Jump to content



Photo

AMD 7850K Performance


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 xboxfan50

xboxfan50

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-November 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:11

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




#2 Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 13
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Debian Jessie
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SIII

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:21

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



#3 OP xboxfan50

xboxfan50

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-November 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:23

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

Performance for tasks such as programming and just general use. 



#4 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:28

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

 

http://www.techspot....cs-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.



#5 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 14
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:47

It's bad.

http://anandtech.com...00-a10-7850k/10

http://anandtech.com...00-a10-7850k/11

 

This CPU really shines in OpenCL workloads, for the money it's an incredible value for that kind of workload, but most apps don't use OpenCL at all.



#6 ShadowMajestic

ShadowMajestic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-April 10
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:49

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

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



#7 Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 13
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Debian Jessie
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SIII

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:53

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.



#8 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 29 April 2014 - 15:54

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.c...cpu-benchmarks/

 

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



#9 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 29 April 2014 - 16:10

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

http://www.bf4blog.c...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.



#10 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 29 April 2014 - 16:17

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.hardwarep...u-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

http://www.tomshardw...ce,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.



#11 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 29 April 2014 - 16:21

Nope, no difference:

http://www.hardwarep...u-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

http://www.tomshardw...ce,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...



#12 OP xboxfan50

xboxfan50

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 16-November 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 16:44

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



#13 Dead'Soul

Dead'Soul

    Think Simple!

  • Joined: 10-September 07
  • Location: Istanbul
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One

Posted 29 April 2014 - 16:49

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.



#14 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 29 April 2014 - 17:02

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.



#15 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 14
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 29 April 2014 - 17:07

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: