Amd radeon tm r7 graphics: AMD Radeon R7 Graphics Specs

These are the results of the Radeon R7 Graphics rendering performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest video card at the moment.

We don’t have any test results for Radeon R7 Graphics.

Competitor from NVIDIA

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Radeon R7 Graphics from NVIDIA is GeForce GTX 760A.

GeForce GTX
760A

Compare

Other video cards

Here we recommend several video cards that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

Radeon HD
6750

Compare

GeForce GTX
760A

Compare

Radeon R9
M270X

Compare

GeForce GTX
460v2

Compare

Radeon R9
M360

Compare

GeForce GTX
560

Compare

Recommended Processors

According to our statistics, these processors are most commonly used with Radeon R7 Graphics.

A8
9600

19%

A12
9720P

8.3%

A10
9700

5.5%

Ryzen 5
5500U

2.8%

A10
7850K

2.5%

A8
7680

2.4%

A8
7600

2.3%

A8
7650K

1.7%

A12
9700P

1.7%

Ryzen 7
4700U

1.6%

User rating

Here you can see the rating of the video card by users, as well as put your own rating.

Tips and comments

Here you can ask a question about Radeon R7 Graphics, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Amd radeon r7 built into the processor characteristics

The publication of our first article on desktop processors of the Broadwell family, among other things, caused a couple of fair remarks regarding the testing of the graphics core in gaming applications. Indeed, there are tests, but for comparison, only the HD Graphics 4600 GPU was taken, with which everything is clear anyway. But how the successes of the new “graphic top” by Intel look against the background of AMD processors or inexpensive discrete video cards — from a practical point of view, the question is more important. Moreover, C-series processors are 100 dollars more expensive than similar Haswell ones, and this is quite enough to purchase a Radeon R7 250X or something close, that is, not quite a slow solution.

Today we will remove all the questions.

Test stand configuration

There will be two pairs of Intel processors — to clearly understand where Core i7 has preferences over Core i5, and where one vanity of vanities and vexation of the spirit . The comparison will be in gaming applications, of course, and with a discrete graphics card. However, we have already investigated this issue, but there i5 and i7 were of different frequencies, and today we equalized them in this parameter. In principle, it would be possible to take Broadwell of the same frequency, but it exists only in the form of Xeon, that is, not to say that a mass solution. So there will be no direct intersections — just both socket models for domestic use.

We decided to take two AMD processors so that it would not be boring. Besides, here it is also interesting to evaluate the progress of graphics, and do not forget that the A10-6800K also has a twin brother in the form of Athlon X4 760K. And which of the Athlons to choose when using a discrete video card (760K or 860K) is an interesting question from a practical point of view. Moreover, 760K will also work on a board with a «regular» FM2. Maybe some old A6-5400K stopped satisfying the user, and he decided to change the processor and add a discrete video card? It may well. So let’s see if in this situation it makes sense to change the motherboard.

As for other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications, but they are slightly different. But its volume (8 GB) and system drive (Toshiba THNSNh356GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects. All tests were carried out using the integrated video core (which all six processors have) and in conjunction with a discrete Radeon R7 250X.

Test Method

Since we have already established that the programs from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 set are very weakly affected by a specific video card, we limited ourselves to the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 gaming methodology. All results were obtained at a resolution of 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) with minimum quality settings and at 1366×768 at max settings. Why such a choice? Maximum settings at FHD resolution are «too tough» not only for integrated video adapters, but also for many low-cost discrete solutions. But many want to improve the quality — even at the cost of lowering the resolution. Moreover, the decrease is not always so radical — users still have old monitors up to those that support a maximum of 1280 × 1024 pixels. So why not check out the «low» modes. In addition, with the settings for maximum quality, the specific share of the load on the GPU increases, and today we are just interested in the GPU. And even if they do not cope with the work, it will turn out to be a stress test that well demonstrates the actual capabilities of the graphics.

Minimum high-resolution quality

As you can see, HD Graphics in Haswell can’t cope with this task, you can already play on both A10s, but on the verge, and Broadwell with Iris Pro leaves no doubts. But if we talk about the use of a discrete graphics card, then all processors are equal. The price of Athlon X4 is several times lower than that of any Core i7. The same state of affairs will be in other games with low requirements for processor performance, but high for graphics.

But WoT, however, is the exact opposite of what was formulated above — here the graphics are needed insofar as. As long as it doesn’t interfere. HD Graphics 4600 is obviously small. The rest are enough so that when adding a discrete video card, performance does not increase, and may even decrease.

Another CPU-dependent game, which requires HDG 4600 for the selected mode. However, faster graphics even with a weak processor part allows you to achieve better results. A discrete video adapter shows that the fourth level cache in some cases really makes Broadwell-C a much faster solution than Haswell. However, there is little practical benefit from this — 200 or 300 frames is no longer important. Here, obviously, it is necessary to improve the quality, which we will deal with a little later.

The game is hard on all systems, but especially on video cards. As you can see, only Broadwell integrated graphics, and in the older modification (GT3e), generally allow you to play in this mode: Haswell GT2 traditionally lags behind twice, and the best AMD IGPs — one and a half times. However, when using an inexpensive discrete video card, everyone suddenly becomes equal: both cheap Athlon (and turning off the graphics part in A10 transforms processors in this way), and expensive Core i7.

In the previous version of Metro, the alignment is similar. True, here the A10 is already approaching the threshold of playability, but only Broadwell-C and the like are suitable without exaggeration. Discretka (even such a relatively weak one as 250X) depends on the performance of processors. Another question is that «athlons» are still enough, and ten frames per second can be neglected.

Once again, Hitman is similar to Metro 2033 with slight variations. For example, here two A10s of different generations behave very differently even when using a discrete one, i.e. optimizations in Kaveri are not an empty phrase. However, no matter how you optimize, the Core i5 is much faster. As for integrated solutions, here again only Broadwell-C is suitable without exaggeration — the rest will have to be reduced in resolution.

A very hard game that even Iris Pro can’t handle! However, as we can see, here even 250X is enough without much margin — paired with slow processors, it is completely on the verge of playability.

As we have said more than once, in the minimum mode Tomb Ra >

In this game, without a discrete, nowhere. And, curiously, the Iris Pro 6200, as usual, is twice as fast as the HDG 4600, but the AMD solutions are already slightly ahead. Apparently, the main load is on shader and other units, and you can’t speed them up with eDRAM. Let’s see how it manifests itself with an increase in quality.

There are more or less enough new A10s, Broadwell-C is enough without stretch, Haswell has nothing to catch here (except for the R-series, also equipped with the GT3e video core). But. but it will be cheaper to put a discrete video card.

So, what do we have in the minimum quality mode? Broadwell-C handles almost all the games in our set, except for one. The performance of the Broadwell GT3e is about twice as high as that of the Haswell GT2, and these solutions outperform AMD integrated graphics by one and a half times. But it is better, of course, if possible, to use a discrete video card — it can even come out cheaper. And always at least not slower.

Low resolution but high quality

Discrete video card allows you to play even with an inexpensive processor, integrated graphics is still unusable. None.

With great difficulty and strain, the Core i5-5675C got out of 30 FPS. A cheaper bundle of Athlon X4 760K or 860K and R7 250X scores almost 40 without straining. Comments are unnecessary.

This is where the Iris Pro 6200 looks really good. Let the discrete video card and a little faster, but not much. Worse, its use is not always possible, so the advent of powerful integrated video is a great boon for those who find themselves in such conditions.

There are not enough low-end discrete cards, which means you can forget about integrated solutions in practice. From the point of view of theory, it is curious that here they are quite close to each other, which is no wonder: when the main load falls on the GPU itself, no tricks in terms of memory work can help.

Still more pronounced than in the previous case. The only curious thing is that the HDG 4600 is faster than the Radeon HD 8670D. However, this is not practically significant.

Again, even a discrete card can’t cope, and its gap from integrated solutions increases up to three to five times. With the minimum quality, we recall, it was sometimes less than two. Those. the higher the requirements for the GPU, the greater the difference between the integrated and discrete versions of the latter. Which is more than expected, but not taken into account by everyone.

If you have a discrete video card, you can play, but the integrated one is not enough at all, and any. A similar picture was at the minimum FHD settings, only here it became even clearer. But nothing surprising — in general, cards of the level of at least Radeon R7 265 and higher are desirable for this game. And these games are not so few.

If at minimum settings this game is very gentle on the video system, then the increase in quality can bring to its knees much more powerful solutions than we are considering today. Those. The room for maneuver here is huge, but only owners of discrete video cards can successfully use it.

Sleeping Dogs behaves in a similar way, but the advantages of a discrete solution are even more visible. But the benefits from eDRAM disappear even more noticeably, because it doesn’t even reach the speed of texturing: GPUs themselves are still too weak. But weak in different ways, so that the integrated Radeon R7 can even overtake the Iris Pro. In practice, however, this does not matter, since both are still too slow.

And one more similar case confirms the above hypothesis ?

In general, as we can see, attempts to use modes with high image quality (even with reduced resolution) only on integrated graphics are usually doomed to failure.

Total

So what do we see? Low quality modes lend themselves well to modern integrated graphics. At least the best representatives of the latter. The idea with eDRAM is correct and logical — it allows you to ease the lack of memory bandwidth. Actually, thanks to this, the solutions of the Iris Pro line become the fastest in their class. Not necessarily Broadwell — Haswell is not much worse, but such modifications of the latter are not installed on the socket, which imposes its own specifics.

But can gamers be satisfied with low-quality modes? Probably not. In any case, if he is generally interested in modern games, at the minimum settings “modernity” easily disappears, often resembling a picture of a decade ago. Especially if you remember the high cost of Intel processors with GT3e — for this money you can buy something simpler, but with a good discrete graphics card. AMD solutions are much more affordable, and with an increase in image quality, they “sink” in performance weaker, since the GPUs themselves are still more powerful (and eDRAM cannot be fixed), but. But this does not fundamentally change anything — anyway, the final performance is too low, so the gamer does not have to seriously rely on the graphics capabilities of the AMD APUs.

What is in store for us in the near future? The processors of the Skylake line, according to forecasts, will eventually acquire GT4e-type graphic cores, where there will be more executive devices than before (actually, GT with the usual numbers will “grow up”, but much less noticeably, but the appearance of a new modification directly hints at radical changes) , and eDRAM. Moreover, support for DDR4 will increase the memory bandwidth — albeit not immediately, maybe. However, it does not follow from this that even such processors can cope with high-quality game modes from our methodology even at low resolutions — for this, performance must be increased by 3-5 times, which is unlikely to work. They will be able to overtake younger discrete video cards more often, but basically only where it’s either “enough already”, or “still fundamentally lacking”, so the fact of greater or lesser performance is not very important in itself.

In general, the progress in the area of ​​integrated graphics is clearly visible. But so far, from the point of view of a gamer, it is still not enough to fundamentally change the state of affairs. A full-fledged gaming computer, as before, must have a discrete graphics card, and more expensive than a processor. Which, by the way, makes Broadwell-C a bad gaming solution anyway (even with a discrete graphics card) — you can see that the advantages of the fourth level cache are not so great as to justify higher prices. If instead of 250X we used 290X (for example) they would be more noticeable, but all the same, this money is just better to spend on a video card — the return will be much greater. In addition, the limited heat pack interferes — the Core i5 often turns out to be slightly faster than the Core i7, which operates at a higher clock frequency, which is not close when comparing 4690K and 4770K. In general, Broadwell-C is initially a niche solution that is perfect for compact computers, but it has nothing special to do in a “regular” modular desktop: there is no need to “squeeze” into 65 W and you can use powerful video cards, or it’s good to save money if high video performance is not required.

AMD started Radeon R7 Graphics sales 11 January 2014. This is GCN 2.0 architecture desktop card based on 28 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at gamers.

In terms of compatibility, this is an integrated graphics card. An additional power cable is not required for connection, and the power consumption is 15 W.

We don’t have any test results for Radeon R7 Graphics.

AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri) is a DirectX 11.2 compatible graphics card integrated into some AMD Kaveri APUs. For example, the FX-7600P has 512 GCN shaders and 8 compute cores, while the FX-7500 has 384 shaders and 6 compute cores, depending on the APU model. Accordingly, the maximum operating frequencies change. In addition, ULV chips support DDR3-1600 memory, while standard power chips can support up to DDR3-2133.

Based on the new GCN 1.1 architecture, Kaveri graphics cards are more powerful and energy efficient than VLIW-based predecessors Richland and Trinity. So the Kaveri adapter can significantly speed up Adobe Photoshop using OpenCL and handle DirectX 11.2 «Tier 2» and AMD API resources.
The graphics capabilities in terms of video processing were also improved — the UVD 4.2 decoder (Unified Video Decoder) and the VCE 2.0 encoder (Video Codec Engine) were included in the video processor, the processing quality of the H.264 format improved in some respects, but H.265 is still still not fully supported in hardware.

Due to the fact that AMD Radeon R7, depending on the version, has a different number of shaders, clock speeds and memory version support, it also demonstrates different performance. For example, in the FX-7600P it can compete with the GeForce GT 740M, and in the FX-7500 with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M. This is enough to play games from 2014 at low and medium settings at a resolution of 1024×768 or 1366×768 pixels.

The graphics card’s TDP is rated at 19W for ULV chip models and 35W for standard power chips, so this 28nm graphics card is suitable for small to medium notebooks.

Manufacturer:	AMD
Series:	Radeon R
Code:	Kaveri
Architecture:	GCN 1.1
Threads:	512 — unified
Clock frequency:	553 — 686 * MHz
Memory bus width:	64/128 bit
Total memory:	yes
DirectX:	DirectX 11.2, Shader 5.0
Number of transistors:	2410 million
Technology:	28 nm
Optional:	UVD 4. 2, VCE 2.0
Notebook size:	medium
Release date:	06/04/2014