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?
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.
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.
The "new" news is the release on the A8-7600; and only about 7 months late. Most of the reviews for that processor were published in January, which is shameful really.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
But now that it is out, it is at a good price, decent computationally, very good power envelope. It's a good option for productivity-only desktops, at a fraction of the price of a 7850K or an i3-4330.
If I was building a SFF PC, I'd use be using Intel so it doesn't cook itself to death. Remember, these new APUs run a lot hotter than they have any right to with respect to their workload.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
But you can set the thing to 45 watt. You just need some airflow and very good heatsink.
Well, if you want CPU performance get a 35 watt Intel i3 ; the AMD CPU is worse and slightly hotter but will better run games (and some rare GPGPU or HSA software). That's all. And if I was building a SFF PC, I'd probably look for quad core Atom (or the same named Celeron), Kabini and successors or even Tegra K1 (but that one isn't strictly a PC)
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.
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.
Except the i3 has hardware video acceleration too and uses less power. It'll be a quieter HTPC and still perform media workloads better and quieter.
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...).
It is a chip for cheap machines without high performance requirements. Sort of an entry level CPU and entry level GPU in one, with a bit more emphasis on the GPU than the i3.
And where you call the AMD "slightly less underpowered" in GPU, the i3 is arguably overpowered for typical office applications. Read, the A10-7800 can do those adequately.
Overall I think the A10-7800 has its market, for home use where you want to do a bit of everything or maybe as HTPC. It is nothing very impressive, but neither is an i3 without discrete graphics card.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Theres value to be had if you use advanced CPU features, because all AMD processors tend to have the high-end features (ECC support, etc). Intel charges you through the nose if you want that stuff-- think that Pentium has virtualization support or AES-NI? The AMD sure does.
Actually, HD 5000 seems roughly as fast, if not somewhat slower, but it doesn't have access to the task's paged memory, so no zero-copy algorithms here.
Ezekiel 23:20
That's the point. AMD is putting a lot more into the GPU on chip so if what you want is graphics and you don't care so much about CPU, they are a good deal. Why buy more CPU than you need and get crap graphics?
People keep pretending single thread performance matters, even though there is hardly any practical use for it for the avg consumer.
It is especially bad once you are after notebooks. Most notebooks sold are i3-5-7 with Intel's poor iGPU.
The only tasks that put some load on my PCs are:
a) games
b) video encoding
AMD does both better than intel, thanks to:
a) VASTLY superior GPU (besides performance, there is also quality / problems with games)
b) more cores