AMD A9 processor and AMD A10 processor: The best Comparison
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is an eminent and established American Multinational semiconductor company based in Santa Clara Country, California that promotes, enhances, and develops computer processors and technologies for business and consumer markets. Initially, it has begun to manufacture its own processors. The furnished product of AMD includes motherboards chipsets, microprocessors, embedded processors, and graphic processors reach workstations, servers, and Personal computers. Have you ever thought about what a processor is and what it does? A microprocessor known through its pet name processor is a tiny chip or a software or application system that is in attendance to computers and many other electronic gadgets. These processors are installed to target a specific function to accomplish.
Comparison between AMD A9 & A10 processor
Before we begin, we would like to proclaim that we are going to compare the previously launched AMD A9-9410 Processor with the latest brand new AMD A10-9600P Processor. So, let’s start the comparison of apple to an orange.
Significant Attributes of AMD A9 & AMD A10 Processor
The AMD A10-9600P Processor is a ULV chip of mid-range APU of the series called Bristol Ridge series of 7th generation of APUs was launched in mid of 2016. It includes 4 cores (two Excavator Modules) of 2.4-3.3 GHz clock speed. The processor has the same silicon as Carrizo, but features are more and refined. This includes a 15.6 inch Full HD Display, TN Panel, Matte of 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution. It has a 15-watt TDP that includes and a Radeon R5 Integrated graphics card of 384 Shader cores/ 6 compute cores, including a memory channel of 2, DDR4 1866 memory controller.
This is slightly faster than the latest brand new 15 Watt FX 8800P. Thus, the Performance of the CPU is likely to be similar to a Broadwell Core i3 of 15 Watt power consumption, For example, i3 5010U. The Carrizo present in A10-9600P Processor consists of full-featured SOC on the chip, which includes each and every Input and Output port.
The AMD A9-9410 Processor is also a chip manufactured from the Stoney Ridge APU Series of 7th generation notebooks launched in 2016. This processor integrates two CPU Cores with 2 integers and 1 excavator module over the FP unit with a clock speed between 2.9 to3.5 GHz (or 2900 to 3500 MHz). It is the well-known blistering chip produced by the Stoney Ridge processor till now. Additionally, AMD A9-9410 Processor also includes a GPU with 192 Shaders of Radeon R5 at 800 MHz as well as a DDR4 2133 memory controller of the single memory channel. Moreover, a chipset along with an H.265 video engine for requisite ports available for Input and Output is also included over the chip. Moreover, it is believed to be the dual-core version of Bristol Ridge.
Don’t Miss: Ryzen 3 1200
Common Features
Some features are common to one and the other. Like 64-bit/ Intel 64, On-chip Floating point unit, NX bit/XD-bit, Power Now! /Cool’n’Quiet, Turbo Core, Secure Virtual Machine (Virtualization).
The only homogeneous feature in both is the similar processors and 28nm manufacturing technology used for socket and architecture, and both belong to AMD A-Series Processors.
Specifications
Let the major attributes be equivalent. What makes them different are their specifications. Let’s have an in-depth look at them. The core name of CPU (Central Processing Unit) utilized in AMD A10-9600P Processor is Bristol Ridge, but AMD A9-9410 Processor uses Stoney Ridge. In addition, it is not only the inheritor of Carrizo architecture but also the manufacturing design, and the model is quite similar. Evidently, the CPU is not only a big thumb up for slim and airy notebooks but also has an ability for better cooling than AMD A9-9410 Processor. The AMD A10-9600P Processor uses 28nm processors and offers minor modifications. For instance, technological advancements are minor and have remained the same. The APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) has 4 excavator CPU Cores, 512 shaders, etc.
Moreover, AMD A10-9600P Processor has more stepping, socket cores, computer units, and logical processors than AMD A9-9410 Processor. AMD A10-9600P Processor has a lesser base frequency and turbo frequency as compared to AD A9-9410 Processor. But in the case of L1 Cache and L2 Cache (KB), AMD A10-9600P Processor is ahead of AMD A9-9410 Processor. The transistor count of AMD A10-9600P Processor is more than AMD A9-9410 Processor.
Additional Features
The Core and Threads of AMD 9600P Processor are more than AMD 9410 Processor. But in case of compatibility, configuration, and PCI Express Revision Peripheral of TDP (Thermal Design Power) Watt, AMD A10-9600P Processor is lagging behind. Therefore, AMD A9-9410P Processor can function productively even under sustained workloads. Keeping GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) from the point of view, the maximum frequency of graphics, Unified Video Decoder, processor and switchable graphics of AMD A10-9600P Processor has more active Shader cores as compared to AMD A9-9410 Processor.
But in the case of Graphics API Support, DirectX and Vulkan are built-in 9410P Processor and are absent in 9600P Processor.
The 35 watt series of AMD A10-9600P Processor can only support RAM up to DDR4-2400, whereas AMD A9-9410 can support up to 15 watts but has a 15-inch device for better cooling. Because of stagnating per MHz ratio, the performance increases due to the higher clock speed of AMD A9-9410 Processor than AMD A10-9600P Processor. The operating frequency and thermal design power of AMD A9-9419 Processor are higher and better as compared to AMD A19-9600P Processor, but the extra frequency is provided in AMD A10-9600P Processor. The number of cores/threads is more in the case of AMD A10-9600P Processor than that of AMD A9-9410 Processor.
See also: Intel i9 10900K
Specification Comparison Table
| Specification | AMD A10-9600P | AMD A9-9410 |
|---|---|---|
| BRAND | AMD | AMD |
| MODEL | 101 (065h) | 112 (070h) |
| SERIES | AMD Bristol Ridge | AMD Bristol Ridge |
| CODENAME | Stoney Ridge | Bristol Ridge |
| FREQUENCY | 2400 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| TURBO FREQUENCY | 3300 MHz | 3500 MHz |
| CORES | 4 | 2 |
| THREADS | 4 | 2 |
| TDP | 15 | 25 |
| MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| CPUID SIGNATURE | 660F51 | 670F00 |
| COMPUTE UNITS | 2 | 1 |
| LOGICAL PROCESSORS | 4 | 2 |
| DIE SIZE | 124. 5 mm square |
250 mm square |
| TRANSISTOR COUNT | 1200 Million | 3100 Million |
| MEMORY CHANNEL | Single-Channel | Dual-Channel |
| SUPPORTED MEMORY | DDR4-1866 | DDR4-2133 |
| MAXIMUM MEMORY BANDWIDTH | 29.9 | 17.1 |
| SHADER CORES | 384 | 192 |
| BASE FREQUENCY | 720 | 800 |
| GPU | 800 MHz | 720 MHz |
| L1 CACHE | 192 KB (code) 128 KB (data) | 96 KB (core) 64 KB (data) |
| L2 CACHE | 2048 KB | 1024 KB |
| STEPPING | 1 (01h) | 0 (00h) |
| DATA WIDTH | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE | 90 C | 90 C |
| Best Deal | Click Here | Click Here( Keep eye) |
Pros
The supported memory channels, memory frequency, and bandwidth of the AMD A10-9600P Processor are high.
Thus it consumes less power. Moreover, it has multi-threading performance to execute more stimulus threads. In contrast, AMD A9-9410 Processor has a trump card to play with high clock speed. Have a blast! Cope up with your adrenaline rush for gaming with lightning speed with the efficient and substantial performance of AMD A9-9410 Processor. Thus, the level of performance by AMD A9-9410 Processor is sufficient for more demanding applications.
Cons
“Let’s accomplish and embrace flaws.” The operating frequency of the AMD A10-9600P processor is low. On the other hand, AMD A9-9410 Processor has smaller CPU Cores, and therefore it doesn’t support many threads. It consumes considerably more power because of less memory bandwidth.
Review
“Let’s study on the golden side of the AMD.”
Nibedita
Where AMD A9-9410P Processor has a lot more to boast about, on the contrary, AMD A10-9600P Processor has a few to pin hopes on.
To begin with, AMD A10-9600P Processor has enough CPU cores to get into grips with multiple threads simultaneously. A10-9600P Processor has higher memory bandwidth for the processor to overcome the memory obstruction. Consequently, it amplifies the magnitude of performance even after working with large data sets. Although AMD A9-9410 Processor checkmates with an operating frequency higher than AMD A10-9600P Processor, however, fell flat.
With more power consumption than AMD A10-9600P Processor, AMD A9-9410 Processor is on a winning streak. The AMDA10-9600P Processor doesn’t fulfill the potential of gaming. Even if it has a higher clock speed than AMD A9-9410P Processor, the APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) test cannot be performed at the upper ends of this range continuously due to limited TDP value. The experts are in a dilemma whether AMD A10-9600P Processor will be able to work faster with constant CPU load simultaneously. The single-core performance of the AMD A9-9410 Processor is excellent.
Most importantly, AMD A10-9600P Processor is unlocked, the massive upgrade path is available and economically feasible. The best brand is at a great price. We assure you of Good plug, price, and play.
Other Common Features
No Doubt both of them have some other standard features such as debugging extensions, 36-bit page size extensions, 128 bit SSE instruction, 100 MHz multiplier control, Extended APIC space, Core multi-processing legacy mode, time stamp counter, lightweight profiling support, LBR Visualisation, advanced programmable interrupt controller, nested page tables, performance time-stamp counter, 1 GB considerable page support, Hardware P-state, and Thermal control, LAHF/ SAHF support in 64-bit mode, Machine check architecture and expenditure, Misaligned SSE Mode, nested page tables, physical address extensions, SVM lock, virtual 8086 mode enhancements, watchdog timer support, temperature sensor, NRIP save, ensured TCS rate across all states, translation cache extensions, global page extension, page attribute table, page size extensions of 4 MB pages, model specified registers, L1 data size, and associativity, MOV CR8, FX SAVE/ FX RSTOR optimization, extended APIC space.
Conclusion
“In the outcome, only the conclusion is esteemed and carried into judgment.”
Nibedita
AMD A9 processor and AMD A10 processor: Through a comparative interpretation of both the production and analyzing the significant features, we have come to the opinion that we suggest you to go for AMD A10-9600P Processor than AMD A9-9410 Processor. Undoubtedly, AMD A10-9600P Processor has sufficient features indispensable for efficient and proficient hardcore gaming. Not only that, but AMD A10-9600P Processor is also compatible and has advanced technological virtualization. It is easy to install and runs efficiently.
We would like to hear your FAQs and get to the bottom of your issue on our official website. www.gossipfunda.com or you can download our app available on Playstore. Do we have a desire to know about us? Feel free to contact us.
Get in touch with us through our official website. We appreciate constructive feedback from our consumers.
Trinity CPU Performance: The Good and the Bad
by Anand Lal Shimpion October 2, 2012 1:45 AM EST
- Posted in
- GPUs
- CPUs
- AMD
- Trinity
178 Comments
|
178 Comments
Introduction & The TestTrinity CPU Performance: The Good and the BadGeneral Performance — SYSMark 2012Content Creation PerformanceVideo Transcoding PerformanceDiscrete GPU Gaming PerformanceOverclocking & Power ConsumptionPower ConsumptionFinal Words
We’re going to start our performance investigation a little out of order. The big question on everyone’s mind is how much single threaded performance has improved over Bulldozer, and whether it’s enough to actually make Trinity faster than Llano across the board.
We’ll use Cinebench 11.5 as it has both single and multithreaded test options:
The good news is that single threaded performance is definitely up compared to Llano. Piledriver likely has some to do with this, but so does the fact that the A10 can run at up to 4.2GHz (~4GHz typically) with one of its cores active compared to the 2.9GHz clock speed of the A8-3850. Compared to the Bulldozer based FX-8150 there’s a slight (~6%) increase in single threaded performance. Although I don’t expect anyone will be cross shopping a Trinity APU and a FX CPU, it’s important to keep an eye on progress here as we’ll eventually get a high-end quad-module/eight-core Piledriver CPU.
Note that compared to even previous generation, low-end Intel CPUs without turbo there’s a huge gap in single threaded performance. If we look at the gap AMD has to make up vs. Ivy Bridge it’s not pretty. Intel’s Core i3 3220 manages a 27% performance advantage over the A10-5800K. Even if Steamroller is able to deliver a 15% increase in performance at the same clock speed, there will still be a gap.
And we’re not even talking about how Haswell will grow this gap. For the foreseeable future I don’t see AMD closing the single threaded performance gap. Jim Keller’s job is to fix this problem, but it’ll probably take 2 — 3 years to get there.
The multithreaded test shows the other end of reality: in heavily threaded foating point workloads it’s possible that we’ll see a regression compared to Llano. Remember the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture prioritizes integer over floating point performance. Truth be told this regression is pretty rare in our tests, but until we get to Steamroller we will still see these types of situations.
Throw more threads at the problem and even with a floating point workload Intel can’t pull ahead however. The A10 offers similar performance to the Core i3 3220 at a lower price. Your decision here would come down to the rest of the factors: single threaded performance, processor graphics performance, overclocking capabilities and power consumption.
Intel and AMD both win two of those each, it’s really a matter of what matters most to you.
A heavily threaded FP workload doesn’t really play to AMD’s advantages though, what happens when you get a heavily threaded integer workload however? The 7-zip benchmark gives us just that:
Here AMD manages a 16% performance advantage over the Core i3 3220. I’d even go as far as to say that Trinity would likely beat any dual-core Intel machine here. The performance advantage is somewhat artificial as Intel purposefully removes turbo from its dual-core desktop CPUs. This should be AMD’s best foot forward, but once again it’ll likely take Steamroller for this design to start to make sense.
Speaking of artificial product segmentation, one major feature Intel takes away when you get down to the dual-core desktop i3 level is AES-NI support. Hardware accelerated AES support is something that you get only with the more expensive Core i5/i7s. With Trinity, you get AES-NI support for the entire stack.
The result is much better performance in those applications that depend on it:
Like most of the advantages we’ve talked about thus far, there are really very specific use cases where Trinity makes sense over a similarly priced Intel CPU.
Introduction & The Test
General Performance — SYSMark 2012
Introduction & The TestTrinity CPU Performance: The Good and the BadGeneral Performance — SYSMark 2012Content Creation PerformanceVideo Transcoding PerformanceDiscrete GPU Gaming PerformanceOverclocking & Power ConsumptionPower ConsumptionFinal Words
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Compare AMD A10-9600P and Intel Core i5-3570K
Comparative analysis of AMD A10-9600P and Intel Core i5-3570K processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General Information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical Interfaces, Graphics API Support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Technology, Virtualization, Security and Reliability.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation ( Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames ), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score.
AMD A10-9600P
versus
Intel Core i5-3570K
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD A10-9600P
- Newer processor, release dates difference 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
- L2 cache is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- 5.1 times less power consumption: 15 Watt vs 77 Watt
- 8.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark: 15.767 vs 1.944
- 8.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) benchmark : 51.119 vs 5.836
- 2.2 times more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark: 5281 vs 2421
- 2.2 times more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) benchmark : 5281 vs 2421
9019
cores: 90°C vs 67.
4°C
| Issue date | 1 June 2016 vs 8 April 2012 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90°C vs 67.4°C |
| Level 2 cache | 2 MB vs 1024 KB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 77 Watt |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
15.767 vs 1.944 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 51.119 vs 5.836 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 5281 vs 2421 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 5281 vs 2421 |
Reasons to choose Intel Core i5-3570K
- Processor unlocked, unlocked multiplier makes it easy to overclock
- Approximately 15% more clock speed: 3.80 GHz vs 3.3 GHz
- powerful but with lower power consumption: 22 nm vs 28 nm
- About 83% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark benchmark: 2050 vs 1119
- 2.2 times better performance in PassMark — CPU mark benchmark: 4953 vs 2259
- Geekbench 4 — Single Core performance in 2.
4 times greater: 850 vs 357 - 2.8 times greater performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core benchmark: 2851 vs 1003
- Approx. 18% more: 3.46 vs 2.935
- About 99% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 10.487 vs 5.264
- 2.9x performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) more: 0.421 vs 0.147
| Unlocked | Unlocked / Locked |
| Maximum frequency | 3.80 GHz vs 3.3 GHz |
| Process | 22 nm vs 28 nm |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2050 vs 1119 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 4953 vs 2259 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 850 vs 357 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 2851 vs 1003 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
3.46 vs 2.935 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 10.487 vs 5.264 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.421 vs 0.147 |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD A10-9600P
CPU 2: Intel Core i5-3570K
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi Core |
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
| Name | AMD A10-9600P | Intel Core i5-3570K |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 1119 | 2050 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 2259 | 4953 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 357 | 850 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 1003 | 2851 |
| CompuBench 1. |
2.935 | 3.46 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 5.264 | 10.487 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.147 | 0.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.767 | 1.944 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 51.119 | 5.836 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1047 | |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
1657 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 5281 | 2421 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1047 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 1657 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 5281 | 2421 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 1695 |
Performance comparison
| AMD A10-9600P | Intel Core i5-3570K | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Bristol Ridge | Ivy Bridge |
| Family | AMD A-Series Processors | |
| Production date | June 1, 2016 | April 8, 2012 |
| OPN Tray | AM960PADY44AB | |
| OS Support | Windows 10 — 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit | |
| Place in the ranking | 1402 | 1887 |
| Series | AMD A10-Series APU for Laptops | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors |
| Applicability | Laptop | Desktop |
| Price at first issue date | $235 | |
| Price now | $143. 99 |
|
| Processor Number | i5-3570K | |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 14.67 | |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 2.4 GHz | 3.40 GHz |
| Crystal area | 250mm | 160mm |
| Level 2 cache | 2MB | 1024KB |
| Process | 28nm | 22nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 90°C | 67. 4°C |
| Maximum frequency | 3.3 GHz | 3.80 GHz |
| Number of cores | 4 | 4 |
| Number of GPU cores | 6 | |
| Number of threads | 4 | 4 |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 1400 Million |
| Unlocked | ||
| Bus Speed | 5 GT/s DMI | |
| Level 1 cache | 256KB | |
| Level 3 cache | 6144KB | |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 67 °C | |
| Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Supported memory frequency | 1866MHz | |
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 1333/1600 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25. 6 GB/s |
|
| Maximum memory size | 32GB | |
| Enduro | ||
| Maximum GPU clock | 720MHz | 1.15 GHz |
| Number of iGPU cores | 6 | |
| Integrated graphics | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 |
| Switchable graphics | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Codec Engine (VCE) | ||
| Device ID | 0x152 | |
| Graphics base frequency | 650 MHz | |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 1. 15 GHz |
|
| Intel® Clear Video Technology HD | ||
| Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI) | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
| DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum number of monitors supported | 3 | |
| WiDi support | ||
| DirectX | 12 | |
| Vulcan | ||
| Configurable TDP | 12-15 Watt | |
| Supported sockets | FP4 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 77 Watt |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximum number of processors per configuration | 1 | |
| Package Size | 37. 5mm x 37.5mm |
|
| Thermal Solution | 2011D | |
| Number of PCI Express lanes | 8 | |
| PCI Express revision | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCIe configurations | up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8 & 2×4 | |
| AMD App Acceleration | ||
| AMD HD3D technology | ||
| AMD Mantle API | ||
| AMD Secure technology | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Frame Rate Target Control (FRTC) | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) | ||
| Fused Multiply-Add 4 (FMA4) | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| Flexible Display interface (FDI) | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Extended instructions | Intel® SSE4. |
|
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX) | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® TSX-NI | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) | ||
| Anti-Theft Technology | ||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection Technology | ||
| Intel® Secure Key Technology | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) |
AMD A10-6800K, A10-7800 and A10-7850K processors
Today we have another walk-through testing on our agenda, primarily related to a change in test methods, and not to the release of new processors.
Moreover, the topic will be a platform where things are not going well with the release of new models, despite all its attractive sides: it has been more than a year since the A10-7850K appeared, and it continues to be the most powerful solution in the line. Moreover, no significant change in the situation is planned in the near future. Around the middle of the year, the A10-8850K should appear, but apart from a very slight increase in clock frequencies, nothing is expected from it (as well as from other models of the updated line). Thus, it makes no sense to specifically wait for the appearance of Kaveri Refresh processors, and something more interesting may appear only next year (and within a completely new platform, most likely completely incompatible with today’s one). In general, if there is a need to purchase something, it can be done now. Moreover, it is not even necessary to choose Kaveri — although the shipment of processors based on the previous architecture has already been stopped, they are still found in the distribution network, moreover, at more attractive prices than modern models.
There is only one question: is the economy reasonable? And do you need a top model? But it is impossible to find out without tests, so now we will start with them.
A10-6800K and A10-7850K we already compared at the end of last year and came to the conclusion that these models are approximately equivalent in performance, but the first one is cheaper. However, updating the software in the new version of the methodology may well lead to the fact that the alignment will change — this is what we will check. At the same time, adding the A10-7800 to the test subjects: it is a little more economical and a little slower than the top model, which is interesting. Note that the 7800 is actually the only significant expansion of the range of processors for FM2+ in 2014: earlier desktop A10s based on Kaveri did not fit into a TDP of 65 W or less. If we consider work with a heat pack reduced to 45 W (which may be relevant for a compact solution), the situation is even aggravated by the fact that AMD previously released only a couple of suitable models for FM2, which were not so easy to purchase.
Now the problem is gone. And the only question is what will be the performance loss. Especially against the background of top models, which obviously “do not fit” into small Mini-ITX cases due to a “serious” heat pack.
| Processor | Intel Core i7-55500U | |||||
| Nucleus | Broadwell | |||||
| Technology pr-va | ||||||
| Knoys of nuclei/Calculation flows | 2/4 | |||||
| L1 cache (sums.), I/D, KB | 64/64 | KASH L2, KB | 2×256 | |||
| Cache L3, MIB | 4 | |||||
| RAM | 2 × DDR3-1600 | |||||
| TDP, VT | 15 | |||||
| HDG GDG GDG GDG GDG GDG | ||||||
| Frequency std/max, MHz | 300/950 |
Who can compare these processors with? Such a question is always relevant at the beginning of the testing cycle — the base of already obtained test results is too small.
Therefore, by a strong-willed decision, we did not look for competitors «on the forehead», but took the numbers obtained when testing the Core i7-5500U. It is clear that the model is ultrabook, although… Although many people nowadays are concerned about the direct comparison of the performance of laptops and desktops, so it is interesting to look for a direct answer to it.
Test methodology
To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 and iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. We normalized all test results in the first benchmark against the results of the reference system, which this year will be the same for laptops , and for all other computers, which is designed to make it easier for readers to compare and choose:
| 9.18.10.3186 |
iXBT Application Benchmark 2015
them, A10-6800K and A10-7800 in «45W mode» are the same. But in normal mode, the A10-7800 is noticeably faster, but the A10-7850K outperforms it quite a bit, which makes it not the best choice for today.
Here, AMD’s top APUs are completely behind the Core i7-5500U, which can only be called a mockery 🙂 The distribution of places among them almost does not change. Unless the A10-6800K managed to keep up with the A10-7800 with a “squeezed” heat pack, but if this is not necessary, then the latter is preferable in new software versions.
Photo manipulation is similar to video processing. True, the performance requirements on the part of the user are lower here, since the slowness of the computer (if any) interferes less — the workflows themselves are shorter.
Adobe Illustrator cheerfully changes version numbers, but the software algorithms themselves seem to be the same as 10 years ago. With such a curious effect, the flagship for FM2 is even slightly faster than the new top solution. However, slightly.
In Audition, the A10-6800K and A10-7850K are roughly equal in favor of a newer processor. But a comparison with the i7-5500U shows that this is just another «inconvenient» case for AMD.
Quite inconvenient — where desktop processor models lose not only to laptop ones, but also to ultrabook ones (and if things continue like this, they will soon start tablet ones).
In the previous version of the program, the A10-6800K kept at the level of the A10-7800 with a TDP of 65 W, but now it has slipped to parity with 45 W: as you can see, the software update has a positive effect on intracompany competition. However, the effect somehow obtained is not enough 🙂
But archivers, despite all the code updates, are more “conservative” applications, so the A10-7850K (not to mention slower models) still cannot catch up with the flagship of the previous line . The lag, however, is microscopic, but it exists. What is especially frustrating against the background of the fact that Intel now even CULV solutions are noticeably faster at times.
All are approximately equal, except for the A10-7800 in the reduced TDP mode — apparently, to save energy, the processor tries to spend most of its time in sleep mode, the exit from which takes a certain time, which is especially noticeable under such types of load.
And file operations are somewhat similar to, for example, archivers, which is not surprising — unpacking an ISO image is ideologically close to them. Formally, however, these subtests hardly load the processor with work, so the difference between them is mainly due to the peculiarities of the power-saving modes.
Once upon a time, the older models of AMD APUs successfully competed in terms of processor performance with desktop Core i3. Now, as we see, dual-core processors for ultrabooks are also able to overtake them, with which we “congratulate” the company. In general, the need for modernization in this family is long overdue. And it is a pity that it will not be at least another year. Yes, and anything can happen — a software update in the test method, of course, allowed the A10-7850K to bypass the older A10-6800K in the overall standings, but some 5% performance increase, it seems to us, is not at all what was required. The main effect of the release of Kaveri was the possibility of producing more economical models, such as the A10-7800.
The fact that this processor performs at the level of the A10-6800K with a much “narrower” thermal package is already good. Although it is still not enough to compete with Intel in the field of processor performance. But the company’s products have such a trump card as a powerful graphics core. Let’s try to play it.
Gaming applications
For obvious reasons, for computer systems of this level, we limit ourselves to the minimum quality mode, not only in “full” resolution, but also with its reduction to 1366 × 768 (Core i7-5500U was not tested in this mode , but this is not too important for us now — for a qualitative comparison, one mode is enough). Despite the fact that the integrated graphics of the A10 line of desktop processors are the best on the market, even they are not yet able to satisfy the demanding gamer in terms of picture quality. But if you voluntarily agree to the «minimum salary», you can save a lot. We already know this well from previous tests, but today we’ll just see how our updated gaming set works on these processors.
The GPU performance of the A10 is almost twice that of the HD Graphics 5500, which is no secret. And the result is the ability to play, albeit in minimal quality, but in full Full HD resolution.
The game is very processor-dependent, and it mainly requires «single-threaded» performance, so it’s impossible to break away from Intel solutions here. But from a practical point of view, this is not so important — the main thing is that you can play everything.
As in Grid2. Where, however, the requirements for the GPU are higher, so that there is no difference between the subjects.
The Metro series games are just very demanding on graphics, so here A10 is still not enough for FHD, but enough to play at lower resolutions.
In Hitman, older Kaveri is almost enough for FHD, and at a lower resolution you can play comfortably.
Thief is still too «heavy» for integrated graphics, although there is some progress in this area, so the processors of the Kaveri Refresh line may already «stretch» at least low resolution modes.
Tomb Raider feels at ease even in the «full» resolution mode — there are only a few «not enough» Intel processors here. In general, it is already somehow possible to play such toys.
And two examples of how the transition from Richland to Kaveri gives not only a quantitative but also a qualitative effect in the absence of intercompany competition.
Total
Well, as we can see, the software update has had a beneficial effect on Kaveri: the new flagship is now at least faster than the old one, because earlier their equality caused difficult feelings, to put it mildly 🙂 However … However, it is the A10-7850K that still looks not too interesting, since the A10-7800 has appeared, the performance of which is only slightly lower, and the cooling requirements are “lower by many”. However, this still does not pull on a radical breakthrough, since APUs are actually weaker than Intel solutions “as processors”.