While we don’t want to rely on synthetic benchmarks, we'll use a couple to illustrate the potential gains of OpenCL and AMD's HSA initiative as those efforts start to take hold.
LuxMark 2.0
In order to assess the A10-7800's capabilities, we run three separate tests: CPU-only, GPU-only, and both combined. While we might have expected the more resource-laden APUs to win, Intel's Core i3-4330 and its superior IPC still puts in a strong showing. Let’s start with just the CPU:

We naturally expect the Haswell design to fare well in a CPU-only measure of performance. But while the win is unsurprising, the magnitude of Intel's advantage is fairly overwhelming. Favor is shifted to AMD by only using the on-chip graphics engine:

Intel's HD Graphics implementation is outclassed by Graphics Core Next in the Kaveri design. But what happens when CPU and GPU resources are utilized simultaneously?

Just as Bill Murray likes to photobomb pictures, the Core i3-4330 sneaks right in the middle of AMD’s family photo. One of the reasons appears to be that the Core i3's CPU and GPU scores are added together, yielding an aggregate, while the APUs are weighed differently. Perhaps one on-chip complex or the other isn't running at peak performance under a combined full load.
HSA: A Great Idea in Need of Software Support
Leading up to the Kaveri APU introduction, AMD put a lot of effort into evangelizing the benefits of its HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) initiative. Again, if you want to know more, read our Kaveri launch article. However, even now, several months later, the number of applications exploiting HSA remains small. That's a disappointing state of affairs, since the fundamentals of HSA are enticing.
Moving on from theory to practice, the LibreOffice benchmark originally provided by AMD impressively documents the value proposition of HSA. Once again, we conduct three separate test runs: CPU-only, OpenCL-only, and HSA. Since Intel CPUs do not support HSA, they aren't represented in the third chart. And we didn’t bother benchmarking the outdated Core i3-2100 at all.
Let’s start with the CPU-only chart, which, as we might expect, the Core i3-4330 dominates:

Thirty-seven percent higher performance. Such an advantage cries for an OpenCL-based rematch. Said and done. Surprisingly, Intel’s relatively modest graphics engine is slower than its CPU. Or perhaps the company's drivers are to blame.

It'd be easy to guess that a seeded test like this one would favor AMD's hardware. And it does, demonstrating what a highly parallelized workload can do on hardware with the necessary support. Those gray bars are for comparison only. They depict the execution times of Intel's Core i3-4330 and AMD's A10-7800 in software and OpenCL modes.

Looking at the HSA-based results after the numbers generated with OpenCL turned on reminds us of a quote attributed to General LeMay. When asked about the purpose of a nuclear second strike capability, he replied, "To make the cinders dance". However, not every application is suitable for HSA optimizations, and adoption of the initiative by the software industry is thus far disappointing.
What about comparing those numbers with other offerings? (Intel?)
Maybe the new consoles lack CPU power (even if they are 8 core, the 1,6Ghz/1,75Ghz cripples them), their GPU part is far more powerful than existing APUs.
PS4's GPU has cores like 7870 and XBOX1 has cores like 7790, in other words more powerful than the 512 core R7 which exists in today's best APU A10-7850K.
I have a friend with a 7850K and a 260X and he's dying to know if he can CrossFire.
"I see no point in buying a processor that emphasizes on-die graphics and then adding a Radeon R7 265X. Yes, AMD officially recommends it and yes, we tried it out." Can I take this as a yes ?
Maybe the new consoles lack CPU power (even if they are 8 core, the 1,6Ghz/1,75Ghz cripples them), their GPU part is far more powerful than existing APUs.
PS4's GPU has cores like 7870 and XBOX1 has cores like 7790, in other words more powerful than the 512 core R7 which exists in today's best APU A10-7850K.
Not accurate.
PS4 GPU is a crippled and downclocked 7850 (disabled cores enhance redundancy and less dead chips)
XB1 GPU is a crippled and downclocked R7 260X (as above) and like the 7790 should have AMD True Audio onboard, but they could have changed that. This actually means that CPU intensive and low resolution games are going to suck because the 8 cores are just Jaguar netbook processors.
The reality is that PS4 is almost cpu limited already and the XB1 is more balanced. Now that we've finished speaking of "sufficient" platforms let's talk about the fact that a CPU from AMD and the word efficient are in the same phrase.
Not accurate.
PS4 GPU is a crippled and downclocked 7850 (disabled cores enhance redundancy and less dead chips)
The reality is that PS4 is almost cpu limited already and the XB1 is more balanced. Now that we've finished speaking of "sufficient" platforms let's talk about the fact that a CPU from AMD and the word efficient are in the same phrase.
The PS4 will be CPU limited? Since they write the code/API according to a hardware that it will remain the same for like 7-8 years, such thing as CPU limited especially for a console that runs the majority of games at 1080p, does not exist...
ps: I agree with the downclocked part since they need to save as much power as they can...
Maybe the new consoles lack CPU power (even if they are 8 core, the 1,6Ghz/1,75Ghz cripples them), their GPU part is far more powerful than existing APUs.
PS4's GPU has cores like 7870 and XBOX1 has cores like 7790, in other words more powerful than the 512 core R7 which exists in today's best APU A10-7850K.
Not accurate.
PS4 GPU is a crippled and downclocked 7850 (disabled cores enhance redundancy and less dead chips)
XB1 GPU is a crippled and downclocked R7 260X (as above) and like the 7790 should have AMD True Audio onboard, but they could have changed that. This actually means that CPU intensive and low resolution games are going to suck because the 8 cores are just Jaguar netbook processors.
The reality is that PS4 is almost cpu limited already and the XB1 is more balanced. Now that we've finished speaking of "sufficient" platforms let's talk about the fact that a CPU from AMD and the word efficient are in the same phrase.
PS4 is 1152:72:32 at 800MHz, 7850 is 1024:64:32@ 900MHz or so (860MHz release?) It is not a "crippled 7850", the 7850 is a crippled pitcairn (20 CUs is the full fat 7870, PS4 has 18, 7850 16 CUs). "CPU limited" is very PC orientated thinking, things like offloading compute to the GPU will help. No, I'm not saying their CPUs are "good" but they will find ways of offloading that work onto the GPU.
Yes, but the A8-7600 has a 384-shader GPU. I suppose it depends on whether you want to use the GPU or not.
"I see no point in buying a processor that emphasizes on-die graphics and then adding a Radeon R7 265X. Yes, AMD officially recommends it and yes, we tried it out." Can I take this as a yes ?
This needs to be explained more... There is a lot of people that would love to use a 260x let alone a 265x
"I see no point in buying a processor that emphasizes on-die graphics and then adding a Radeon R7 265X. Yes, AMD officially recommends it and yes, we tried it out." Can I take this as a yes ?
This needs to be explained more... There is a lot of people that would love to use a 260x let alone a 265x
Yes chances are you can crossfire them without having a crash or something, but its a terrible idea to do it. Instead of increasing your performance in games, your FPS would drop by more than half and your power consumption would increase greatly. Its never a good idea to crossfire with the integrated graphics, it just doesn't go well.
how did we miss this when Kaveri came out?
Yes, but the A8-7600 has a 384-shader GPU. I suppose it depends on whether you want to use the GPU or not.
Still, the non-synthetic GPU-related tests (gaming, OpenCL) shows little difference between A10-7800 & A8-7600. In most cases it falls within 10% and NEVER reaches theoretical 25% - even 20.
The mobo I am looking for next is probably going to be a server based board. When the AMD Socket G34 was released, there were a few desktop variants.
Also, I was wondering whether you could expand on the HSA benchmark- it sounds very interesting but you offer no information on what it actually does (except that it was originally provided by AMD)...
For example- how much data does this benchmark actually use?
Did you try increasing/decreasing the amount of data to see where HSA starts being effective?
Also in HSA- comparing between the processors by percentage seems pretty misleading (and is not the way it is done in other benchmarks)... is it possible to add absolute measurements here?
"I see no point in buying a processor that emphasizes on-die graphics and then adding a Radeon R7 265X. Yes, AMD officially recommends it and yes, we tried it out." Can I take this as a yes ?
This needs to be explained more... There is a lot of people that would love to use a 260x let alone a 265x
Yes chances are you can crossfire them without having a crash or something, but its a terrible idea to do it. Instead of increasing your performance in games, your FPS would drop by more than half and your power consumption would increase greatly. Its never a good idea to crossfire with the integrated graphics, it just doesn't go well.
hat is not true according to AMD. Could not find it on AMD website but read this. http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-dual-graphics-works-ddr3-memory-based-radeon-r7-gpus/