Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Kaveri APU Debuts With GCN-based Radeon Graphics
crookedvulture writes "AMD's next-generation Kaveri APU is now available, and the first reviews have hit the web. The chip combines updated Steamroller CPU cores with integrated graphics based on the latest Radeon graphics cards. It's also infused with a dedicated TrueAudio DSP, a faster memory interface, and several features that fall under AMD's Heterogeneous System Architecture for mixed-mode computing. As expected, the APU's graphics performance is excellent; even the entry level, $119 A8-6700 is capable of playing Battlefield 4 at 1080p with medium detail settings. But the powerful GPU doesn't always translate to superior performance in OpenCL-accelerated applications, where comparable Intel chips are very competitive. Intel still has an advantage in power efficiency and raw CPU performance, too. Kaveri's CPU cores are certainly an improvement over the previous generation of Richland chips, but they can't match the per-thread throughput of Intel's rival Haswell CPU. In the end, Kaveri's appeal largely rests on whether the integrated graphics are fast enough for your needs. Serious gamers are better off with discrete GPUs, but more casual players can benefit from the extra Radeon horsepower. Eventually, HSA-enabled applications may benefit, as well."
The summary did not state what the prices are. Are they cheaper to buy than the Intel chips they are being compared with?
I had a game console with AMD GCN graphics (the "Flipper" GPU) back in 2001. I played Super Smash Bros. Melee on it.
I'm helping a friend with a custom, low-cost gaming machine. We'd looked into using an APU, and I looked into it again today when I saw this. The gaming performance just isn't there yet. They're fine for regular desktop use, but even the top-of-the-line one can't handle gaming.
The two things that could still be useful are GPGPU, and dual graphics. Having an on-chip GPU just for compute purposes, especially with all the enhancements they've added, would be very useful if more things used GPU compute, but it just wasn't worth it for this build and this user. And they have spoken a bit of using both the integrated GPU and a discrete graphics card in tandem, similar to using two GPUs in Crossfire, but they haven't released the drivers for it, nor listed which cards will work, and the card they chose to demo it with was their bottom-end graphics card. Given all that, and that a similar CPU without the integrated graphics was about half the price, I couldn't justify getting one.
I am pretty impressed with how tightly they've integrated them, though. Much better than Intel's offerings. If they made one that had the graphics horsepower for gaming, I'd have used one.
Really looking forwards to the HSA benchmarks.
Nothing out there will tax these chips. All GPGPU codes are written asuming hugh latency between CPU and GPU. With shared caches these things have nanosecond latency and should beable to bring the GPU to bear on a much wider class of algorithms.
Now, it's always worth shipping the data to the GPU, since if it's in the L2 cache, it's there for the GPU as well.
It will take a while before people code to this though.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
While the GPU is good, the Kaveri CPU is slightly slower than Richland in the benchmarks - after 4 years of waiting that's a big disappointment.
It's 1:2 AMD:Intel, at the kindest level.
It's 2:3 with radeons:nvidia.
Most people, when they say "capable of playing", mean that it can actually be played on those settings, i.e. that the frame rate is high enough for the game to be considered playable. Generally, this means an average frame rate of ~30 and minimums of 20 or more (although that depends a bit on the reviewer, some people consider a frame rate of 30 totally unplayable, personally anything above 20 can still be played).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
In Finnish kaveri mean buddy. Quite fitting name :)
It's very exciting seeing both AMD and Intel compete to push embedded GPUs. More and more of the computer is being pushed onto the CPU's package (SoC); one day we can expect to see RAM become embedded too as a new level of cache that is more than sufficient for even gamers. The reason why discrete GPUs and other components will ultimately lose is latency. GPUs and CPUs will reach a point where the bottleneck that exists between them will hinder communication enough that embedded GPUs will become a necessity. The same goes for RAM. One day we may even see hybrid CPU/GPUs, such that some cores will be more general purpose where others are more special purpose. Ultimately we can thank our phones for helping drive this push; especially since phones are rapidly approaching the performance of desktop and laptop computers.
Most of the people who decide they still need a full-sized desktop computer will be completely covered with one of the AMD A-series APUs, at a bargain price. Only the remaining 1 out of 5 users are power-users who need the highest CPU and/or GPU performance, and have to resort to expensive Intel CPUs and discrete graphics boards.
Ohh yes. Lets solder memory right on, increasing board complexity and gaining almost no advantage. The APU is meant to be a mixture of a "good enough" GPU, and a higher performance compute-unit for low memory problems, which there are a lot of. As for open source, AMD is actively committing work to the Linux kernel in both the mantle framework and better driver support. They are also working with Steam, because the SteamOS is Linux which means AMD needs decent Linux drivers if they plan to be used.
Yes, it is not a very good GPU when it comes to high end graphics because it has about 1/3rd the flops of a discreet GPU and it is memory bandwidth starved for those work loads, but for non graphics related work loads, it's perfect. It is the first of something new. How many people piss and moaned about FPUs when they came out? "derp, there's no software that uses them, so they must be useless". You need to have the platform before you can have the developers. Once the next gen consoles start taking off, expect games to be nearly directly ported and taking advantage of this new GPU paradigm.
I would say this discussion fits in well with the frequent discussions we have about the alleged impending death of the desktop computer. Consider the argument that PC's which were brand new around 2007/2008 are still so overpowered for most needs that this is the cause of declining PC sales. Now consider that much less expensive than Intel, yet also brand spanking new AMD chips are practically supercomputers compared to chips from that era. If my 2008 PC is still really fast, but I want to upgrade anyway, why pay the Intel premium (outside of some ultra-demanding professional use) when I can save so much and still have a computer that will be faster than I need for years to come. That's AMD's advantage in this game. I currently have a quad core 3 GHZ AMD system with GPU disabled in favor of a low cost NVIDIA card and it's great. I am waiting till next fall for the price to plummet on current 8 core 4 GHZ AMD chips for my next upgrade. And even then it will be just for the hell of it, not need.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Still using a Phenom II 3x *CPU* and it's fast enough for my GNU/Linux system so I see little reason to upgrade it - but if I decide to do so then I would very much like to buy a CPU, not a APU. Would it be so hard for AMD and Intel to offer actual CPUs again? Am I the only one who would like to buy one at some point? APUs are nice if you want a cheap system with alright graphics.. but why do they force us to buy one even if all we want/need is a CPU?
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
With the amd chips you also get full virtualization, encryption, ecc ram and overclocking.