Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches New Higher-End Kaveri APUs A10-7800 and A6-7400K
MojoKid (1002251) writes "AMD updated its family of Kaveri-based A-Series APUs for desktop systems recently, namely the A10-7800 and the A6-7400K. The A10-7800 has 12 total compute cores, 4 CPU and 8 GPU cores, with average and maximum turbo clock speeds of 3.5GHz and 3.9GHz, respectively. The A6-7400K arrives with 6 total cores (2CPU, 4 GPU) and with the same clock frequencies. ... The AMD A10-7800 APU's performance is somewhat mixed, though it is a decent performer overall. Its Steamroller-based CPU cores do not do much to make up ground versus Intel's processors, so in the more CPU-bound workloads, Intel's dual-core Core i3-4330 competes favorably to AMD's quad-cores. And in terms of IPC and single-thread performance Intel maintains a big lead. Factor graphics into the equation, however, and the tides turn completely. The GCN-based graphics engine in Kaveri is a major step-up over the previous-gen, and much more powerful than Intel's mainstream offerings. The A10-7800's power consumption characteristics are also more desirable versus the Richland-based A10-6800K."
Based on the most commented articles, I thought this was a site for politics and social issues. What the hell is this technical bullshit doing here?
It gets bested by a cheaper Pentium G3xxx in most benches, and it uses more power too. Actually, a $58 Celeron G1620 has better single threaded performance than the A10-7800. It's about the same price as a i3 4330, but the i3 slaughters it (while using 10W less), even if it's just a dual core chip... Admittedly I haven't checked gaming benchmarks because business users don't give a shit, and true gamers don't either (oh, slightly less underpowered? yay?)
I really want competition, good prices, and a strong AMD. But their products in the last few years SUCK HARD. I don't want a power sucking CPU with 8 slow cores that will just sit idle. Give me 4 fast cores with a good price/performance ratio and I'll buy.
Seriously...
Does it mine? Efficiently? Asics are making scrypt worthless...
These aren't exactly new news. I've had a 7850k since March/April. It's a nice CPU, with my main complains being that
a) It gets hot very quickly
b) The accompanying heatsink/fan is crap
The nice part:
The APU is quite nice for gaming. I haven't had any issues running most games at 1080p with graphics settings cranked, especially mantle-enabled stuff (BF4, etc). I've got dual-monitors, but I haven't played much which takes advantage of that so while gaming it's usually 1 for the game and another running monitoring/benchmarking.
It won't likely compare well to a hardcare rig with beefy dedicated graphics cards. Against my mid-level gaming rigs that had a mid-range graphics card, the APUt compared nicely, with the advantage of being more compact when using a mini-itx board.
Why is the recommended RAM clock speed for AMD chips significantly higher than for Intel ones? A modern i3 is designed for 1333MHz, but performance will be hampered for an AMD APU if you don't go with 2400MHz.
Not everybody plays Crysis. I noticed you only mentioned CPU performance. I think the whole package is great. I can build a really small system that can do some passable 3D for little money.
Still waiting for the elusive 7600, AMD must be scared that it will canabalize sales of the 7850, kind of shocking they are release a 7800 instead at this time. I want good performance at a lower wattage for under $100.
CPU workloads tend to be something that so long as you've a bit of fast cache, memory speed isn't that important. That cache buffer is enough to get you extremely high performance. Not the case with GPU workloads. They are very memory bound. If you look at high end GPUs they have stupid amounts of RAM bandwidth compared to CPUs.
Well, if you try and do both on one chip, you are gonna need fast RAM if you want it to work well.
AMD releases yet another incredibly lackluster product that has nobody looking for it. It's beaten in performance and thermals by Intel dual-cores for the same price, and isn't on the radar of anyone looking to make a gaming PC. Leave it to AMD to show how irrelevant to anything useful they're comntent to be.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
It's only more powerful than intel integrated graphics. No one who uses their computer to play games uses integrated graphics.
For the cost of an amd board and chip, you can buy a bottom-rung intel chip (an i3 for example)/mobo and for another 50-100 bucks, add a low end discrete graphics board... which completely destroys the integrated graphics capabilities that amd is bringing to the table with kaveri.
One idea that was intrigued by was the idea of having a laptop/netbook with an amd chip and using it for games at 1366x768. The problem is that Kaveri laptops with the high end chips (ie, capable of playing at least world of tanks at 1366x768) are way too pricey. My asus netbook (doesn't play games) cost about 200 bucks and is fast enough for everything but games. A high end kaveri notebook is taking me over 1000 bucks, well into the gaming laptop price range.
I think Kaveri has potential, but it hasn't been reached yet. Too pricey and not powerful enough to replace discrete graphics are the main problems.
These aren't exactly new news. I've had a 7850k since March/April. It's a nice CPU, with my main complains being that
a) It gets hot very quickly
b) The accompanying heatsink/fan is crap
The nice part:
The APU is quite nice for gaming. I haven't had any issues running most games at 1080p with graphics settings cranked, especially mantle-enabled stuff (BF4, etc). I've got dual-monitors, but I haven't played much which takes advantage of that so while gaming it's usually 1 for the game and another running monitoring/benchmarking.
It won't likely compare well to a hardcare rig with beefy dedicated graphics cards. Against my mid-level gaming rigs that had a mid-range graphics card, the APUt compared nicely, with the advantage of being more compact when using a mini-itx board.
"competes favorably to AMD's"
It's "competes favorably WITH", not "to" - fucking American cretins. You sure do have problems with prepositions, don't you.
No surprise AMD cpu's get hot so easily. I remember about 15 years ago I was comparing my amd k6-2 450 to my intel pentium 2 400mhz performance and the intel just blew the amd k6-2 away in gaming and productivity applications and same with amd k6-3 550 mhz.
Got an old phenom ii x6@2700+3200(turbo 3 cores) and it heats up to 69c @2700mhz(yes it still ran) using the stock heatsink that it came with running in a large 6 bay chassis tower with plenty of room and ventilation. I use the Windows 7 power feature to reduce the clock down to 1400mhz which reaches 58c(in the summer) when running heavy duty tasks. I should just reduce the clock permanently in bios. I had a very very large heatsink(am3+ motherboard) with a 120mm fan on it and it kept the system cool to 42c @2700 but the fan cracked and came off from the base when i was cleaning it and I have 2 other extra 120mm fans but make a horrible burning smell that just stinks my apartment.
If you are a gamer and don't want large heatsinks go with intel and discreet graphics card other wise still go with intel and use the integrated graphics. Avoid AMD.
I really hate the current naming conventions for CPU's.
you go buy a computer and it only says Intel Core i5... WTH. Is it sa Gen 1 i5 or a Gen 4 i5 there's a big difference. Sure I can look it up and check out specifics but how the heck is a regular consumer supposed to know?
and then lets not get started on the Xeon... what we can't even add a simple identifier to the name? a 2002 Xeon sure as heck isn't the same as a 2013 Xeon chip.
Then AMD... just feels like a cluster-F--- of names and numbers.
GPU's really aren't much better.
Seriously is it so hard to name the products and a consumer readable fashion?
Atleast in the Pentium era we had Pent-1, Pen1-MMX, Pent-2, Pent-3, K-6, K-7, K-8
Heck I'd even go for an abuse of the x86 naming and go with 368, 486,... 1286, 1586 with some informative text on the end indicating the number of cores, etc...
You can still get the 6700.
It is 65W, with a clock within 10% of the top A series, but 35% less power.
The new 45W stuff looks good, but not as fast a clock as the A10-6700.
A nice Asus MB, 8Gig fast RAM and an SSD, it runs Win 7 great with a WEI of 6.9 out of 7.9, throttled by a 6.9 score on graphics.
No regrets.
I have a strong preference for using ECC RAM when I build a new computer.
I would be perfectly happy to use an APU to make a very quiet computer, but the chipsets that support the APUs don't have ECC support.
I admit I'm probably a weird outlier. People who want APUs probably don't want to pay extra for ECC RAM most of the time. Still, will there ever be even one chipset that will add ECC support?
Is there any technical reason why ECC shouldn't be used with an APU?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
It's the only single thing i'm currently waiting for the graphic card companies to catch up to the consumer tv market. cause i really want to upgrade my 32 inch full hd tv/monitor to a nice 50 inch tv/monitor.
Performance is comparable if we compare against Intel's lowest end CPU?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Umm.. These benchmarking sites, and comment threads like this one constantly miss the point.
The AMD A-Series processors do NOT equal intel chips when you run synthetic CPU benchmarks.
The AMD A-Series absolutely KILLS IT when your goal is to throw together a dirt-cheap gaming rig on a budget.
If all you need is a new motherboard, CPU & RAM, and you intend to reuse your old case, hard drives, and peripherals - The AMD A10 chips and their integrated Radeon graphics offer outstanding FPS for the dollar when compared to the alternative of building an intel system w/discrete Nvidia GPU.
Did you really think people are sticking AMD APUs in cases with neon-accented cutout windows and holographic 3D skull case stickers to optimize their VBA performance in large Excel workbooks?
No, they want consistent 90 fps in Shooter DuJour, and they want it for only a few hundred bucks.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
never heard of an APU before until I read the article. I have heard of a CPU and GPU. If they run at 3.5GHz and 3.9GHz, the speed is faster than 2.4 GHz wifi right? Wonder how how the processors will become. My 802.11g router runs hot. Can't imagine how hot an 8 core processor will run.
They seem to have missed some really important benchmarks.
Clearly on the graphics side, the APU kills the i5.
The interesting thing was HSA which allows low latency CPU/GPGPU workloads, which allows the (relatively slow) GPU to work on a MUCH wider range of problems than any comparable product. Early indications, such as the LibreOffice spreadsheet program had the A10 killing even the top end i7s.
For other less extreme examples, the A10 was comfortably outpacing the i5 by a factor of 2 or more.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Unfortunately they're only AM2/3 relevant.
If you want a virtualized system with ECC and IOMMU, the option of overclocking and you want it cheap, go AMD.
For Under 300 bucks you can have an AMD mobo/cpu combo that supports all four.
Intel is like 500 if you just want ecc and vt OR vt and vt-d, but if you want all three you're looking at either a really slow xeon+mobo, or a really expensive fast xeon and mobo. If you want overclocking you have to give up ECC (and VT-d in some cases?).
Regardless, the point is for certain workloads you can dog on AMD, but for other ones AMD is your only option because Intel doesn't have the competition to actually have to provide the features 'niche' people want. I just hope AMD will keep this in mind with future revisions of the AM1,FM2, and AM3 successor parts. ECC+SVM+IOMMU+OVERCLOCKING. Save the clock multiplier and other 'fine tuning' for flagship models if you must, but provide at least one of each per platform, and stop crippling ECC/IOMMU support. They are the two biggest feature you can compete with Intel on at the moment!
What most people don't realize is that the desktop version is basically an afterthought. The chip has been optimized for laptops, where it does make some sense (adding a discrete GPU is not an option after purchase and laptops with discrete GPUs are quite more expensive, so the comparative advantage is more important). AMD knows they can't win on the desktop, which is why they didn't bother with extreme caches, 4-module (8-core) versions and cherry-picked chips with crazy TDPs. Personally, I'm much more excited with the laptop version of Kaveri, such as the 7350B in the HP EliteBook 745 G2.
Anyway, for the price it makes a really great casual gaming PC, especially for people who are price sensitive and can't afford a +$100 discrete GPU (in some places this is a decent chunk of a month's salary...).
Regarding ECC support for APUs, only the still 'vaporware' Opteron APUs atm. Which is frustrating since that leave me personally without an upgrade path from AM3/3+ (I haven't made the jump to 3+ since it looks abandoned and for most workloads I'm better off buying used Phenom II X6's rather than FX-83xx parts. And except for dick waving, the FX-9xxx parts doesn't really make much sense given the max TDP for extreme overclocking and the limited motherboards available supporting them (which have as bad or worse reliability records as the cheap 70 dollar AM3+ motherboards!)
Kaveri vs i3 == XP vs P4
If Intel dropped all chip prices 25% across the board, AMD would be bankrupt then have a monopoly forever. Unfortunately they're just too damn greedy and completely lacking in foresight.