AMD recently introduced another model in its A-series APU family called the A10-7800. While we already know a lot about the Kaveri architecture, this particular chip's power profile makes it more interesting than the performance-oriented incarnations.
It'd be easy to dismiss AMD's A10-7800 as just another APU after a quick look at the Kaveri-based chip's spec sheet. After all, the flagship A10-7850K, which sports an unlocked clock multiplier, has already been out for a while. And there are also several models at the lower end of the performance spectrum. So, why review the A10-7800? It sounds like an A10-7850K-light, and isn't even that much cheaper than the company's highest-end offering.
But the newest model emphasizes performance per watt, rather than trying to push just benchmark results, which put it on our radar. After setting aside all of AMD's marketing material associated with the -7800, we drilled down on the APU's main selling point, rather than writing the 1001st story filled with benchmarks about it. Is this the sweet spot of AMD's Kaveri design, making it the most efficient APU ever?
Our purpose is assessing the gaming and compute performance of the A10-7800, flanked by sophisticated power measurements.
This isn't going to be just another APU review. We'll underclock an A10-7850K and overclock the A10-7700K to -7800 levels. The experiments will be accompanied by detailed readings from expensive lab equipment and, in the end, we'll determine whether AMD’s A10-7800 deserves to assume that sweet-spot position.
But first, let’s look at a table of the four fastest Kaveri-based models:
| Products |
|
|
|
|
| Pricing |
|
|
|
|
| Cores/Threads | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Clock (Base) | 3.7 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Maximum Turbo Core Frequency | 4.0 GHz | 3.9 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB | 4 MB | 4 MB |
| Graphics Engine | Radeon R7 | Radeon R7 | Radeon R7 | Radeon R7 |
| Compute Units | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Shaders | 512 | 512 | 384 | 384 |
| Graphics Frequency | 720 MHz | 720 MHz | 720 MHz | 720 MHz |
| TDP | 95 W | 65 W | 95 W | 65 W |
| Street Price | $170 | $166 | $160 | $110 |
While the A8-7600 isn't going to be benchmarked today, it's included in the table for the sake of completeness.

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/