MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti DUKE review
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING OC 8G review
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
Asus GeForce RTX 2080 Ti RoG Strix review
GeForce RTX 2080 Founders review
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders review
HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 32GB 2933 MHz review
Nvidia Turing GeForce 2080 (Ti) architecture review
Ballistix Sport AT Gaming DDR4 RGB 32GB 3000 MHz review
Seagate Barracuda Pro 14TB HDD review
AMD A10-7800 Kaveri APU review
Posted by: on: 07/31/2014 02:00 PM [
15 comment(s) ]
We review the A10-7800 APU from AMD, this is one of the three new APUs that AMD today adds into their lineup. This APU is based on AMD's Kaveri architecture bringing the CPU and the GPU close together. Kaveri aims at several segments in the processor business like notebooks, desktops, embedded and even server solutions. Armed bit a good 2.41 Billion transistors and based on a 28nm fabrication process, let's have a look at what Kaveri can do.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
review amd apu a10
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33271
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33271
Posted on: 07/31/2014 02:20 PM
2400 MHz but it will only benefit the IGP perf substantially enough over say 1600 MHz.
do you think there will still be a performance difference with higher speed memory, how high do you think these can go?
2400 MHz but it will only benefit the IGP perf substantially enough over say 1600 MHz.
AzzKickr
Senior Member
Posts: 138
Senior Member
Posts: 138
Posted on: 07/31/2014 02:54 PM
I have a 6000 or 5000 series in my HTPC (can't really remember anymore which one, the one with an iGPU with 256 shaders supporting DDR1866).
I can overclock that GPU massively and allows me to play full-HD, full detail (ex FSAA and such) on my TV for slightly older titels such as NFS: Hot pursuit, Diablo 3, etc.
Incredible punch for the money !
I have a 6000 or 5000 series in my HTPC (can't really remember anymore which one, the one with an iGPU with 256 shaders supporting DDR1866).
I can overclock that GPU massively and allows me to play full-HD, full detail (ex FSAA and such) on my TV for slightly older titels such as NFS: Hot pursuit, Diablo 3, etc.
Incredible punch for the money !
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 5770
Senior Member
Posts: 5770
Posted on: 07/31/2014 03:06 PM
The IGP on the 7850K can reach 1 GHz with a bit of tweaking IIRC.
The IGP on the 7850K can reach 1 GHz with a bit of tweaking IIRC.
fusion
Member
Posts: 73
Member
Posts: 73
Posted on: 07/31/2014 06:37 PM
What I don't understand is how would increasing the memory channels improve iGPU performance. Is it memory bandwidth, frequency, or transfers that are making the big improvement. How bigger improvement could we expect from DDR4? Would moving to triple channel memory work better for the iGPU?
What I don't understand is how would increasing the memory channels improve iGPU performance. Is it memory bandwidth, frequency, or transfers that are making the big improvement. How bigger improvement could we expect from DDR4? Would moving to triple channel memory work better for the iGPU?
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7472
Senior Member
Posts: 7472
Posted on: 07/31/2014 07:06 PM
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
What I don't understand is how would increasing the memory channels improve iGPU performance. Is it memory bandwidth, frequency, or transfers that are making the big improvement. How bigger improvement could we expect from DDR4? Would moving to triple channel memory work better for the iGPU?
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 5770
Senior Member
Posts: 5770
Posted on: 07/31/2014 08:09 PM
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
Making it triple or quad channel even would probably help things a bit.
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
Making it triple or quad channel even would probably help things a bit.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7359
Senior Member
Posts: 7359
Posted on: 07/31/2014 08:13 PM
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
GDDR5 is too power hungry, cost is issue too. I wonder why you do not mention HBM which is in play for AMD 2015/16.
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
Much like they are using in the current consoles. Having it unified memory and at this kind of speed would greatly increase performance for the iGPU. How it would perform in terms of every day usage is another question.
Also how much would it cost for say 8GB (2X4GB) of GDDR5 memory? Probably quite a bit more than DDR3.
GDDR5 is too power hungry, cost is issue too. I wonder why you do not mention HBM which is in play for AMD 2015/16.
zzzaac
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 08/01/2014 04:47 AM
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
zzzaac
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 08/01/2014 04:48 AM
EDIT: double post. Apologies
EDIT: double post. Apologies
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7359
Senior Member
Posts: 7359
Posted on: 08/01/2014 06:19 AM
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
I've built one very cheap system with a10-7850k. It is sufficient for 60fps gaming.
If you want to be able to reach 120fps+ in most of games due to having 120Hz+ monitor, then go with intel.
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
I've built one very cheap system with a10-7850k. It is sufficient for 60fps gaming.
If you want to be able to reach 120fps+ in most of games due to having 120Hz+ monitor, then go with intel.
Ven0m
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Senior Member
Posts: 1764
Posted on: 08/01/2014 09:53 AM
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
You have to think about what you're going to do with this computer. My experience shows that if you want to play games at comfortable speeds, it's good to get a CPU that offers maximum per-core performance. 4+ cores would come in handy too.
While many games officially support 4+ active threads, usually 1 does most of the work, and the other might as well get packed on 1 or 2 cores without greater issues. For example I have yet to see a computer that can handle Diablo 3 without dropping <60fps @ high details.
I'm planning on building a desktop, and haven't decided yet on Intel (as usual) or to try out AMD.
Hmm...decisions decisions.
You have to think about what you're going to do with this computer. My experience shows that if you want to play games at comfortable speeds, it's good to get a CPU that offers maximum per-core performance. 4+ cores would come in handy too.
While many games officially support 4+ active threads, usually 1 does most of the work, and the other might as well get packed on 1 or 2 cores without greater issues. For example I have yet to see a computer that can handle Diablo 3 without dropping <60fps @ high details.
fusion
Member
Posts: 73
Member
Posts: 73
Posted on: 08/01/2014 10:48 AM
I'm not totally sure about this since every new iteration of ddr doubles the size of the chunks of data collected per call. GDDR does the same thing, since GDDR 5 is based of DDR3 and you get double data from GDDR5 than DDR3 you should roughly get the same amound of data though a GDDR 5 connection per call as you would with DDR4.
GDDR is more about saturating the memory channels and minimizing bottlenecks where as DDR is more about responsiveness which is latency and frequency. Although frequency is important for both bandwidth and latency. So GDDR may not be necessary. Pump the frequency and both the GPU and CPU benefit at the price of heat mainly. Looks like we are shifting the price of powering and cooling a discrete video card over to the system memory.
Not really, we really need AMD to push GDDR5 memory as system memory.
I'm not totally sure about this since every new iteration of ddr doubles the size of the chunks of data collected per call. GDDR does the same thing, since GDDR 5 is based of DDR3 and you get double data from GDDR5 than DDR3 you should roughly get the same amound of data though a GDDR 5 connection per call as you would with DDR4.
GDDR is more about saturating the memory channels and minimizing bottlenecks where as DDR is more about responsiveness which is latency and frequency. Although frequency is important for both bandwidth and latency. So GDDR may not be necessary. Pump the frequency and both the GPU and CPU benefit at the price of heat mainly. Looks like we are shifting the price of powering and cooling a discrete video card over to the system memory.
garbagejuicer
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Posted on: 08/04/2014 07:18 PM
I think the author meant R9 290?
Above an IGP test run with the A10-7800 APU and Thief at Normal image quality settings. We also tried Mantle activated with a GeForce GTX 780 Ti, unfortunately Mantle messed up big-time resulting into very low frame-rates.
I think the author meant R9 290?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33271
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33271
Posted on: 08/04/2014 08:10 PM
Correct this has been altered in the article. Thanks.
I think the author meant R9 290?
Correct this has been altered in the article. Thanks.
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 1719
do you think there will still be a performance difference with higher speed memory, how high do you think these can go?