MSI Vigor GK71 Sonic keyboard review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Suprim X 12GB review
TeamGroup A440 PRO Special 5eries 4TB NVMe review
Core i5 12400 processor review
MSI MAG B660M Mortar WIFI review
Biostar Z690 Valkyrie review
TeamGroup A440 PRO PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
DDR5 scaling with G.Skill TridentZ5 6000 CL36 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3070 Noctua OC review
G.Skill Z5i (Mini ITX) chassis review
AMD A8-7600 Kaveri APU review
Posted by: on: 01/14/2014 02:59 PM [
27 comment(s) ]
We review the all new A8-7600 APU from AMD. This APU is based on AMD's new Kaveri architecture bringing the CPU and the GPU even closer together. Kaveri will aim 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
pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dazz
Senior Member
Posts: 969
Senior Member
Posts: 969
Posted on: 01/14/2014 07:02 PM
I have seen some reviews saying the CPU performance is poor and that it's not much different yet there is a 800MHz clock difference from the A8-7600k and the A10-6800k!!!!
It's on overclockers @ £139 now.
I have seen some reviews saying the CPU performance is poor and that it's not much different yet there is a 800MHz clock difference from the A8-7600k and the A10-6800k!!!!
It's on overclockers @ £139 now.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 6160
Senior Member
Posts: 6160
Posted on: 01/14/2014 07:15 PM
I think this is a good point people seem to miss. What AMD accomplished with SR is a significant improvement over PD. Unfortunately, the performance of SR is what they should've had when bulldozer was released. If that were the case, AMD would be doing much better today.
Another thing to point out is the actual layout of the die. The CPU cores are relatively puny compared to everything else. You'd think if AMD put more transistors into the CPU so that it'd perform better.
Remember it's a 2 billion transistor die.
I think this is a good point people seem to miss. What AMD accomplished with SR is a significant improvement over PD. Unfortunately, the performance of SR is what they should've had when bulldozer was released. If that were the case, AMD would be doing much better today.
Another thing to point out is the actual layout of the die. The CPU cores are relatively puny compared to everything else. You'd think if AMD put more transistors into the CPU so that it'd perform better.
Remember it's a 2 billion transistor die.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 22029
Senior Member
Posts: 22029
Posted on: 01/14/2014 07:27 PM
And a lot of those transistors are for the iGPU section.
Remember it's a 2 billion transistor die.
And a lot of those transistors are for the iGPU section.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6267
Senior Member
Posts: 6267
Posted on: 01/14/2014 07:33 PM
Right, but that's 2 billion total, not just for the CPU itself. It looks like both of the CPU partitions combined are roughly 1/6 of the entire chip. That's relatively puny. While the IGP is the selling point of APUs, it really seems AMD isn't even trying to make the CPU better.
On another note, while this APU has very nice GPU performance, I'm not too sure if I'd say it scales well against intel's IGP when you consider performance, clock rate, transistors, and power consumption. If intel actually gave half a damn about GPUs, it wouldn't surprise me if they could create a new IGP better than AMD. They have the money for it. But, for whatever reason, Intel doesn't seem to be working too hard on their IGPs. I want AMD to succeed, but it seems like they're getting a little too comfortable with their GPU division.
Remember it's a 2 billion transistor die.
Right, but that's 2 billion total, not just for the CPU itself. It looks like both of the CPU partitions combined are roughly 1/6 of the entire chip. That's relatively puny. While the IGP is the selling point of APUs, it really seems AMD isn't even trying to make the CPU better.
On another note, while this APU has very nice GPU performance, I'm not too sure if I'd say it scales well against intel's IGP when you consider performance, clock rate, transistors, and power consumption. If intel actually gave half a damn about GPUs, it wouldn't surprise me if they could create a new IGP better than AMD. They have the money for it. But, for whatever reason, Intel doesn't seem to be working too hard on their IGPs. I want AMD to succeed, but it seems like they're getting a little too comfortable with their GPU division.
pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6267
I think this is a good point people seem to miss. What AMD accomplished with SR is a significant improvement over PD. Unfortunately, the performance of SR is what they should've had when bulldozer was released. If that were the case, AMD would be doing much better today.
Another thing to point out is the actual layout of the die. The CPU cores are relatively puny compared to everything else. You'd think if AMD put more transistors into the CPU so that it'd perform better.