Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
xboxfan50

AMD 7850K Performance

37 posts in this topic

Hi, was considering a build with a AMD 7850K APU. Has anyone had any experience with the CPU performance side of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preformance in... Gaming? CPU matters nothing in games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preformance in... Gaming? CPU matters nothing in games.

Performance for tasks such as programming and just general use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick glance at some benchmarks shows that the CPU performance is rather poor compared to even an Intel i3.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/781-amd-a10-7850k-graphics-performance/

 

It does have a good advantage with the integrated graphics, which is pretty much the point of getting an APU.  A discreet GPU will still be better though.

 

Overall, unless you're building a budget gaming PC and don't want a discreet GPU, I wouldn't recommend one of these.

An i3 will give you better general use performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preformance in... Gaming? CPU matters nothing in games.

Okay, go play BF4 with Ultra graphics on a dual core.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, go play BF4 with Ultra graphics on a dual core.

 

I should have said most... Most games don't use multi-cores, 4 at that.

 

But as he is not planning on gaming, this is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, go play BF4 with Ultra graphics on a dual core.

Actually a dual core can get an average of 60fps on ultra just fine:

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

 

Obviously there are advantages to quad cores, but it's certainly playable maxed on even a low-end i3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a dual core can get an average of 60fps on ultra just fine:

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

 

Obviously there are advantages to quad cores, but it's certainly playable maxed on even a low-end i3.

Based on real world experience, even my i5-2500 drops below 60 fps in bf4 multiplayer pretty frequently, especially on the more intensive mp maps like seige of shanghai, where it would frequently drop down to ~40 on certain parts of the map regardless of video settings (in DX11 mode at least, with the new mantle renderer I can play bf4 without ever dropping below 60 fps! However I doubt that even with mantle a dual core apu would avg 60 fps in bf4 multiplayer), and that's on a mix of high/med/ultra.

 

that benchmark didn't give any detains about the test scenarios, so I will assume that like most other bf4 benchmarks, it was benching single player, which is far less cpu intensive than mp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on real world experience, even my i5-2500 drops below 60 fps in bf4 multiplayer pretty frequently, especially on the more intensive mp maps like seige of shanghai, where it would frequently drop down to ~40 on certain parts of the map regardless of video settings (in DX11 mode at least, with the new mantle renderer I can play bf4 without ever dropping below 60 fps!), and that's on a mix of high/med/ultra.

 

that benchmark didn't give any detains about the test scenarios, so I will assume that like most other bf4 benchmarks, it was benching single player, which is far less cpu intensive than mp.

Nope, no difference:

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html

 

Dual core on Ultra has been perfectly fine since the original beta.  With driver improvements and game updates over the past year, it's pretty safe to assume frame rates have improved since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, no difference:

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html

 

Dual core on Ultra has been perfectly fine since the original beta.  With driver improvements over the past year, it's pretty safe to assume frame rates have improved slightly since then.

Based on my experience with an intel quad core in bf4, I'd eat my mouse before I believe a dual core can play 64 player seige of shanghai without dropping significantly below 60 fps ;)

 

On the first article you linked, note the FX8350, which is a much more powerful cpu than this APU. min FPS 46, avg 50.... The i3 4340, again averaging ~50, and an amd dual core will be less performant than an i3 in gaming.

 

I think bf4 with an apu could be playable, especially with mantle, however suggesting that one would average 60 fps on ultra isn't realistic.

 

anyway, this is all rather off topic, since OP isn't even asking about gaming performance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses so far everyone! :) I probably should have mentioned this in the original post. What I wanted to do was build a quiet, small and fast/powerful PC, but nothing too expensive. I want to do some decent gaming on it as well as other tasks such as programming. 

 

Ideally I wanted a Mini-ITX setup which would fit nicely on my desk in a case like this:

 

Wesena_Mini_ITX2_HTPC_Case.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use these APU's for a long time, now using 6800K, 7850 must be better...

 

For CPU performance, A10 is much better than i3, comparable with low end i5.

 

GPU? Not the best, but fast enough to run most games with respectable resolutions.

 

These APU's has one killer feature: soo low power consumption and near zero heat. a cheap 250W psu is capable to run that without discrete gpu.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use these APU's for a long time, now using 6800K, 7850 must be better...

 

For CPU performance, A10 is much better than i3, comparable with low end i5.

 

GPU? Not the best, but fast enough to run most games with respectable resolutions.

 

These APU's has one killer feature: soo low power consumption and near zero heat. a cheap 250W psu is capable to run that without discrete gpu.

The benchmarks say exactly the opposite on just about all of your claims.

 

CPU performance is considerably better on an i3 than this.

Power consumption under heavy load will be almost double than on an i3.  And that will equate to more heat.

The A10-7850K is rated at 95W.  An i3-4340 is rated at 54W.  AMD has always been known to be power hungry, so it's no secret or anything.

A 250W PSU is sufficient for basically any PC without a discreet GPU.  Moot point.

 

Just getting the facts straight, no offense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses so far everyone! :) I probably should have mentioned this in the original post. What I wanted to do was build a quiet, small and fast/powerful PC, but nothing too expensive. I want to do some decent gaming on it as well as other tasks such as programming. 

 

Ideally I wanted a Mini-ITX setup which would fit nicely on my desk in a case like this:

I'd suggest an Intel i3 and a GTX 750Ti or Radeon HD 265. If you go with these APUs you'll probably find the gaming performance inadequate and end up adding a discrete card anyway, so the IGP will be useless to you. Speaking from experience  :pinch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest an Intel i3 and a GTX 750Ti or Radeon HD 265. If you go with these APUs you'll probably find the gaming performance inadequate and end up adding a discrete card anyway, so the IGP will be useless to you. Speaking from experience  :pinch:

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't i3 dual core and not quad core? Also Intel motherboards seem to be a fair bit for expensive than AMD motherboards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benchmarks say exactly the opposite on just about all of your claims.

 

CPU performance is considerably better on an i3 than this.

Power consumption under heavy load will be almost double than on an i3.  And that will equate to more heat.

The A10-7850K is rated at 95W.  An i3-4340 is rated at 54W.  AMD has always been known to be power hungry, so it's no secret or anything.

A 250W PSU is sufficient for basically any PC without a discreet GPU.  Moot point.

 

Just getting the facts straight, no offense.

Intel graphics aren't as suitable for gaming as the APU's graphics though, so for power consumption of the whole build you'd probably be factoring in a cheap discrete gpu along with the intel gpu for an i3 build, if any gaming is desired.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't i3 dual core and not quad core? Also Intel motherboards seem to be a fair bit for expensive than AMD motherboards.

Yes, i3 is dual core + hyperthreading, however in windows task manager it will show 4 'cores', due to hyperthreading adding two additional 'virtual' cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't i3 dual core and not quad core? Also Intel motherboards seem to be a fair bit for expensive than AMD motherboards.

Yes it's a dual-core, but it's the least expensive and is still very adequate for gaming. Go for the i5 if you can spare the money for it of course.  Gigabyte makes a relatively inexpensive mini-ITX Intel motherboard IIRC (~115$).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel graphics aren't as suitable for gaming as the APU's graphics though, so for power consumption of the whole build you'd probably be factoring in a cheap discrete gpu along with the intel gpu for an i3 build, if any gaming is desired.

Not necessarily.  There are plenty of people out there that play BF4 with an Intel HD4600, and it's plays reasonably well.

An APU obviously has the advantage here, but overall taking into account CPU performance, power consumption, and price, an i3 is a much better value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't i3 dual core and not quad core? Also Intel motherboards seem to be a fair bit for expensive than AMD motherboards.

You can find Intel mini-ITX mobos for anywhere from $60 to $200+.  You actually have cheaper and many more options with Intel than with AMD (at least going by what Newegg offers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an A10-7850K in an Asrock Extreme6+ mobo.  16 GB ram@1866, and dual (crossfire) R9-270X video cards.

 

I can play any game so far  @1080P at high to ultra quality.  Games I play:

 

TES: Skyrim

Battlefield 4

Civilization V (don't laugh, it eats your CPU)

Arkham games (asylum, city)

VTMB

Torchlight and Torchlight II

TES: Oblivion

Fallout 3, New Vegas

Spore

Tomb Raider

Bioshock (all installments)

and...

Bejeweled

 

I do, however, have my CPU overclocked to 4.3.

 

One thing I have run into with this particular mobo is (I believe) the VRM overheating issue...  Also, running crossfire with beta drivers every once in awhile the two cards get out of sync somehow and crazy things happen.  Sometimes they recover, sometimes I have to exit the game and get back into it.

 

With this system overclocked to 4.3 it performs quite well and is a match for my older FX-8350 system with 8 cores; for compilation (I am a software engineer) and running JBOSS, eclipse and other java-based apps it is equal to the aforementioned FX build which was very similar.  HOWEVER, losing 4 cores does affect any processing that loves more cores.  On the other hand, HSA and CGN enabled apps will soar.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should note that my previous machine were an FX-8350 build and an i7-2600K (if I remember correctly, my son has that machine now)...

 

I did do some compilation and server speed comparisons on my blog and found that the intel outperformed both AMD CPUs by a relatively small margin (time-wise for compilation, startup, etc.) which is to be expected with the lack of pervasive multi-threading and parallel processing in these apps (altho' perhaps Java 8 and 9 will change that) and the lower single-core processing power of the AMD architecture.  An example would be JBOSS 4 starting / loading our product (connecting via VPN to all our services in the process, across the country):  Intel would take 9 seconds, AMD 12 seconds.  Compilation of our main site, 59 seconds for Intel, 1:12 for AMD.

 

I don't work in C anymore so I couldn't help you there.

 

There are products coming out with optimizations for AMD CPUs such as WinZip (unzipping files is phenomenally fast), LibreOffice, etc.  As another user noted, apps that will use OpenCL will certain benefit from AMDs architecture.

 

My reason for choosing Kaveri for my current build was because I am an enthusiast.  I love architectural concepts that are "different" being implemented and I had to have it.   :)  But anyway, if you have any questions feel free to ping me.

Edited by Tuishimi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using the A10-7850K now.  I very much like the build, though it isn't entirely finished yet.

 

Nothing feels slow at all.  If you want pure performance I'd go with i5/i7, but IMO the A10s features will make it last longer.

 

As mentioned, OpenCL apps are available and HSA ones are likely coming...though I doubt it'll be 'soon.'  Mantle is cool too, since it can use the GPU with a different workload from the dedicated GPU.

 

Once I can stop building my friend a computer I'll get back to finishing this thing. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benchmarks say exactly the opposite on just about all of your claims.

 

CPU performance is considerably better on an i3 than this.

Power consumption under heavy load will be almost double than on an i3.  And that will equate to more heat.

The A10-7850K is rated at 95W.  An i3-4340 is rated at 54W.  AMD has always been known to be power hungry, so it's no secret or anything.

A 250W PSU is sufficient for basically any PC without a discreet GPU.  Moot point.

 

Just getting the facts straight, no offense.

 

Benchmarks arent all, I have an FX4100 OC'd at 4ghz (2 cores, 2 at 3.8ghz) and BF4 easily eats up 80%

Not the strongest CPU available, but I'm pretty sure the FX4100 outperforms any i3. And looking at your precious benchmarks, it does.

 

I do have an Nvidia though, so no mantle. But with me about 50% of the gamers do(those that play BF4 that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benchmarks arent all, I have an FX4100 OC'd at 4ghz (2 cores, 2 at 3.8ghz) and BF4 easily eats up 80%

Not the strongest CPU available, but I'm pretty sure the FX4100 outperforms any i3. And looking at your precious benchmarks, it does.

 

I do have an Nvidia though, so no mantle. But with me about 50% of the gamers do(those that play BF4 that is).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at...

Of course it eats up 80% since it's a dual core.  The benchmarks clearly show that.

I wasn't comparing to a FX4100, so nothing that you just said made any sense in the context being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.