• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Carrizo Pre-release thread

Page 47 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So IMHO for ULV, I think the dual core is too weak. (Quad core only for low wattage processors. This to increase performance per watt)

But for 35 watt a dual core with a good amount of GCN enabled might be pretty interesting. (And with the possible side benefit of making the 35 watt iGPU only platform higher volume rather than being relatively exclusive).

P.S. If 35 watt dual core Carrizo were cheap enough (crossing fingers volume is high enough to drive down price), I would like to get one and informally test with a variety games. Betcha' there are quite a few games it could excel at. I'm already thinking of Skyrim with mods (ie, just how far can a person go with a 35 watt Carrizo dual core).
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
So IMHO for ULV, I think the dual core is too weak. (Quad core only for low wattage processors. This to increase performance per watt)

But for 35 watt a dual core with a good amount of GCN enabled might be pretty interesting. (And with the possible side benefit of making the 35 watt iGPU only platform higher volume rather than being relatively exclusive).
Click to expand...

There s no point in 2C Carrizo, with 10W devoted to the cores you can either have a 2 cores at 3.1 or 4 cores at 2.5, in aggregated GHz these are 6.2 and 10 totals respectively, that is 60% more throughput for the 4C solution.

Indeed the point of this APU is not to replace Beema, there s Carrizo-L for this, but to go after the i5/i7s, FTR the FX8800P does 3128 at 3DMark CPU score, a i7 benched at 28W is at about 3750.
 
Abwx,

If AMD releases a Athlon x 4 version of Carrizo, how high do you think it would clock? @ what power consumption levels?

AMD-Carrizo-Diapositivas-2.jpg


P.S. Assume they release it with a unlocked multiplier and it shows up on Mini-ITX boards? (Mini-ITX is somewhat expensive for FM2+ currently so I think that could be Carrizo's niche, although the ASRock A78 FM2+ Mini-ITX does drop to $65 AR from time to time)

EDIT: I just noticed the ASRock A78 FM2+ Mini-ITX is now $54.99 AR plus $2.99 shipping (<---that is a new price low for that board)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157478

13-157-478-TS
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
Abwx,

If AMD releases a Athlon x 4 version of Carrizo, how high do you think it would clock? @ what power consumption levels?

P.S. Assume they release it with a unlocked multiplier and it shows up on Mini-ITX boards? (Mini-ITX is somewhat expensive for FM2+ currently so I think that would be Carrizo's niche, although the ASRock A78 FM2+ Mini-ITX does drop to $65 AR from time to time)
Click to expand...

cbn, i would expect a 3.3/3.6(four cores)/4.0(one core) GHZ Carrizo, topping at 65W TDP and performing a little bit behind A10-7870K.
 
el etro said:
cbn, i would expect a 3.3/3.6(four cores)/4.0(one core) GHZ Carrizo, topping at 65W TDP and performing a little bit behind A10-7870K.
Click to expand...

That would be pretty decent on the clocks, although I do wonder how the reduced cache would affect performance?

Still it would be interesting to think about such a chip on budget BGA Mini-ITX board vs. Athlon x 4 860K on ASRock A78 FM2+ Mini-ITX (which is apparently a decent mobo with the exception of many complaints from users about the board not shipping with the latest BIOS to support Athlon x4 860K)
 
Regarding Athlon x4 860K vs. other budget processors my opinion is that the FX-6300 is generally faster and that the G3258 works much better than my Athlon x 4 860K when using AMD R7 250X in BF4 64 player.

However, FX-6300 cannot be had in Mini-ITX and G3258 (in my experience) doesn't work so well with my Nvidia GTX 660 (though I still plan to experiment with this).

Therefore, one niche (as I see it) for Athlon x4 860K or Carrizo Athlon x4 would be Mini-ITX and (ironically) Nvidia.

EDIT: I am not sure why I am experiencing better performance from my R7 250X with Intel G3258 and likewise better performance with Athlon x4 860K when using Nvidia? I'm been guessing it has to do with Nvidia's multi-threaded graphics drivers? Whereas AMD has a single threaded graphics driver. (And thus my AMD card pairs better with G3258 and 660 GTX pairs better with Athlon x4 860K)
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
Abwx,

If AMD releases a Athlon x 4 version of Carrizo, how high do you think it would clock? @ what power consumption levels?
Click to expand...

There will be no such chip because it doesnt really make sense if it has no GPU, in respect of Kaveri and if AVFS work as expected it could reach 3.2 at 28-30W for the SoC.

3.6 will get you to 45-50W, you can see that it s not designed for frequencies significantly above 3.0 with all cores loaded, at this TDP a slightly undervolted Kaveri will be about as good.

If we look at Planet 3D 7650K review they got 46W at most (under X264 loading) at stock with 28.5% voltage margin, reducing the margin to 16.8% would get it down to 38W at its stock 3.3Ghz.

16.8% voltage is almost server class requirement (20% minimum for servers), the fact that Kaveri is also used as embedded chip can explain the higher than usual stock voltage margins, in such usages stability is much more important than for consumers products, hence efficency is traded for this critical parameter, just imagine how it is important for chips used in industrial environments, let s say in chemical plants...
 
Abwx said:
There will be no such chip because it doesnt really make sense if it has no GPU, in respect of Kaveri and if AVFS work as expected it could reach 3.2 at 28-30W for the SoC.
Click to expand...

If socket AM1 Athlon x 4 530 and 550 gets released (which my MSI AM1l supports --> http://www.msi.com/support/mb/AM1I.html#support-cpu), then there very well could be a Carrizo Athlon x 4 if AMD follows the same trend.

P.S. Looking at the ASRock A78 FM2+, it looks like something that is relatively expensive to make:

FM2A78M-ITX+(m).jpg


.....And I have to imagine how much cheaper/easier a Carrizo Mini-ITX board would be to make in comparison.
 
AM1 is a dumping-ground for Kabinis they couldn't sell elsewhere. It is not wise to assume that AMD will make market decisions for other platforms based on what we have seen from AM1.

I agree that we will likely never see an iGPU-less Carrizo CPU.
 
DrMrLordX said:
AM1 is a dumping-ground for Kabinis they couldn't sell elsewhere. It is not wise to assume that AMD will make market decisions for other platforms based on what we have seen from AM1.
Click to expand...

Carrizo without iGPU (on Mini-ITX board) would just be the same thing. (ie, Carrizo with defect to Media or display that won't sell in a notebook, etc). Except in this situation the part doesn't even need a new socket (just use BGA).
 
cbn said:
If socket AM1 Athlon x 4 530 and 550 gets released (which my MSI AM1l supports --> http://www.msi.com/support/mb/AM1I.html#support-cpu), then there very well could be a Carrizo Athlon x 4 if AMD follows the same trend.

P.S. Looking at the ASRock A78 FM2+, it looks like something that is relatively expensive to make:

.....And I have to imagine how much cheaper/easier a Carrizo Mini-ITX board would be to make in comparison.
Click to expand...

An A78 ITX has the same components as an equivalent A78 uATX/ATX, and a smaller board, so it s not more expensive to build, it s the smaller surface and hence higher density that give this impression of higher tech...😉

If the AM1 plateform had sold in bigger quantities they would have evalued the possibility to either release a few Beema based chips, or eventualy update it completely with some kind of AM1+ for Carrizo, but since people didnt reward enough what was quite a builders friendly plateform, due to the socket, they wont bother continuing the experience and will rely, as announced, to BGA like Intel did for the NUCs..

I guess that people current choices decide what will be proposed in the future, since people are not bothered to buy BGA based BTs instead of socketed AM1 then AMD has no reason to keep on producing more expensive socketed low power APUs, that s one more consumer friendly approach that will go down the drain due to the irrationality of the consumers..
 
Right now I have my Athlon x 4 860K downclocked to 3.4 Ghz (with turbo disabled) and am informally testing with my GTX 660 at 1280 x 1024( high and ultra settings) on BF4 64 player.

So far so good.....If some type of Carrizo x4 can match Kaveri @ 3.4 Ghz (turbo disabled) despite the lowered cache then I think it might get interesting if we see those chips integrated on some low cost BGA Mini-ITX boards.

P.S. If we see Carrizo APUs on Mini-ITX as well, I think it would be interesting if some of the BGA boards got a M.2 ultra slot as well. In fact, maybe it could be that a smaller dGPU also works with the remaining PCIe 3.0 x 4.
 
Abwx said:
There s no point in 2C Carrizo, with 10W devoted to the cores you can either have a 2 cores at 3.1 or 4 cores at 2.5, in aggregated GHz these are 6.2 and 10 totals respectively, that is 60% more throughput for the 4C solution.
Click to expand...

I generally agree, but with Intel releasing 2C/4T Pentium 3825U (Broadwell) if AMD is going to release a 2C Carrizo they might as well make it a 35 watt one.

Then with 35 watts available they can afford to enable a greater amount of the available GCN stream processors.
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
I generally agree, but with Intel releasing 2C/4T Pentium 3825U (Broadwell) .
Click to expand...

If it s the same "15W" as the rest of the BDW line up i think that this CPU is nothing to worry about, noticed this in Intel specs about this CPU :


Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.
Click to expand...

Lol....
 
Dont know exactly what is the reliability of Geekbench, i suppose that comparison of a same uarch evolutions can be accurate enough while comparison between different uarches like in the case below must be weighted at some point, anyway and very grossly the FX8800P should perform like a 2.7GHz Kabini if Geekbench is of any relevance.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/1863979?baseline=2614473

According to the informed at SA the chip is likely running at 2.3, i think that this should still be within a 15W thermal envelloppe, in wich case Carrizo perf/Watt advantage over Core M would be the one provided by a full node advantage, quite ironic given those chips respective processes...
 
Last edited:
Abwx said:
Dont know exactly what is the reliability of Geekbench, i suppose that comparison of a same uarch evolutions can be accurate enough while comparison between different uarches like in the case below must be weighted at some point, anyway and very grossly the FX8800P should perform like a 2.7GHz Kabini if Geekbench is of any relevance.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/1863979?baseline=2614473

According to the informed at SA the chip is likely running at 2.3, i think that this should still be within a 15W thermal envelloppe, in wich case Carrizo perf/Watt advantage over Core M would be the one provided by a full node advantage, quite ironic given those chips respective processes...
Click to expand...

And do you believe in yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top