GALAX HOF Pro PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
AMD Athlon X4 845 Processor Review
Posted by: on: 07/08/2016 06:41 AM [
41 comment(s) ]
We review the AMD Athlon 845, a quad-core processor that can be seated into FM2/FM2+ compatible motherboards. It is the first processor from AMD that we test that is based on the Carrizo architecture, which was announced for their mobile platform exactly a year ago at Computex.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
althex
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Posted on: 07/11/2016 03:46 PM
Plex box
This would be a good basis for a Plex media streaming / NAS build, coupled with my old GTX 460, maybe even some mmo gaming. Much cheaper than an actual NAS.
Plex box
This would be a good basis for a Plex media streaming / NAS build, coupled with my old GTX 460, maybe even some mmo gaming. Much cheaper than an actual NAS.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Posted on: 07/11/2016 05:37 PM
I love the "meh nothing exciting" posts, when the cpu is like $80. You can get the CPU, a motherboard and memory, for the cost of a higher end i3. Under DX12 it will probably give you similar framerates too.
I love the "meh nothing exciting" posts, when the cpu is like $80. You can get the CPU, a motherboard and memory, for the cost of a higher end i3. Under DX12 it will probably give you similar framerates too.
Derragon
Member
Posts: 55
Member
Posts: 55
Posted on: 07/13/2016 12:10 AM
Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming.
I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.
Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming.
I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Posted on: 07/13/2016 05:06 AM
Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming.
I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.
It's the target marget you have to consider. You would NOT be buying this CPU, nor a Pentium G4400 if you were serious about CAD! Also the GPU performance would be better than the Pentium G4400. You would also not be pairing it with a discrete GPU, especially not a GTX 1080 (still don't know why that was done for the review).
The other issue with going the G4400 is you never know how long Intel will support the graphics. As an all-in-one, budget orientated CPU which this APU definitely is, it's quite a good choice. If you're planning on intensive gaming, heavy processing, video editing, CAD etc, you'd be silly to get this, a Pentium branded CPU, or an i3 for that matter.
Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming.
I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.
It's the target marget you have to consider. You would NOT be buying this CPU, nor a Pentium G4400 if you were serious about CAD! Also the GPU performance would be better than the Pentium G4400. You would also not be pairing it with a discrete GPU, especially not a GTX 1080 (still don't know why that was done for the review).
The other issue with going the G4400 is you never know how long Intel will support the graphics. As an all-in-one, budget orientated CPU which this APU definitely is, it's quite a good choice. If you're planning on intensive gaming, heavy processing, video editing, CAD etc, you'd be silly to get this, a Pentium branded CPU, or an i3 for that matter.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6784
Senior Member
Posts: 6784
Posted on: 07/13/2016 09:28 AM
Considering that it is faster than 7870k apu in a lot of situation with lower clock speed 30w less power usage with smaller l2 cache. I think amd did good with this. It would be good bit faster if they did not neuter it this much tho.
There should be Carrizo with ddr4 out later this year with the new fm3 platform called bristol ridge still 28nm tho. Why be so negative we knew there won't be anything AMAZING coming out before Zen anyway, and there is a good limit on what you can do on 28nm lol and AMD has done a lot on that node.
Considering that it is faster than 7870k apu in a lot of situation with lower clock speed 30w less power usage with smaller l2 cache. I think amd did good with this. It would be good bit faster if they did not neuter it this much tho.
There should be Carrizo with ddr4 out later this year with the new fm3 platform called bristol ridge still 28nm tho. Why be so negative we knew there won't be anything AMAZING coming out before Zen anyway, and there is a good limit on what you can do on 28nm lol and AMD has done a lot on that node.
nz3777
Senior Member
Posts: 2383
Senior Member
Posts: 2383
Posted on: 07/13/2016 05:13 PM
I think Amd is doing great with the (apu) line-up hell at this point in time the only amd I would consider is a apu there traditional cpu's lack pretty-much in every department compared to intel. This carrizo would be almost perfect for a mid-range gaming build.
Make a really high-end apu with 1000 stream prossesors 8 cpu cores plus 8 gpu cores and let it gpo fo0r $200 dollars.....
Mid-range - 800 stream prossesors 6 cpu cores + 6 gpu cores /12 core $150
I think Amd is doing great with the (apu) line-up hell at this point in time the only amd I would consider is a apu there traditional cpu's lack pretty-much in every department compared to intel. This carrizo would be almost perfect for a mid-range gaming build.
Make a really high-end apu with 1000 stream prossesors 8 cpu cores plus 8 gpu cores and let it gpo fo0r $200 dollars.....
Mid-range - 800 stream prossesors 6 cpu cores + 6 gpu cores /12 core $150
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Senior Member
Posts: 7005
Posted on: 07/13/2016 05:19 PM
Bristol Ridge's performance is a miracle, all things considered. AMD's CPU department gets a lot of (deserved) sh*t, but what they have managed to recover out of Bulldozer is amazing.
Bristol Ridge's performance is a miracle, all things considered. AMD's CPU department gets a lot of (deserved) sh*t, but what they have managed to recover out of Bulldozer is amazing.
DanteV8
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Posted on: 09/29/2016 06:53 PM
Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?
Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Posted on: 09/29/2016 07:42 PM
I don't know exactly but it's very puny (though, it gets the job done well); it wouldn't surprise me if it was less than 50mm. If you're wondering if it'll fit ok in a low-profile case, I'm pretty confident it will.
Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?
I don't know exactly but it's very puny (though, it gets the job done well); it wouldn't surprise me if it was less than 50mm. If you're wondering if it'll fit ok in a low-profile case, I'm pretty confident it will.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Posted on: 10/25/2016 11:44 PM
I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer?
AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.
I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer?
AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Posted on: 10/26/2016 03:34 AM
I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer?
AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.
Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+).
So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.
I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer?
AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.
Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+).
So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Posted on: 10/26/2016 03:56 AM
Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+).
So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.
...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator
Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+).
So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.
...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Posted on: 10/26/2016 04:03 AM
I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was.
Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.
...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator
I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was.
Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Senior Member
Posts: 7726
Posted on: 10/26/2016 04:17 AM
I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was.
Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.
Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering
Realistically speaking, yes i understand what you're saying there's many variables, but this processor, the AMD Athlon X4 845, is the only desktop form of excavator to see what clock per clock differences there are between excavator and piledriver and/or bulldozer
Piledriver was supposed to be if i remember correctly around 15% better IPC then bulldozer. In reality, it was more like 2-8% on average and some things a bit more, mostly in single-core performance
Steamroller vs piledriver was supposed to be 10-20% better IPC, and proved to be correct about that depending on the situation, but mostly sat around 7-10%
excavator is supposed to be 15% better then steamroller, but from what i can tell is maybe 5-10% better then steamroller
So that puts excavator where, in comparison to piledriver, and in comparison to bulldozer? 14-30% better then bulldozer and 12-21% faster then piledriver?
Which would mean Zen would be 59-82% faster then bulldozer and 56-69% faster then piledriver if the 40% claim vs excavator is correct?
This is why i am wondering what the difference is between excavator and piledriver/bulldozer, most of us that still have AMD CPUs have these architectures and not steamroller or excavator, and my numbers are likely completely wrong to real-world scenarios. In the end, if there's nothing that compares them that's fine we'll see how zen performs in the end either way, it was just a curiosity to see what zen is "supposed" to be compared to what most AMD CPU users have currently.
(referring to the AM1 excavator parts)
I don't understand this comment. Excavator was not on AM1, Excavator is on FM2+ and FP4
The only architectures that AM1 was used for were Jaguar i believe?
I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was.
Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.
Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering
Realistically speaking, yes i understand what you're saying there's many variables, but this processor, the AMD Athlon X4 845, is the only desktop form of excavator to see what clock per clock differences there are between excavator and piledriver and/or bulldozer
Piledriver was supposed to be if i remember correctly around 15% better IPC then bulldozer. In reality, it was more like 2-8% on average and some things a bit more, mostly in single-core performance
Steamroller vs piledriver was supposed to be 10-20% better IPC, and proved to be correct about that depending on the situation, but mostly sat around 7-10%
excavator is supposed to be 15% better then steamroller, but from what i can tell is maybe 5-10% better then steamroller
So that puts excavator where, in comparison to piledriver, and in comparison to bulldozer? 14-30% better then bulldozer and 12-21% faster then piledriver?
Which would mean Zen would be 59-82% faster then bulldozer and 56-69% faster then piledriver if the 40% claim vs excavator is correct?
This is why i am wondering what the difference is between excavator and piledriver/bulldozer, most of us that still have AMD CPUs have these architectures and not steamroller or excavator, and my numbers are likely completely wrong to real-world scenarios. In the end, if there's nothing that compares them that's fine we'll see how zen performs in the end either way, it was just a curiosity to see what zen is "supposed" to be compared to what most AMD CPU users have currently.
(referring to the AM1 excavator parts)
I don't understand this comment. Excavator was not on AM1, Excavator is on FM2+ and FP4
The only architectures that AM1 was used for were Jaguar i believe?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Senior Member
Posts: 4641
Posted on: 10/26/2016 04:27 AM
Read past the sentence you quoted from. I addressed laptops because they are pretty much the only platform where all generations of the 15h family existed on, but as stated before, they weren't worth comparing, so I spent the rest of my post discussing desktop parts.
You asked for a way to compare Zen to other processors and I'm trying to explain to you why that hasn't been done, accounting for all factors. That includes laptops.
Anyway, the Athlon x4 845 isn't the only desktop Excavator part. There are desktop excavator AM1 parts too.
I agree that it would be nice to see some real numbers and a solid IPC comparison between each generation and a rough performance estimate of PD to Zen, but unfortunately it doesn't seem many people care enough to make such a comparison. Your math seems sound though. Regardless of Zen's performance, even if it's 10% faster than excavator, it is still a substantial upgrade over PD.
Read past the sentence you quoted from. I addressed laptops because they are pretty much the only platform where all generations of the 15h family existed on, but as stated before, they weren't worth comparing, so I spent the rest of my post discussing desktop parts.
You asked for a way to compare Zen to other processors and I'm trying to explain to you why that hasn't been done, accounting for all factors. That includes laptops.
Anyway, the Athlon x4 845 isn't the only desktop Excavator part. There are desktop excavator AM1 parts too.
I agree that it would be nice to see some real numbers and a solid IPC comparison between each generation and a rough performance estimate of PD to Zen, but unfortunately it doesn't seem many people care enough to make such a comparison. Your math seems sound though. Regardless of Zen's performance, even if it's 10% faster than excavator, it is still a substantial upgrade over PD.
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 941
If there is it's not enough. 1 or 2 years ago some AMD's head of something made a description of how amazing carrizo was going to be. Vaporware once again. I believe the dude even said it would have DDR4.
This is what I hate about AMD. Why can't their PR just shut up if they aren't sure it's going to be what they say?