Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Launches New Higher-End Kaveri APUs A10-7800 and A6-7400K

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the waiting-for-fx-steamroller dept.

AMD 117

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."

cancel ×

117 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What the fuck? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582481)

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?

Re:What the fuck? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582537)

Because your mom

Re:What the fuck? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47582587)

Oh, not to worry. No one will comment on it.

Re:What the fuck? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47582627)

I can stomach a little of it, as long as they don't go off the deep end with actual discussion of assembling a system or god forbid picking up a soldering iron to actually build a thing. This isn't BYTE magazine in the 1970s after all, we've evolved beyond technical knowledge and skills

Re:What the fuck? (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 months ago | (#47582737)

Oops, sorry, I just got a dc-dc converter in the mail to run my AMD geode SBC off a marine battery. No solder involved though, so I guess it's ok, just a crimping tool [pololu.com]

Re:What the fuck? (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#47582995)

Crimping? why that's fucking MANUAL LABOR, what the hell is wrong with you?!!

Re:What the fuck? (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 2 months ago | (#47584653)

why do you assume he's a middle class white dude ?
(i keed i keed)

Re:What the fuck? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47584567)

Oops, sorry, I just got a dc-dc converter in the mail to run my AMD geode SBC off a marine battery.

You probably should be sorry. The fastest Geodes are antiques (I have two of them right here, whee.)

Re:What the fuck? (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about a month ago | (#47587181)

Oops, sorry, I just got a dc-dc converter in the mail to run my AMD geode SBC off a marine battery.

You probably should be sorry. The fastest Geodes are antiques (I have two of them right here, whee.)

I'm thankful. Total system board power draw: ~2W. Plus 2 watts for the SSD. Total power draw: 4 watts, while my converter will deliver 15 watts. Sweet or what? And it runs Linux like a champ. Even runs KDE, though video can be a little slow. Doesn't bother me a bit. I compile remotely anyway. Basically, the perfect shipcom.

Re:What the fuck? (2)

zephvark (1812804) | about 2 months ago | (#47582647)

Product placement. It's advertising. I presume someone at Slashdot is smart enough to get paid for this, although that may not be a reasonable assumption.

And unsurprisingly (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582567)

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.

And unsurprisingly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582671)

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.

Re:And unsurprisingly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582831)

I don't play crysis either. But why settle on a *much* slower and yet power hungry CPU, so you can have slightly less sucktastic 3D umph?

Buy the cheaper i3 that's a LOT faster, uses less power (both idle and at full load), has amazingly better single threaded perf and everything. That makes for a FAR better computer overall. It also has a "meh" integrated GPU that lets you do the basic stuff just fine. And if that one isn't enough for you than most likely you'll want a discrete GPU anyway.

Re:And unsurprisingly (2)

murdocj (543661) | about 2 months ago | (#47586459)

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?

Re:And unsurprisingly (2)

Kartu (1490911) | about a month ago | (#47589205)

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

Re:And unsurprisingly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47590567)

Except for the fact that Intel has better integrated GPUs than AMD. AMD has got nothing on Iris Pro.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47582793)

It may not be the cheapest thing for business use or the fastest thing for uber-gamers, but it's better than any of the Intel chips you mentioned at being a DVR/Steam 'big picture" HTPC, which is why I'd be interested in it.

Re:And unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582951)

I'm genuinely curious about how it would be any better. I've bought a G3220 for my HTPC because it's fast enough, it uses less power, the cooler is decent (unlike the AMD ones I had to replace because they were too noisy) and everything. It was a lot cheaper too and it runs XBMC great. I just don't see what I'm missing.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47583169)

Are you doing any transcoding or commercial detection/removal? That's the sort of multi-threaded and/or GPGPU workload I'd expect AMD's chip to be better for.

Re:And unsurprisingly (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47584117)

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.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47584519)

Although I don't do it on my current HTPC, if I got one of these I'd be interested in removing commercials [mythtv.org] and/or transcoding to MPEG4 (or Theora, etc.). I would hope and expect that something so embarrassingly-parallel yet not implemented in hardware would be faster on one of these AMDs.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

Shirley Marquez (1753714) | about 2 months ago | (#47591199)

Hardware video acceleration only helps you if you are using codecs that existed before the chip was manufactured. Widespread use of next-generation codecs such as H.265 is coming soon along with 4K content, so the ability to decode new video formats in software (possibly OpenCL GPU-assisted software) will matter. The extra power consumption for software decoding is death in a mobile environment because of the battery life hit, but using a few extra watts isn't that big a deal on a system that is plugged in.

Re:And unsurprisingly (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582891)

They didn't even test against Intel HD 5000, which is twice as fast. Then there are Iris and Iris Pro, which are even better. It looks like AMD loses all around...again.

Re:And unsurprisingly (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47585991)

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.

Re:And unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47586203)

No, I mean HD 5000 is twice as fast as HD 4000, the series they tested against. That would put HD 5000 at the same or slightly better performance than the GPU in the A10-7800. Iris has a clockspeed bump over HD 5000 and Iris Pro has a 128MB embedded cache on top of that.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583035)

I take it you don't do a lot of multitasking or use VMs. My current 2.1ghz triple core phenom is fast enough on each core for the things I actually do, I'm upgrading to an 8 core 4.0ghz processor primarily for the additional cores. Being able to dedicate an entire core or two to a pair of VMs is much more useful to me than playing Crysis.

Re:And unsurprisingly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584299)

Have fun with your weak, console-grade CPU.

Re:And unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584357)

LOL, you do realize that processors have been fast enough for most purposes for years, right? Apart from high end gaming, most other tasks can be handled with a 1.6ghz dual core processor.

Re:And unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47586029)

Fast enough for whom? Fast enough for what? With those AMD pieces of shit, you won't be doing anything that warrants having a computer. Go buy a tablet instead, consumer noob.

Re:And unsurprisingly (3, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about 2 months ago | (#47584187)

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.

Re:And unsurprisingly (3, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 months ago | (#47584881)

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.

Re:And unsurprisingly (1)

Clarious (1177725) | about 2 months ago | (#47586605)

Sadly, ECC RAM support was removed since Kaveri. You have to buy a 2012 AMD Piledriver if you want ECC support.

Re: And unsurprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47585205)

I build computers in the real world not benchmark world. AMD has a place and aren't going anywhere. I can build office APU systems much cheaper than Intel that are fast and reliable. When a client is buying 5+ it matters. I have clients running Intel next to AMD and think it's the same computer inside. The extra money isn't worth it unless you have a specialty that needs it. Examples CAD, 3D, etc... The reasons of using Intel has more to do with how the code uses Intel features more than raw processing power.

P.S. I'm logged in but the beta is so broken.

What's the KHS/Watt ratio for X11? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582643)

Seriously...

Does it mine? Efficiently? Asics are making scrypt worthless...

Updated? (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 months ago | (#47582667)

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.

Re:Updated? (3, Insightful)

janeuner (815461) | about 2 months ago | (#47582857)

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/... [anandtech.com]

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.

Re:Updated? (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 months ago | (#47583027)

In terms of performance, the big difference seems to be a somewhat lower number of graphics cores and lower CPU clock, but the lower TDP (45W vs 95W) could make it attractive along with the price-point. I wonder how it does for heat compared with the 7850k.
From reviews it looks like gameplay FPS is slightly lower but playable. Still not many details on heat though

Re:Updated? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 months ago | (#47583759)

How do you judge playable?

For instance in bf4 full-hd (or whatever it was, I've closed the tab) the 7850 seem to have done around 30 FPS.

It all depends on what you want though.

Also it showed TDP as 65/45 (turbo or no turbo?.)

70% the price for 75% the GPU and 84-90% the CPU power?

Re:Updated? (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 months ago | (#47584469)

From what I see, there's a 45W A8-7600 @ 3100/3300Mhz, and a 65W A8-7600 @ 3300/3800

The clock turn clock would be the second for either version, but the 65W's base close is equiv to the turbo of the other, and the 65W has a 3800Mhz turbo.

I didn't check my frame-rate on the 7850, but at 1080p (full detail) it didn't have any notable lag or tearing, so that's good enough for me.

Re:Updated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47587685)

There's only one A8-7600. 45W/65W is a BIOS option.

Re:Updated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47599643)

From what I see, there's a 45W A8-7600 @ 3100/3300Mhz, and a 65W A8-7600 @ 3300/3800

Not quite, there's only a single model of A8-7600. You switch between 65/45W TDP modes of operation in the BIOS.

Re:Updated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47586233)

Agreed, I literally just got my A8 7600 yesterday, replaced my old Phenom X2 home sever (with a discrete low end GPU).

I've gone from a 95w TDP CPU with dedicated GPU (old low end GTX240 with a load of 80W), with a system load of just under 300W - to a 45w TDP with no discrete GPU and a measured system load of 138W playing 4k content and maxing out all CPUs with other tasks, meanwhile doubling CPU performance, quadrupling ram, and doubling memory bandwidth.

Pretty amazing win to me, the existing FM2+ solutions weren't as big a jump toward lower power consumption, and I've been able to add 2 more VMs to the server as well as now being able to play 4k 60Hz content (not that I have more than 1 video in that format currently - but given my old system lasted 6 years, I expect the same of this) in XBMC. Not bad for a $120 APU.

(FWIW: The server runs XBMC, SMB/NFS, persistent IRC, a torrent server, some web/database servers for dev/tetsing, and CI VMs - gpu horse power for XBMC, disk IO, and memory are generally more important short of nightly builds in the CI servers that saturate the CPU)

Fast RAM required (3, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47582669)

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.

GPUs need fast memory access (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 months ago | (#47582717)

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.

Re:GPUs need fast memory access (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47582895)

Ah, of course!

Re:GPUs need fast memory access (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 months ago | (#47583799)

http://www.eteknix.com/memory-... [eteknix.com]
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/0... [semiaccurate.com]

Can one calculate b/s simply from number of bits * clock?

17 GB/s for 2133 MHz DDR3?

The GTX 770 would put that at 224 GB/s ..

New AMD APUs are supposed to have "stacked memory" or something such though.

Re:GPUs need fast memory access (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 months ago | (#47584193)

Almost - you also need to count memory channels, which on most desktops is two.

2 channels * 64 bits/channel * 2133MT/s / 8 bits/byte = 34128MB/s = 33.3GB/s

GPUs tend to use very wide, high-speed memory, because they need a lot more bandwidth than CPUs because graphics stuff doesn't cache as easily. Some data for comparison:
R7 240: 2 channels * 64 bits/channel * 4500MT/s = 70GB/s
R7 260X: 2 channels * 64 bits/channel * 6500MT/s = 102GB/s
R7 270X: 4 channels * 64 bits/channel * 5600MT/s = 175GB/s
R9 280X: 6 channels * 64 bits/channel * 6000MT/s = 281GB/s
R9 290X: 8 channels * 64 bits/channel * 5000MT/s = 312GB/s

Re:GPUs need fast memory access (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 months ago | (#47586721)

I should had thought about dual channel myself =P

The 17 GB I saw mentioned was from a wiki and it make sense that answered for the single memory module :)

I thought later about using R290X because it likely had the greatest number, GTX 770 happen to be what I consider "good but not insanely extreme" :), good enough to beat an APU platform but not something which wouldn't be considered by most (or well, maybe so, but not out of reach for them at least :))

Re:Fast RAM required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582821)

A consequence of it being an "APU" rather than just a CPU.

Re:Fast RAM required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582971)

Faster ram = more performance. You're always "bottlenecked" by slower ram speed even if it isn't always the biggest bottleneck.

Re:Fast RAM required (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47582991)

Fast RAM is mainly important for graphics. AMD has a more powerful IGP, the Intel equivalent performs worse and so requires less. That is why Intel went with embedded DRAM [intel.com] on their best IGPs (brand name "Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200"), though none of these are retail chips but only for laptops and AIOs. Personally I'm of the opinion that either you don't care about the GPU at all and it doesn't matter, or you should care enough to get a decent graphics card. Putting a CPU+GPU on a 65W power budget won't ever be great unless you want to play Dota 2.

Re:Fast RAM required (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about 2 months ago | (#47584911)

I think there are levels in between, such as having some older games that you want to play at decent quality but not the latest stuff.

This said, the AMD IGPs tend to be limited by RAM bandwidth. Discrete graphics cards with similar numbers of shaders tend to beat the AGPs in graphics. I think AMD needs either quad-channel memory (too expensive?) or stacked VRAM on the APU itself. Without that, it is only a matter of time until Intel's HD graphics catch up...

Re:Fast RAM required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47592369)

AMD has a more powerful IGP, the Intel equivalent performs worse and so requires less.

Iris Pro easily matches AMD's Kaveri IGP in performance.

none of these are retail chips but only for laptops and AIOs

Core i5-4570R, Core i5-4670R and Core i7-4770R desktop CPUs have an Iris Pro IGP.

Personally I'm of the opinion that either you don't care about the GPU at all and it doesn't matter, or you should care enough to get a decent graphics card.

Some people do not play games but they want to watch HD video. That's where these low-end integrated GPUs come in.

Re:Fast RAM required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583429)

AMD has smaller cache than Intel.

Re:Fast RAM required (1)

guacamole (24270) | about a month ago | (#47587587)

It's because on the APUs there is no dedicated graphics memory. The graphics units use the main memory as was always the case with all integrated graphics chips for a long time. Using the main memory for GPU tasks is a serious performance penalty, that's why it's normally recommended to use faster memory with APUs if you care about GPU performance.

Where is the 7600??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582683)

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.

Get a A10-6700 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583439)

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.

Re:Get a A10-6700 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583891)

Don't get 6700, it's a previous generation (piledriver not steamroller) and is much slower per cycle. Just get the 7850 and downclock it if you want less power consumption or don't use its built-in GPU. The 7850 is better than the FX series for single-threaded, which is why you might buy A and not use the GPU instead of FX. Obviously if you just want a CPU you can get a better Intel one, but as a protest against their bad behavior I don't buy Intel.

This just in... (-1, Troll)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 months ago | (#47582733)

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.

Re:This just in... (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47582921)

It's good for niches of users, like those who insist on building a small PC (to compensate for a too big penis?) or why not the family Windows PC where users only care about being able to run a game at all (either now or four years down the road).

Else, the CPU performance is sure fairly disappointing (and Windows itself is disappointing, ugly and manages to be both simplistic and complex, I miss the days you could use 2000/XP and be done)

Re:This just in... (2)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 months ago | (#47582973)

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.

Re:This just in... (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47583609)

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)

Re:This just in... (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 months ago | (#47583677)

Yeah, set it for 45w max and you end up with the CPU side of it constantly getting throttled and the performance sliding even further into the dirt. But you're right about GPU dependant loads. But if that was my usage case, I'd probably wait for Isis Pro to trickle down to Intel's low-end.

Re:This just in... (1)

ponos (122721) | about 2 months ago | (#47584373)

Yeah, set it for 45w max and you end up with the CPU side of it constantly getting throttled and the performance sliding even further into the dirt. But you're right about GPU dependant loads. But if that was my usage case, I'd probably wait for Isis Pro to trickle down to Intel's low-end.

Benchmarks from the smaller 7600 only show a modest performance hit from going to 45W, approximately 10%. Isis Pro is a brute force solution to the problem (huge on-chip RAM) and is likely to stay quite expensive for a while because of die-size and limited production. A discrete GPU is probably the better option at that price point (ie replace the cheapest $450 Iris pro with $450 cpu + GPU), unless if low power consumption is an absolute priority.

Affordable on-chip graphics RAM may become standard in future AMD and intel processors but I wouldn't hold my breath...

Re:This just in... (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 months ago | (#47584461)

Nor I. If I need GPU performance, I'm always going to go discrete with nVidia hardware. For efficiency, I'll take the i3's that make a joke out of these APUs.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582931)

For a while I had hoped AMD would pull another Athlon, but Intel is so far ahead of them now. Maybe AMD should exit the CPU business and focus solely on their GPUs.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583453)

" It's beaten in performance and thermals by Intel dual-cores " you're an idiot, of course a dual core should have better "thermals".

" these new APUs run a lot hotter than they have any right to with respect to their workload." - you're also full of shit, 4ghz @ 32C on air w/ $20 cooler = no problem.

Intel fanbois don't have to make up stupid shit to have talking points. Pull your head out.

Re:This just in... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47584213)

Number of cores or core frequency is irrelevant.

It's about how much work can be done for a given amount of power.

If a dual core CPU running at half the frequency outperforms a quad core cpu, something is very wrong.

Re:This just in... (1)

Kartu (1490911) | about 2 months ago | (#47592789)

Name dual core CPU running at half frequency that outperforms one of the new quad core AMD CPUs at mulit-threaded tasks, pretty please.

Re:This just in... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584371)

a dual core should have better "thermals"

So what? That dual core still smokes the AMD quad core in every single metric, you stupid little shit.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584581)

Nope, it doesn't though - you're a lying faggot.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47586077)

Except all of the proof supports my statement and none support yours. Go RTFA and look up benchmarks on your own, you stupid little shit.

Re:This just in... (1)

DivineKnight (3763507) | about 2 months ago | (#47583875)

Hmm. Still waiting for AMD to toss out a higher end product that fixes the issues with Steamroller. Their roadmap seems to indicate that they have no intentions of fixing it (at this point in time), nor are they intending to put much focus on the higher end (they are focusing on APUs more than CPUs...which is weird, given that their higher end stuff from the CPU / GPU end has got to be bringing them in loads of dosh). What I want from AMD is a fixed Bulldozer / Steamroller, even if that means soldering on an extra FP unit per module and what have you. If they want to make me really happy, they should make their Opteron holdings overclockable, with motherboards to match. Which brings to mind Asus & friends...they have got to be bored waiting for a new chip to ship from AMD so they can refresh their motherboard line up. Crosshair Formula-Z is getting pretty gnarly at this point...

Re:This just in... (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 months ago | (#47583927)

Asus and friends are probably getting bored waiting for AMD to do anything worthwhile period, aside from just releasing new versions of their chipset.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584803)

Newsflash: gamers aren't the only people out there. I know it's difficult to not be a self-centered and arrogant dick, but once you grow up enough to not care about top-tier performance, you quickly realize that a budget system is not that different from the high-end ones, performance-wise. Of course, you're also free to view things in terms of the maximum FPS for Crysis, and keep pretending that the increasingly woeful triple-A gaming scene defines the usefulness of a product.

much more powerful than intel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582777)

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.

Updated? (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 2 months ago | (#47582851)

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.

Re:Updated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47582905)

I think we found phorm's troll account.

Why are Americans so fucking stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583017)

"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.

Re:Why are Americans so fucking stupid? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583481)

Nah, we just like to troll the eurotrash niggers. Don't like it, make your own internet. Or can European countries not invent anything of value? Didn't think so.

You know why? Because you're all too fucking stupid over there.

By the way, you eurotrash seem to have a problem with punctuation, don't you?

Re:Why are Americans so fucking stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583719)

Eat some freedom fries!

Re:Why are Americans so fucking stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584907)

Do you always get this upset over dialectical differences in language, or do you just have sand in your cooch today?

hum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583243)

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.

There are exceptions: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584109)

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!

Naming Conventions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583271)

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...

Re:Naming Conventions (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47584539)

With an Intel CPU, Look at the part number to figure out the generation.

xxx is first gen
2xxx is second
3xxx is third
4xxx if fourth
I assume the 5th gen will start with a 5

Re:Naming Conventions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47585243)

You are right, but the point was that it is not easily seen for average consumers to compare or see there is a difference.
Most consumers just see the basic information on the prebuilt computer at their local Costco,Walmart,BestBuy and don't know how or what to look for even if they were to investigate. The idea is that there could/should be a better naming convention that is more immediately comparable without much further investigation. Intel did well in that i3, i5, i7 are intuitive enough to understand one is probably a "higher class" of CPU than the other. But the problem is that Intel keeps suing the same name across generations. Still better than the AMD names for their CPUs/APUs, and easier to get than most of the GPU names.

     

Re:Naming Conventions (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 months ago | (#47584965)

And throw the loads of marketing drones out of work? Actually, sounds pretty good.

Re:Naming Conventions (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about a month ago | (#47587977)

AMD have the most awful marketing I can think of. Here [archive.org] is archive.org's backup of an old (now deleted) Wikipedia article which nicely summarised the 'AMD Vison' lies.

They were telling people that low-end machines would be fine for playing DVDs, but wouldn't cope with ripping CDs.

I really want to like you, AMD...

Re:Naming Conventions (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about a month ago | (#47588091)

s/Vison/Vision/

Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (0)

steveha (103154) | about 2 months ago | (#47583469)

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?

I commented on this in an AC above :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584161)

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!)

Re:Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (1)

ponos (122721) | about 2 months ago | (#47584211)

They will probably make some version for the server market, but it will certainly be on another socket. The socket AM3+ does support ECC (if you choose the right motherboard, ASUS usually do...) but the upgrade path is probably stuck forever at the FX8350. It isn't a bad chip, actually quite good for multithreaded loads, but it's getting old... If you want ECC for cheap you could buy a lower-end socket AM3+ processor like the FX4350, otherwise Xeon is clearly the better choice.

Re:Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (1)

steveha (103154) | about 2 months ago | (#47584557)

The socket AM3+ does support ECC (if you choose the right motherboard, ASUS usually do...)

Yeah, I have standardized on Asus for all my builds, and the ECC support is one of the reasons.

If you want ECC for cheap you could buy a lower-end socket AM3+ processor like the FX4350

My most recent build was an FX8xxx part. FX8350 I think.

otherwise Xeon is clearly the better choice.

I have made the choice to not give Intel any of my money if I can help it. I don't like the unethical games Intel plays (example [agner.org] ).

Processors are so fast these days anyway, that the difference between the best AMD and the best Intel are not that big a deal for my purposes. And while AMD loses on absolute performance, they generally win on performance-per-money-spent.

Re:Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a month ago | (#47587929)

"Yeah, I have standardized on Asus for all my builds, and the ECC support is one of the reasons."

God I hope you never have to RMA with them. Last time I did it, they wanted me to send them $600, THEN they'd send me a new GPU, THEN I could ship mine back, THEN they'd redeposit the money in my account.

I just tossed the card and bought something other than Asus.

Re:Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47584565)

The technical reason is probably along the lines of the memory controller in the chip doesn't support it.

The memory controller hasn't been in the chipset since before the K8 architecure over 10 years ago

Re:Will AMD APUs ever support ECC RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584787)

Who modded this "troll"? WTF?

does it have hdmi 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583535)

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.

You're kidding, right? (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 months ago | (#47583549)

Performance is comparable if we compare against Intel's lowest end CPU?

Re:You're kidding, right? (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about 2 months ago | (#47583715)

It crushes my heart saying this, because I used to love them, but AMD's CPUs are shit nowadays. I don't even like their low-end.

FPS per Dollar Champ (3, Informative)

Scot Seese (137975) | about 2 months ago | (#47583669)

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.

Re:FPS per Dollar Champ (1)

guacamole (24270) | about a month ago | (#47587599)

However, a cheap dedicated Radeon card for $70 will still slaughter the latest APU in gaming performance.

The best bang for buck cheap gaming system these days would be based on the unlocked dual core Pentium CPU combined with an entry level Radeon card.

APU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47583695)

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.

OpenCL, HSA? (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47583947)

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.

Re:OpenCL, HSA? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#47586025)

I'm not sure AMD has even released the HSA SDK yet. ;/ (And while you have the HSAIL ISA documentation already, there's no word even on finalized C-level API yet, as far as I know.)

Re:OpenCL, HSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47586253)

The KFD w/ HSA support for linux 3.14.4 already released - https://github.com/HSAFoundation/Linux-HSA-Drivers-And-Images-AMD

Go, compile, have fun. You are correct though, there's no external HSAIL based toolchain - AMD have currently only released OpenCL 2.0 drivers/firmware which implicitly compile to HSAIL behind the scenes (and run on the yet to be exposed HSA runtime in the firmware).

So you're limited to OpenCL 2.0 if you want to have HSA fun right now.

Re:OpenCL, HSA? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 2 months ago | (#47586133)

There are no HSA applications (just a few tech demos) and it doesn't look like they are going to appear any time soon.
HSA will only work on kaveri CPUs, which are maybe 0.001% of the market. Maybe if Intel adoped HSA then there would be some more motivation for developers to support it.

It's a laptop chip... (3, Interesting)

ponos (122721) | about 2 months ago | (#47584151)

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...).

Re:It's a laptop chip... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 2 months ago | (#47585699)

..just the way I like it. I mean, just because the machine is sitting in one place, doesn't mean I want to waste electricity willy-nilly. Somebody has to pay the electricity bill, bear the heat, and listen to the noise of coolers. By giving the computer more space than a laptop, you can make cooling practically silent and the machine a lot more ergonomic and expandable.

If you absolutely need the computing power of a high-end CPU, then you probably want to figure out how to do the same calculation in a GPU or an FPGA, because those can be much more powerful in many cases, and more power efficient too.

Re:It's a laptop chip... (1)

guacamole (24270) | about a month ago | (#47587569)

What most people don't realize is that the desktop version is basically an afterthought.

I'll believe it when I see it. AMD CPUs always run hotter and used more energy in real life tests.

Re:It's a laptop chip... (1)

ponos (122721) | about a month ago | (#47587853)

I'll believe it when I see it. AMD CPUs always run hotter and used more energy in real life tests.

Well, in idle, which is what most processors do in typical user workloads, the 7800 is comparable to intel processors. Total energy to accomplish a task obviously varies, but the 7800 uses 30-50% more energy than intel processors for the same task. However, the 7 series APUs are clearly more efficient than the 6 series Richland APUs that they replace. Peak power consumption is around 100W for a complete system with 7800, which is not a huge thermal load.

In the end, what I'm saying is that AMD improved power efficiency way more than absolute performance, something that is more important in the portable space. You're looking at maybe 10% faster than Richland at the CPU side but with 20% less energy. Obviously, they could have chosen different power/performance tradeoffs, if they wanted to compete on the desktop.

For some numbers, you can have a look at Techreport or Anandtech (http://techreport.com/review/26845/amd-a10-7800-processor-reviewed/3). I am not aware of any tests concerning the laptop variants, but they should appear soon.

Re:It's a laptop chip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47590627)

Read: "AMD is just as good as Intel when they aren't doing anything"

What a pathetic piece of shilling that is. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find ANY redeeming quality in AMD CPUs, eh?

Re:It's a laptop chip... (1)

ponos (122721) | about 2 months ago | (#47592315)

Read: "AMD is just as good as Intel when they aren't doing anything"
What a pathetic piece of shilling that is. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find ANY redeeming quality in AMD CPUs, eh?

Well, if "not doing anything" is what your PC does a long part of the day, idle power consumption can be of some importance. That does not necessarily redeem AMD cpus, but it is worth mentioning in my opinion. Obviously, you seem to think that all discussion should be limited to "AMD sucks". Even if true, this does not make for a very interesting read.

AMD's P4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47584615)

Kaveri vs i3 == XP vs P4

you know what's funny? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 months ago | (#47586649)

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.

Re:you know what's funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47587873)

Perhaps they prefer some competition to keep the government from splitting them up.

Re:you know what's funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47592957)

You know what I think is funny? No... well here it is anyway if AMD went bankrupt Intel would be dismantled, which means Intel might actually have foresight

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?