere between the i5 and i7 (ususally closer to the i7) and sometimes beat the i7 handily. For single threaded stuff, they're at around 75% of the i5.
  And about the same price as the i5, but support better features such as ECC memory.
  As far as I can see, unless you're heavily power constrained or very single threaded, then the AMD processors are very competitive. Many things now (compiling, compression, web browsers, transcoding encryption etc) ascale up to 8 threads easily.
  Oh, and if you're doing relying on integrated graphics, than an Ax based processor will absoloutely hammer an ix based processor.
  If you want workstation/server like reliability with ECC, then the AMD processors are very much cheaper given that you need to shell out for the Xeon brand with Intel.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
14. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by justthinkit · 2012-12-22 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  A top-of-the-line AMD desktop processor is currently around $200 (less on sale, which isn't hard to find this time of year). A top-of-the-line Intel CPU will run you over $1000
  .
  A top-of-the-line Chevy Suburban is currently around $200. A top-of-the-line Dodge Challenger will run you over $1000.
  
  --
  I come here for the love
15. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by glsunder · 2012-12-22 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, you're right. I guess I'm too old.
16. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-22 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. I realize you're a troll, but I'll respond anyhow: getting half the single-threaded performance limits the usefulness of your CPUs. I haven't seen any reviews for piledriver-based Opteron chips (they're relatively new), but comparing the previous gen Opteron against the Sandy Bridge Xeons, "keep up" still means they're falling behind the top Xeon chips in multi-threaded performance, they're way behind in single-threaded performance, and they use a ton more power.
17. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-22 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Amd's APUs are faster than Intel's iGPUs, but much slower than discrete chips. Why shouldn't you have an AMD CPU with a discrete GPU in the notebook market?
18. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-22 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Are they delivering in the APU market? The CPU performance is poor in their APU products, and the GPU performance is faster than Intel's, but not fast enough to matter. It's still too slow for gaming, and Intel's iGPUs are fast enough for office use.
  If their APUs were matching Intel's power/performance, but still kicking their ass on the GPU side, then it might be something special. As it stands, the tradeoffs are just not worth it.
19. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-22 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Consumers need some light multithreading, but single-threaded performance is still king. ECC is not something consumers care about (enterprise does, sure, but not consumers).
  Power matters less in desktops, so using more power to do the same thing is not as big a problem there. But in the mobile space, it's a big problem.
  The use cases you're talking about aren't really what a typical consumer or even office machine is used for.
20. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by Kjella · 2012-12-22 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on your definition of "suck". Price-for-price, AMD and Intel are fairly comparable right now
  We heard the same when AMD tried to sell their FX-8150 for $245 and the customers didn't agree, now their FX-8350 sells for $195. When you have to sell a considerably better processor for $50 less while your competitors prices are practically unchanged, it's a good hint that the former wasn't particularly good value. I think AMDs reputation for always providing good value has gotten more than a little tarnished at their high end, sure if you found a good sale but that's usually a case of inventory they can't move otherwise. And their official roadmap is the current Steamroller cores throughout 2013, there must begin to be a lot of customers sitting on AMD Phenom IIs waiting for an upgrade that won't come.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
21. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by cbhacking · 2012-12-22 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Vishera is enough of a step up that I think there's still hope for AMD. I only own one AMD processor (and at least 3 Intel ones) but the 8350 looks good enough for its price point and I guess I have a certain degree of "support the underdog" here. Nobody wants Intel to be even more of a monopoly than they are right now. Granted that the 81xx series was a huge disappointment, but that doesn't mean the company is automatically doomed to never again be relevant. The original P4s from Intel were crap too...
  Also, AMD has apparently hired some really top talent in microprocessor design, and it came late enough in the 83xx design process that the design was already set... but supposedly there's some real hope for the next generation or two.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
22. Re:Even AMD thinks AMD CPUs suck by lsatenstein · 2012-12-23 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  The subject might look like I'm trying to troll, but... I'm actually referring to TFA. AMD sent the TechReport reviewer a Gigabyte Z77 motherboard with an Intel i7-3770K processor. So it says on the first page of TFA.
  AMD... sent an Intel processor... to review an AMD GPU...
  Talk about lack of faith in your own products.
  ===
  AMD would surely have their products run on in-house stuff. They would also want to show that if you had an I-7 or whatever Intel processor (atom excluded I guess), that the gpu would run well too
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Joseph Stalin is dead by Nimey · 2012-12-21 15:11 · Score: 2

You can't fool me, submitter!

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:I guess this is how x86 will continue by adolf · 2012-12-21 15:38 · Score: 1

How the 486 was the combination of 386 and 387?
No. A 486 is not a combination of a 386 and a 387.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:I guess this is how x86 will continue by glsunder · 2012-12-21 16:16 · Score: 2

The 486 was the first x86 cpu that was:
pipelined
had cache (8KB)
had built in FPU (387)
Basically, they took concepts that were being done in risc processors and used them in the x86 world.
Following up... Pentium brought superscalar design, and IIRC, pipelined fpu. The Pentium MMX brought integer SIMD. The Pentium 2 brought Out of Order design.
Does it matter? by Osgeld · 2012-12-21 17:34 · Score: 1

My old Geforce9600 GT, and my slightly less old GTS250 plays every (shitty xbox360 port) game no problem in higher resolution than any notebook provides with little stress, seriously doubt facebook, or shit even solidworks (which runs like butter on a mobile intel chip) gives a shit.
Software has once again peaked, and stagnated for a half decade, while hardware is running nuts for no real reason
1. Re:Does it matter? by tibman · 2012-12-21 18:15 · Score: 2
  
  You need some new games : )
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
2. Re:Does it matter? by fyngyrz · 2012-12-21 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  while hardware is running nuts for no real reason
  I have project builds (in c) that take many minutes to complete on an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with many gigs of memory available. I have at least one application that consumes all eight cores just to run -- and yes, it's written efficiently. I have others that consume a core or two... and less would be better. I *do* multitask. As far as I'm concerned, neither software (c compiler and linker in this case) or hardware are anywhere *near* where I'd like them to be. Your assertion of "no reason" strikes me as ludicrous.
  I rather suspect that software will be coming down the pike that can use far more than even I'd like to see... when AI gets here (and yes, I don't consider that to be in any doubt whatsoever, nor is there any significant indication we'll need anything more than high powered VN architecture to do it), "more, faster" will be of benefit no matter how much of it there is.
  Expert systems -- not intelligent, but just expert -- can develop indefinitely from right where we are, and the faster they are, and the more data they can get at in a short period of time, the better they will be.
  It seems just wantonly blind to say that there is "no real reason" for these improvements.
  If all you're thinking about is games... then you're simply not looking at enough of the picture to suggest a decently thought out answer (and even so, I bet there are game designers all over the place who will tell you they'd like more power, more memory, more textures, higher level engines, etc.)
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
3. Re:Does it matter? by drinkypoo · 2012-12-21 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  while hardware is running nuts for no real reason
  I have project builds (in c) that take many minutes to complete on an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with many gigs of memory available. I have at least one application that consumes all eight cores just to run -- and yes, it's written efficiently. I have others that consume a core or two... and less would be better. I *do* multitask. As far as I'm concerned, neither software (c compiler and linker in this case) or hardware are anywhere *near* where I'd like them to be. Your assertion of "no reason" strikes me as ludicrous.
  It's too bad you couldn't use an example which includes a video card, since that's what we're talking about right now. People out there are buying video cards that consumes more power than their entire computer system including the display and for what? Most of them, for nothing. GPGPU tools for the average user are essentially nonexistent, and you can only perceive so many FPS.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Does it matter? by fyngyrz · 2012-12-22 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am using examples that include video cards (4 of them, in my case.) My OS uses video cards to accelerate mainline processes; furthermore, this is done through a standard system mechanism and is relatively easy to incorporate in a considerable range of code; end users see benefits commensurate with the graphics engines they have installed. The processors in graphics cards are specialized for certain types of operations that can be very useful, and in use will significantly outperform, general purpose CPU instructions.
  It really doesn't matter (other than as a market force) if gamers are buying cards that can handle more display activity than they're throwing at them. What matters is if these cards (and CPUs, for that matter) are overpowered in all places they are utilized, and the answer to that is flat-out no.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
5. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-22 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly an ATI 4870 can play all current games well at 1280x1024 if the visual settings are adjusted a little. By adjusted, I certainly don't mean removing the 'eye candy'- just turning down or off some options that exist purely to burn off the obscene performance available with today's high-end cards.
  Only those who play at much higher resolutions (largely silly, given the games derive from console version assets optimised for much lower resolutions) need much newer cards.
  The situation for older GPU owners has actually improved over the last two years or so. Why? Because games developers have learnt to be vastly more efficient in their use of the GPU, as they seek to eke out even more performance from the 360 and PS3. Only when the new consoles are released (end of 2013) will the situation change. Even then, the new consoles are due to have quite modest GPU capability compared to the best discrete GPUs on sale at the time of release.
  Put simply, save for the freaks who need to push every game setting to max no matter how little it improves the experience, PC gamers will be able to get away with using cards further and further behind the 'bleeding edge'.
6. Re:Does it matter? by tibman · 2012-12-22 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  I've got three for you to try out.
  1) Natural-Selection 2 for 25$ (with no deal) on steam.
  2) DayZ, which is a free mod for Arma II Combined Operations (Arma2+expansion) for 30$ (with no deal) on steam.
  3) A slightly older game called Metro 2033 for 20$ on steam.
  You can find most of the games 50% off during sales, like the one going on right now. Though, if you'd rather sit on the floor and play with a bit of string.. have at it.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
7. Re:Does it matter? by gmhowell · 2012-12-22 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  I am using examples that include video cards (4 of them, in my case.) My OS uses video cards to accelerate mainline processes; furthermore, this is done through a standard system mechanism and is relatively easy to incorporate in a considerable range of code; end users see benefits commensurate with the graphics engines they have installed. The processors in graphics cards are specialized for certain types of operations that can be very useful, and in use will significantly outperform, general purpose CPU instructions.
  It really doesn't matter (other than as a market force) if gamers are buying cards that can handle more display activity than they're throwing at them. What matters is if these cards (and CPUs, for that matter) are overpowered in all places they are utilized, and the answer to that is flat-out no.
  I'm sensing that you use a BSD derived OS...
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
8. Re:Does it matter? by Ambassador+Kosh · 2012-12-22 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Get the humble bundle and dungeon defenders for $6. I have had and continue to have a lot of fun with that game.
  
  --
  Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
9. Re:Does it matter? by drinkypoo · 2012-12-23 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  My OS uses video cards to accelerate mainline processes; furthermore, this is done through a standard system mechanism and is relatively easy to incorporate in a considerable range of code; end users see benefits commensurate with the graphics engines they have installed.
  The problem is, it sucks, because you have to send data to the GPU to be processed. If you had more CPU, you wouldn't have to do that. GPGPU is the wrong answer to the problem. Making a CPU that looks more like a GPU is a better one. GPGPU only exists because of a bunch of gamers who keep buying faster and faster parts. If they weren't doing that, people would spend that effort figuring how how to make CPUs faster instead. So instead of just getting faster CPUs that any program can use with a mere recompile, we get power segregated away in a GPU which we have to use for graphics while we're doing graphics, and which we have to use additional libraries and drivers to use while we aren't. And if your GPU is too old (say, mine does 1.2 and many current projects require 2.0) or it's from the other brand then it won't work at all right now, and even when everyone does support OpenCL there's going to be compatibility issues.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I guess this is how x86 will continue by erroneus · 2012-12-21 19:18 · Score: 1

Uhm no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386#The_i386SX_variant
But 486SX was not lusted after its announcement. 486 was. Yeah, sure, additional other improvements. Is it really necessary to add to the details? Does it invalidate my point to omit them?
Re:I guess this is how x86 will continue by ghinckley68 · 2012-12-21 19:43 · Score: 2

Sorry your wrong. The SX used a 16bit data bus and the DX used a 32bit data bus. No 386 had a FPU.

--
Linux modi 2.6.26-2-parisc
Re:First benchmark of Radeon 8000M by jones_supa · 2012-12-22 01:46 · Score: 1

Indeed. The title should probably be "First Benchmark of the Radeon HD 8000M GPU".
Re:Apples to Oranges comparisons suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-22 02:32 · Score: 1

If you want the reporters to do fancy graphs comparing performance with each different component, using an Intel chip would be the only way to go. Now the reporter can show the performance difference between the new AMD card, an Nvidia card, and Intel's HD4000 which may as well be shown as the baseline.
It also shows that AMD hasn't tinkered with their GPU architecture to favor their own CPUs over competitor's.
Disclaimer: I am using an AMD GPU on an Intel CPU system.
Re:First benchmark of Radeon 8000M by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-22 03:09 · Score: 1

If we're being Pedants, then obviously AMD has benchmarked more than a few themselves.
Maybe First Public Benchmark.
Re:Apples to Oranges comparisons suck by Guspaz · 2012-12-22 08:21 · Score: 1

Benchmarks of the HD4000 would have been useless, as AMD sent a desktop chip, performance would not be representative of the mobile HD4000's performance. AMD could just have easily have sent an AMD CPU for apples-to-apples comparisons.