TechSpot: AMD Kaveri Dual Graphics Performance Test

Although the Steamroller cores in AMD's Kaveri-based A8-7600 APU brought a notable boost in CPU efficiency, it felt like the company was mostly focused on gaming performance with last month's update. The A8-7600 wasn't much faster than last year's A10-6800K, but it was quick enough to power modern titles such as BioShock Infinite and Tomb Raider without help from a discrete graphics card.

At the same time that AMD is beginning to deliver on a years-long promise of single-chip PC gaming, its effort toward Crossfiring integrated graphics with discrete graphics is finally maturing.

As AMD is beginning to deliver on a years-long promise of single-chip PC gaming, its effort toward Crossfiring integrated graphics with discrete graphics is finally maturing. Currently, Kaveri APUs can only be paired with one of two discrete GPUs: the Radeon R7 240 and R7 250. Both are sub-$100 cards that we wouldn't typically recommend gamers invest in, but when combined with the A10-7850K's on-die GPU, we could see performance that has bigger implications for value-oriented builders.

Read: AMD Kaveri Dual Graphics Performance Test

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

IDC: Windows Phone shipments up over 90 percent in 2013

Next Story

Microsoft, Google and others launch joint effort to free up more airwaves for Wi-Fi

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

either way, no matter what you think or say, AMD is really doing well in development. I've always liked AMD I'd say I have owned only one NON AMD system (CPU wise) since 1995.

then when AMD bought ATI, this was a blessing to the market which can keep the market fair and prices low by giving us choice. I stopped using Nvidia cards circa 2001/2002'ish. I've been with AMD ever since. I love underdogs..

I do to, but I love performance more, ever since multicore I've been with Intel. That said, I'm rooting for them too and hope their next offerings are good enough or better to go with them again. They also need to work with Adobe to get HW acceleration working like the "cuda" cores do with nvidia. That would put them back on the table for consideration from people like me that use their machines for both work and play.

chrisj1968 said,
either way, no matter what you think or say, AMD is really doing well in development. I've always liked AMD I'd say I have owned only one NON AMD system (CPU wise) since 1995.

then when AMD bought ATI, this was a blessing to the market which can keep the market fair and prices low by giving us choice. I stopped using Nvidia cards circa 2001/2002'ish. I've been with AMD ever since. I love underdogs..

Indeed! AMD <3 All my self-built desktops have AMD chips.

Hahaiah said,
I do to, but I love performance more, ever since multicore I've been with Intel. That said, I'm rooting for them too and hope their next offerings are good enough or better to go with them again. They also need to work with Adobe to get HW acceleration working like the "cuda" cores do with nvidia. That would put them back on the table for consideration from people like me that use their machines for both work and play.

Without AMD you wouldn't have multi-core Intels... or backwards compatible 64bit.
Intel put the bet on single-threaded. AMD put it to multi-threaded.
Unless you do a whole lot of video editing, the performance difference on the high end i7's and bulldozers is hardly noticeable. Gaming or otherwise, oh wow 3 FPS

Also Cuda, or OpenCL?

Considering an icore3 can outdo the mightiest of bulldozers with 8 freaking cores according to tomshardware I have to say AMD is an utter fail!

... saying this on an aging phenom II system.

If I had the dough to upgrade to a more modern processor that supported virtualization without an arm and leg with a crippled bios I would have already dumped this for an icore7.

sinetheo said,
Considering an icore3 can outdo the mightiest of bulldozers with 8 freaking cores according to tomshardware I have to say AMD is an utter fail!

... saying this on an aging phenom II system.

If I had the dough to upgrade to a more modern processor that supported virtualization without an arm and leg with a crippled bios I would have already dumped this for an icore7.

our loyalties are to AMD and obvious it's Intel for you.. i'll say again, AMD in the market makes for competition. if they didn't exist.. how much more would monopolistic Intel cost you?

I have an AMD phenom II 6 core only at 2.6 ghz and an ATI 7850 (came originally with a 5750). I am all AMD.

Their new cpus SUCK. Not fanboyism but facts on why they are failing. They even discontinued the ok piledriver ones for this apu garbage and that is close to an icore5 somewhat.

Go look at the MIPS? The newest systems per clock cycle or slower than a 2009 era phenom II. Intel keeps getting faster and faster while their lowest end i3's are now catching up. The i7 extremes are twice as fast at 120,000 mips.

Needless to say their new generation is terrible and should be renamed Pentium IV 2.0. They take 300 watts and perform like a 90 watt intel.

Haha... Keep thinking AMD chips are that weak. Keep betting on all your single-threaded Intel performance.

The future is multi-threading, and every proper multi-threading test shows AMD burns Intel into the ground.

Oh my, Intel is faster at single threaded processes... Well ladieda bro, enjoy the day of yesterday.

Shadowzz said,

Without AMD you wouldn't have multi-core Intels... or backwards compatible 64bit.
Intel put the bet on single-threaded. AMD put it to multi-threaded.
Unless you do a whole lot of video editing, the performance difference on the high end i7's and bulldozers is hardly noticeable. Gaming or otherwise, oh wow 3 FPS

Also Cuda, or OpenCL?

Wow, really????? That is a really interesting way of looking at history. Yes, AMD was first to market on consumer 64-bit processors, but you can't pretend that wasn't going to happen at some point. That would be almost as silly as if someone said that it was Intel's idea to take processors to the ghz level and if they didn't do it, no one ever would have. AMD was not first to bring duel cores on a single die to market.

It's questionable why someone would opt for an AMD A10-7850K + R7 250 instead of something like an Intel i3-4130 with a R7 260X. Faster CPU, faster graphics card, about the same price in total.

I went Trinity for my living room HTPC and really regret it now.

HSA has a ton of potential, as shown in some jaw-dropping benchmark results, but until software is designed to take advantage of it, it's not a great value for customers.

At the same time that AMD is beginning to deliver on a years-long promise of single-chip PC gaming, its effort toward Crossfiring integrated graphics with discrete graphics is finally maturing.

Don't edit this! It needs to be said twice!! This is something I've been wanting to hear for a good long time!

Hahaiah said,
Anyone find a comparison with this setup vs say a GTX 770 setup? I like the idea.

770 gtx is way more powerful and will blow this out of the water 100% of the time.. This would be only better then say maybe a 730 or a 640

"As AMD is beginning to deliver on a years-long promise of single-chip PC gaming, its effort toward Crossfiring integrated graphics with discrete graphics is finally maturing."

Isn't having this and and an incredibly similar paragraph above and below the picture unnecessary?

AMD is beginning to deliver on a years-long promise of single-chip PC gaming, its effort toward Crossfiring integrated graphics with discrete graphics is finally maturing.
Line repeated twice.