AMD Q414 results

[Abwx]

Well that's complete nonsense. Bay Trail beats Bobcat in single threaded and multithreaded, only losing out slightly in the GPU benchmarks. And all at a significantly lower TDP than the E-350.

Baytrail has 10% lower integer IPC than Bobcat and at least 15% in FP, granted that it has lower TDP, it is really a minimum given that BC is 40nm, and BC has also a better GPU.

Now the highest clocked BC was 1.73GHz, that s a BT at 1.9-2.0GHz, not far from the frequency at wich they work on MT, also the 4W baytrail are a scam spec wise, at 4W they would be limited at 1.4-1.5GHz at most, you can see at Notebookcheck, all laptops with 4W BT have power deltas that amount to at least 8W TDP for the SoC when all intermediary losses are accounted.

 

[Abwx]

I see the two are basically the same.

Look at the PII x4 980 go!

That s the old suite, in the updated suite i mentioned the CPUs with 4 hard cores take a gain over CPUs with 2C/4T, to give a perspective look at the 8350 score, it s currently 190, the i5 didnt move from 164.9 but the i3s lost some points...

You ll also notice that the recent suite is about the same set apart that the softs are more recent and that not only they kept being optimised well for Intel but the softs firms did also optimise for AMD quite decently.

 

[AtenRa]

Way to deflect the argument. I never said an intel igp was better than an AMD, or that it was adequate for gaming. That argument is like trying to decide which knife is bigger when you are going to a gunfight.

Im comparing the A8-7600 at 45W TDP to Intel Core i3 Haswell at 54W TDP.

Dont try to spin it with dGPUs etc etc, the AMD APU has adequate CPU performance for everyday usage and 50% or more iGPU performance at a lower TDP.
For an OEM PC for a casual user, the AMD APU is an all around better product. No matter how people are trying to divert from that, the fact remains the same.

I also seriously doubt any APU can play "next gen" console ports like Watchdogs, AC:Unity and so forth with a good gameplay experience, even at low settings at 720p(although I would argue that that in it self disqualifies it as a good experience). I managed to struggle through DA:I with an i5 and a HD7770, which is stronger than any apu, and it was barely adequate, and that is a better performing game that a lot of other new console ports.

A8-7600 Cat 14:12 Omega and Mantle
2x 4GB 2133MHz ram (iGPU 2GB buffer)

Dragon Age Inquisition (build in benchmark)

720p Medium (45W TDP)
Min = 26,9fps
Average = 30,2fps

720p Medium (55W TDP)
Min = 30,5fps
Average = 33,8fps

720p Medium (65W TDP)
Min = 31,7fps
Average = 35,4fps

 

[Sweepr]

The turds are the baytrails, you know thoses CPUs that are below AMD s
2011 Bobcat, yet you re promoting thoses rubbish Baytrails CPUs as the best thing since sliced bread even we all know that they are the lowest performing part of the market, for both CPU and GPU...

And dont tell me that they have high frequency, they can assuming that they consume double the specced power, all 4W Baytrails consume actualy 8-10W, i guess that it s intel way of computing perf/watt, benches at 8-10W and computation of perf/Watt with truncated numbers, a la Nvidia..

Well, it didn't take too long till you turned another AMD/Intel thread into an off-topic Mullins vs Bay-Trail childish rant once again.

Wake me up when your beloved Mullins does +10 hours battery-life @ WiFi with a small 16.3 watt-hour battery inside a <300 grams device like Bay Trail-T does (Lenovo S8). Your 8-10W bullshit was also proven wrong, there's a 5.3W idle-load delta for the whole device and it performs exactly like any other Atom Z3745 tablet.

Now let's take a look at the chip you try to paint as the second coming of Christ. A laughable 6-8 hour battery life (advertised, probably lower in real life) with a 31 watt-hour battery (almost twice Lenovo's S8 capacity). No wonder almost no OEM launched a tablet based on this turd, it would be bigger/bulky and likely not that much faster than BT to justify the higher price like an iPad, Nexus or Core-M device.

 

[Phynaz]

A8-7600 at 45W TDP is faster AND Cheaper than Core i3 Haswell at 55W TDP in iGPU performance.



So an AMD APU at $100 (A8-7600) has more CPU performance than lower end Intel CPUs and thus it is more than enough for everyday jobs. It also has more iGPU performance to play every game available today at higher resolutions/image quality. That makes the AMD APU the better all around product at lower price and lower TDP (45W vs 55W).

Dont try to spin it, for everyday all in one solution at $100 the AMD Kaveri at 45W is undisputed the better product by far.

But yet people don't want them.

It therefore must follow that it is not the better product.

 

[Abwx]

Wake me up when your beloved Mullins does +10 hours battery-life @ WiFi with a small 16.3 watt-hour battery inside a <300 grams device like Bay Trail-T does (Lenovo S8). Your 8-10W bullshit was also proven wrong, there's a 5.3W idle-load delta for the whole device and it performs exactly like any other Atom Z3745 tablet.

I answered you in the relevant thread about this Magic Tablet that consume 1.9W when idle and 1.6W when browsing...

 

[Sweepr]

I answered you in the relevant thread about this Magic Tablet that consume 1.9W when idle and 1.6W when browsing...

Their idle power consuption result is probably wrong because it lasts ~24 hours @ idle according to the battery test. Anyway, totally off-topic.

 

[BSim500]

Lol. It's impressive that people still try to paint these turd APUs as awesome options for gaming in the X1/PS4 era. Unless you're looking for an ultraportable device with limited battery capacity you'll want discrete graphics to play the latest games at decent settings.

Which raises the obvious question - if a 7730 class 45w APU is magically "good enough to run modern games at high resolution & settings", then why did AMD bother to waste all that silicone & expensive DDR5 RAM on the 7850 class PS4 when they could be giving console gamers the "glories" of 15fps slowdowns purely to shave another $50 off the console's price?... I honestly don't understand where this "rock bottom" APU mediocrity advocacy that sprung up over the past two years came from. "Too cheap" is just as bad as "too expensive" regardless of brand. Baseline gaming requirements are a moving target that change each year, and today's "console equivalent" baseline is virtually an XB1 equivalent of 260X / 750Ti (even on Medium), not a 7730 (not matter how "free" it is).

You cannot say that for the Intel CPUs at the same price/TDP.

Dear Lord... It's almost like some people are "hard-wired" to persistently "not get it". Most desktop gamers are like iGPU-less FX desktop gamers - they do not care about iGPU's - ANYONE's iGPU including Iris Pro. Intel iGPU's to Intel desktop gamers are useful primarily as a backup if a dGPU fails. That's it. Only AMD APU owners obsess about arguing over 12fps vs 20fps in games. It's still as dumb today as those fake pre-price-cut comparisons of "$180 7850K is better than a $180 i5-4670K for gaming due to the APU" whilst ignoring the fact most people with $200 would buy a $100 CPU + $100 dGPU and get far better perf/$ all round. Or that people don't buy unlocked Intel's for gaming just to use the iGPU. Or that many people increasingly don't combine CPU & GPU upgrades, ie upgrade CPU every 3-4 years but GPU every 1.5-2 years resulting in them already having an existing dGPU to plug in...

This stuff is just an endless stream of "False Dilemma" logical fallacies - you set up a fake "either / or" iGPU vs APU scenario ignoring the other alternatives that exist or the different priorities people have (ie, willing to spend 10-15% more as a percentage of total rig cost if it nets a +150% GPU gain). It's obvious that most of the time you guys don't even have a serious fixed budget, you simply look-up whatever the cheapest "price of the day" for APU's are then declare it to be a universal "every gamer's budget" (along with "every budget gamer wants 720p", etc). Because the A8-7800 is $90, your "total CPU+GPU combined budget" is coincidentally $90. And yet pre-price cut and before A8-7800 availability, your budget managed to stretch all the way to $180 because that's what the A10-7850K was previously priced at... :sneaky:

As for TDP - it's amusing to see some grasp at straws with fake misused TDP limitation scenario's. The max TDP of a CPU + dGPU with 2x cooling points, 2x heatsinks & 2x fans is not interchangeable with an APU with only 1x cooling point, 1x heatsink & 1x fan. Eg, a 35w Akasa Euler's "heatsink case" maximum cooling capability is limited to 35w for the whole system, yet there are plenty of other compact Mini-ITX cases that can easily accomodate a 50w CPU cooler + a 50-60w dGPU on top and still remain powered by an external 120-160w "brick" Pico-PSU. How do you think +100-130w PS4 & XBox's One's manage if they're "only allowed 45w"? All this "Mini-ITX must = 45w max purely because AMD have a 45w APU and a single cooling point" is such a fake restriction it's comical.

As for perf/price/TDP, if a $150 95w A10-7850K APU can manage 28fps in BI at 1080p on Medium, whilst a $70 70w R7 260 can manage 68fps at same settings & resolution mated to say a $100 55w i3 (total $170 and 125w), then the CPU+GPU nets a +142% perf gain for only a $20 / 13% increase in price, and 125w per 68fps results in 1.84 watts per fps (vs 3.4 watts per fps of the 7850K... )

Now let's do the A8-7600 - it runs BI at 25fps (65w) resulting in 2.6 watts per fps, and it run 23fps in 45w resulting in 1.95 watts per fps. Both of which are still worse perf-per-watt than the CPU + dGPU combo, (which itself isn't even the most efficient GFX architecture anymore). In terms of price, it works out $90 for 23fps vs $170 for 68fps, or an 88% price increase for a 195% increase in performance. And that's cherry picking a "low power" 45w AMD vs a stock 55w i3 (instead of a say a 35w i3-4160T @ 3.1GHz).

In short - no matter what metric you use - even the 45w APU's still lose out on perf-per-watt & perf-per-$ to typical $70-$100 CPU's + $70 "low-mid" class dGPU's. APU's are not the "magic beans" 'bargain' you think they are, and this is precisely why AMD are being forced to slash & slash APU prices - people are in reality doing these maths and figuring out for a new PC that has to last 2-3 years, it's better to spend an extra $50, $60, even $70 to double-triple GPU performance via a budget dGPU because most people buy on "bang per buck" and not "the absolute cheapest no matter how slow it is because it comes with a free 7730".

Dragon Age Inquisition (build in benchmark)

720p Medium

Hang on, earlier on you were talking about it being good enough for "High resolution" (ie, 1080p) and "high quality". Now the bar has been lowered to 720p on "Medium" to avoid showing the obvious sub 20fps frame-rates (let alone slowdowns)? Precisely my point... :sneaky:

 

[AtenRa]

But yet people don't want them.

It therefore must follow that it is not the better product.[/QUOTE]

Did you asked them your self ?? :whiste:

Do they know what AMD APUs are capable of ??? Does the sellers in the retail shops explain how much faster the AMD APUs are compared to the competition when it comes to the GPU performance ??

Again, casual user going to buy an OEM iGPU PC for everyday work and ligh gaming, will be way better suited with an AMD 45-65W TDP APU than any Intel counterpart at the same or lower price.

Everyone wants to play games now days, but nobody wants to spend a fortune for a PC. An AMD APU like the A8-7600 has adequate performance to do everything a casual user wants at a lower price than the Intel CPU.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of retailers are promoting Intel products due to rebates and customers end up with inferior or overpriced PCs for their needs.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Im comparing the A8-7600 at 45W TDP to Intel Core i3 Haswell at 54W TDP.

Dont try to spin it with dGPUs etc etc, the AMD APU has adequate CPU performance for everyday usage and 50% or more iGPU performance at a lower TDP.
For an OEM PC for a casual user, the AMD APU is an all around better product. No matter how people are trying to divert from that, the fact remains the same.



A8-7600 Cat 14:12 Omega and Mantle
2x 4GB 2133MHz ram (iGPU 2GB buffer)

Dragon Age Inquisition (build in benchmark)

720p Medium (45W TDP)
Min = 26,9fps
Average = 30,2fps

720p Medium (55W TDP)
Min = 30,5fps
Average = 33,8fps

720p Medium (65W TDP)
Min = 31,7fps
Average = 35,4fps

Do you have a source for those benchmarks? In any case, barely playable at 720p,with high speed dual channel ram, and that is in a game that uses mantle. Any benchmarks from a reliable independent site on Watchdogs, or AC:U for example?

 

[AtenRa]

Dear Lord... It's almost like some people are "hard-wired" to persistently "not get it". Most desktop gamers are like iGPU-less FX desktop gamers - they do not care about iGPU's - ANYONE's iGPU including Iris Pro.

Try to stay on topic, which is AMD APUs like A8-7600 vs Core i3 Haswell.

dGPUs have nothing to do here, if you want to talk about Gaming with dGPUs go to Video and Graphics. Nobody talked about high end gaming here. I was comparing the AMD APUs against Intel CPU, not how fast the dGPU is compared to iGPUs.

ps: Who told you gamers are only those with dGPUs ???

 

[AtenRa]

Hang on, earlier on you were talking about it being good enough for "High resolution" (ie, 1080p) and "high quality". Now the bar has been lowered to 720p on "Medium" to avoid showing the obvious sub 20fps frame-rates (let alone slowdowns)? Precisely my point... :sneaky:

I said higher res/image quality than core i3 haswell, try keep up with the conversation

 

[AtenRa]

Do you have a source for those benchmarks? In any case, barely playable at 720p,with high speed dual channel ram, and that is in a game that uses mantle. Any benchmarks from a reliable independent site on Watchdogs, or AC:U for example?

Ill make a video playing DA:I with the A8-7600 on Monday.

I dont have Watchdogs or AC:U but i have Ryse:Son of Rome if you like

 

[Maxima1]

Try to stay on topic, which is AMD APUs like A8-7600 vs Core i3 Haswell.

dGPUs have nothing to do here, if you want to talk about Gaming with dGPUs go to Video and Graphics. Nobody talked about high end gaming here. I was comparing the AMD APUs against Intel CPU, not how fast the dGPU is compared to iGPUs.

ps: Who told you gamers are only those with dGPUs ???

Even you know your arguments are BS. You always use that wink smiley, so the third parties know you're just pulling things. .

 

[AtenRa]

Even you know your arguments are BS. You always use that wink smiley, so the third parties know you're just pulling things. .

I would suggest you read again what was my initial argument, i was specifically talking about iGPUs and comparing Kaveri to Haswell.

What is pathetic is that Core i3 Broadwell at 14nm will still be slower in iGPU performance at the same price and TDP in desktop than even last year Kaveri at 28nm.
CPU performance at $100 is more than enough from both players for everyday jobs.

Then people started talking about dGPUs and that gamers only play with dGPUs.

If you have anything to contribute about Kaveris iGPU performance vs Core i3 Haswell be my guest.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Try to stay on topic, which is AMD APUs like A8-7600 vs Core i3 Haswell.

dGPUs have nothing to do here, if you want to talk about Gaming with dGPUs go to Video and Graphics. Nobody talked about high end gaming here. I was comparing the AMD APUs against Intel CPU, not how fast the dGPU is compared to iGPUs.

ps: Who told you gamers are only those with dGPUs ???

well actually the topic was amd,s financial results. so we were off topic long ago.

 

[AtenRa]

well actually the topic was amd,s financial results. so we were off topic long ago.

It may be, but i was comparing an AMD product (APUs) against the competition (Intel CPUs) in the same segment/price. dGPUs has nothing to do with that.

 

[BSim500]

If you understand what im saying you will see how pathetic Intel iGPU is with an added node advantage.

It is stunning how difficult this basic concept is for you to grasp : Do FX-8350 owners care that they can't run any games without a dGPU? No. Neither do gamers who buy Intel ix chips. And non-gamers also don't care about AMD's better iGPU performance. The only person who's hung up on this false-equivalency nonsense of "let's pretend dGPU's don't exist and all Intel chips must be competing with A8's" is you as that's neither how most people budget, build or use them for either modern gaming or non-gaming rigs. The rest is background noise.

Did i ever said you could play every game at 1080p high ??? You quoted me, read again what i said. You can play games at higher res/IQ than any Core i Haswell.

Here's your actual original quote : "It also has more iGPU performance to play every game available today at higher resolutions/image quality" - AtenRa

"Higher resolutions" translates as 1080p, and this is a false statement as the A8 7600 cannot play many modern games like FC4 at 1080p without dipping down to 15fps even on "Medium" (see earlier links). Don't try and weasel out of it by adding in words that weren't there originally, or pretending that "high res PC gaming" in 2015 = 720p (unless you're stuck in 2006). And your ultra low standards are not everyone else's (especially if a newly built rig has to last the next 2-4 years).

Try to stay on topic, which is AMD APUs like A8-7600 vs Core i3 Haswell. dGPUs have nothing to do here

Whose topic? No-one's obsessing over A8 vs i3 but you. LOL. In the real world, good selling CPU's don't need massive price cuts - and the reason for AMD's massive APU price cuts is they simply weren't selling well as gamers were (and still are) buying Intel / FX chips and adding a dGPU as a greater "bang per buck" alternative. And for non-gaming simple office / netbox use, there's little demand beyond Youtube HD / Blu-Ray hardware playback acceleration, which even a Pentium can manage. But then you don't want to talk about that because on a topic called "AMD financial results", discussions about why APU prices were cut are obviously more "off topic" than someone's obsession over i3's iGPU technical performance which even most i3 owners don't care about...

 

[Ramses]

I've wondered a few times if iGPU is not a red herring of sorts. My very consumer, bought at Best Buy, laptop even has a dedicated GPU. Seems like a lot of talk and effort for nothing beyond niches, SFF, etc. I strongly suspect anyone aware of a dGPU either has one, can't afford one but wants one, or would be just as happy with something integrated on the board rather than the CPU. Un-interesting deadend distraction for an "enthusiast" imo.

 

[NTMBK]

Baytrail has 10% lower integer IPC than Bobcat and at least 15% in FP, granted that it has lower TDP, it is really a minimum given that BC is 40nm, and BC has also a better GPU.

Now the highest clocked BC was 1.73GHz, that s a BT at 1.9-2.0GHz, not far from the frequency at wich they work on MT, also the 4W baytrail are a scam spec wise, at 4W they would be limited at 1.4-1.5GHz at most, you can see at Notebookcheck, all laptops with 4W BT have power deltas that amount to at least 8W TDP for the SoC when all intermediary losses are accounted.

Why the focus on IPC? The thing that actually matters is overall performance. I could make a processor with IPC 10x Haswell if I wanted to, but it would go at 1KHz. :\ Designs are a tradeoff between IPC and frequency.

That 1.73GHz Bobcat was 18W, and doesn't include the Hudson FCH which adds another 4.7W onto the total, for a ~23W system. Absolutely no Bay Trail SoC comes anywhere near that power consumption- the highest is 10W, less than half.

Yes, Bay Trail clocks down when it is running all cores at once. But it has twice as many cores as Bobcat. That is the entire point of a good Turbo! You get the choice of either higher peak single thread performance (single thread turbo), or good multithreaded performance (lower quad core clock). You get good performance in a range of situations without blowing out the thermal window. Why do you think AMD made such a big deal of Mullins' turbo modes?

Anyway, we're derailing, so I'm going to drop this.

 

[NTMBK]

I've wondered a few times if iGPU is not a red herring of sorts. My very consumer, bought at Best Buy, laptop even has a dedicated GPU. Seems like a lot of talk and effort for nothing beyond niches, SFF, etc. I strongly suspect anyone aware of a dGPU either has one, can't afford one but wants one, or would be just as happy with something integrated on the board rather than the CPU. Un-interesting deadend distraction for an "enthusiast" imo.

Check out this page, major UK laptop retailer: http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Laptops Scroll down to the categories. They sell a total of 32 laptops with either NVidia or AMD graphics (some of which will be AMD APUs, so integrated again). They sell 200 models with Intel integrated graphics.

iGPU is the bulk of laptops sold by a large margin.

 

[mrmt]

The channel is choking with APU inventory and AMD is having to write down inventory and defer APU orders to Globalfoundries. What's left to discuss about the value of AMD APUs?

 

[Ramses]

Check out this page, major UK laptop retailer: http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Laptops Scroll down to the categories. They sell a total of 32 laptops with either NVidia or AMD graphics (some of which will be AMD APUs, so integrated again). They sell 200 models with Intel integrated graphics.

iGPU is the bulk of laptops sold by a large margin.

I think that's mostly because iGPU is all that's available to be offered less than it is a testament to how good/right they are.

They sold laptops just fine before iGPU's. They sold desktops with on-board graphics too for folks that didn't need a gaming GPU. I'm sure on-board stuff would have improved as well over time. It's cool you can do some basic gaming with them and all, but I don't think it was worth the product cost and development time/effort/cost that could have been put toward the relative miniscule CPU improvement we've seen the last few years. That's what makes me think of them as a bit of a red herring, something to show off when the CPU's themselves are lacking in wow factor. Sure they are nice to have for laptops and SFF stuff, but overall it still seems like a waste.
Seems like I remember NV had a board years ago with an onboard actual (decent) GPU even, and that had to be ten years ago or close to it. And almost nobody bought them. I'm not even a heavy gamer by any stretch and I just can't get excited about (relatively) crappy built in graphics, I can't be the only one.

Would you trade $20-$50 more for a CPU and let's say, 500mhz or 10% performance or something (numbers out of my rear) to have an iGPU?
I sure wouldn't. Hell it's one of the reasons I bought an FX at upgrade time the other year instead of an i7. I try to put my $ where my beliefs and preferences are. Intel has the surplus performance/budget to do iGPU if they want though I think they could leave it to the low end chips and drop the price some on the higher end(and not just xeon), but AMD... I sure wouldn't beat my metaphorical/financial head in over the goofy iGPU if I were them unless it's magically 280 level performance.

 

[AtenRa]

Out of ~330M iGPUs sold i will take off ~120M dGPUs. So PCs/laptops with iGPUs only are more than double of all the dGPU PCs/Laptops sold.

Of those ~120M dGPUs, 50-60% are sub $100 Grapics Cards like GTX720-730-740 and AMDs R3/5 etc.

All in One

Just looking at newegg, there are 37 Celerons(BayTrail and Ivy/Haswell), 66 with Pentium (BayTrail and Ivy/Haswell), 90 with Core i3, 55 with Core i5 and 26 with Core i7.

The vast majority is iGPU only. People play games on them.

PCs
From newegg again, there are hundreds of iGPU only PCs. People play games on them.

Notebooks
1: Vast majority is iGPU only. People play games on them.
2: There are laptops with low end dGPUs that the iGPU like HD4400-4600 is faster people play games on them.

Anyone believing that High-end gamers ($200+ dGPUs) are the top of the food chain is badly mistaken. We are the minority.

 

[Ramses]

Again I appreciate the effort, but showing that people use/sell a product when there isn't an alternative to it, isn't compelling. People gamed before there were iGPU's too. Those lacking the intestinal or financial fortitude to do so bought a console. I'm ok with that setup. I'm OK with an iGPU being an option. I'm less OK with it being the only choice and quite possibly detracting from CPU development.

I'm also OK with you thinking differently. Nice graph though.