GTA V CPU benches - AMD gets hammered (again)

[VirtualLarry]

A video of the A8 7600 running it at 1368X768 on medium settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgyEVfUXy0

Wow. And they consider that to be a "game". If they can call a game with a goat, "Goat Simulator", then they should have called GTA V, "Murder Simulator".

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wow. And they consider that to be a "game". If they can call a game with a goat, "Goat Simulator", then they should have called GTA V, "Murder Simulator".

Well, they had to pick some scenes without too many npcs or too much going on on the APU would tank.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Now that is nice, a 20W Carrizo with DDR-4 2133MHz will be able to play at NATIVE 1368x768 every game at 30fps or more including newest AAA titles.

Im sure hope someone will produce a cheap 14" 1368x768, iGPU only Carrizo with DDR-4 2133MHz memory.

Really, could I see those benchmarks? Oh, wait, there arent any because the chip doesnt even exist yet. That A8-7600 is 65watts, and the game is barely playable. You think Carrizo will have 3x the performance per watt?

 

[Phynaz]

Now that is nice, a 20W Carrizo with DDR-4 2133MHz will be able to play at NATIVE 1368x768 every game at 30fps or more including newest AAA titles.

Im sure hope someone will produce a cheap 14" 1368x768, iGPU only Carrizo with DDR-4 2133MHz memory.

I call bs. Have any proof at all for that statement?

 

[USER8000]

Well, they had to pick some scenes without too many npcs or too much going on on the APU would tank.

Not really - it appears you never played the game at all,and you are making up more shifting goalposts.

So,15 minutes of gameplay and you are desperate to bang the same thing again. Or is it that you are desperate to hide the fact that an Intel IGP would not be even able to run the game at even at 30FPS??

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not really - it appears you never played the game at all,and you are making up more shifting goalposts.

So,15 minutes of gameplay and you are desperate to bang the same thing again.

Must of checked your sense of humor at the door huh?

 

[USER8000]

A video of the A8 7600 running it at 1368X768 on medium settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgyEVfUXy0

Another video when running at 1280X720 on medium settings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bt1fXoStso

The framerates are reasonably smoothly delivered it appears.

In the UK that is a sub £70 CPU and even a Core is close to £90 here. With the A68 motherboards now under £40,and the high speed DDR3 costing the same as slower stuff here,that is basically a £40 graphics card in a sub £70 CPU.

The reason why people are raising the bar on purpose,is since even at low resolution the vast majority of Intel IGPs(outside Iris Pro with L4 cache),cannot even run newish games like GTAV even at 30FPS(or more) at that resolution. So instead of admitting AMD can actually run more modern games,they set the bar high so they can exclude the AMD advantage in this scenario and say the performance of both the IGPs in Intel Core i3 and AMD APUs are realistically the same in their view.

But,expect the narrative to change with the socketed Broadwell Core i5 CPUs with L4 cache. Even these were 5% faster than a cheaper AMD APU for IGP graphics,suddenly expect the Intel "advantage" to be one,and how suddenly it is amazing you can run newish games on them.

Oh wait,didn't that happen when the Haswell Iris Pro chips with L4 cache were announced??

I have a Core i7 and a GTX660TI myself currently,but still was surprised that the Llano and Trinity APU systems I had a muck around wih could run more games than I could expect,and was pleasantly surprised.

I do agree that the higher end APUs are too expensive though. The A10 7850K is not worth its price of around £110. For that money you could get a G3258 or an X4 860K and get a better discrete card for not much more.

Must of checked your sense of humor at the door huh?

No,its called shifting goalposts from your previous post. The problem is that you are so emotionally vested into thinking IGPs can't run games,when any evidence is show to the contrary,you will just shift it more and more. Kind of what I predicted.

But thats the problem with too many PC enthusiasts. E-PEEN.

We should be happy that a cheap CPU with an IGP can at least run a reasonable gamut of games. Its a sub £70 CPU FFS.

At least it makes the PC a viable gaming platform even on tiny budgets,and puts more gamers onto the PC platform,which is good.

But hey,maybe people should get consoles if they don't have a huge amount to spend on hardware,right??

Lets artificially raise the entry level price of PC gaming because that will NEVER make people just get consoles instead?!

PC Master race E-PEEN fail. Better to exclude if people don't have their Titan X and R9 295X2 cards right, and don't run games at 4K at 124FPS??

Go consoles!!!!

Picard Facepalm.

I am actually happy that BOTH Intel and AMD are improving IGP performance at each generation and not listening to forum experts. I really hope that Intel starts putting some L4 cache on future Core i3 CPUs once costs have gone down.

It simply opens up PC gaming to a wider range of people,especially those in the rest of the world where the relative cost of PC hardware is much higher and those not wanting to use desktops or pay the premium for expensive gaming laptops,which is most of the market.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Really, could I see those benchmarks? Oh, wait, there arent any because the chip doesnt even exist yet. That A8-7600 is 65watts, and the game is barely playable. You think Carrizo will have 3x the performance per watt?

There are some 3dMark scores for the flagship 8800P:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9453670

Compare this to Anandtech's review of the 7600:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/14

Now, I would expect the phsyics portion of the score to be higher for the A8-7600. But the 8800P has more GCN cores, so overall, it's going to put up a better 3dMark11 score. It's a shame we don't have numbers for it on Ice Storm etc. Also, what's interesting here is that the 8800p shows up even the 7850k! How you like them apples?

I am actually happy that BOTH Intel and AMD are improving IGP performance at each generation and not listening to forum experts. I really hope that Intel starts putting some L4 cache on future Core i3 CPUs once costs have gone down.

I agree, though perhaps for different reasons.

 

[USER8000]

Interestingly that score is comparable to an HD5750/HD6750 or HD5770/HD6770.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No, it is called getting 50% more performance for 10% more cost (maybe the cost of one AAA game, or one months cell phone bill, or one months internet bill, etc) in a performance range where every smidgen of performance has a huge effect on playability.

And if you think I have something against AMD, I have an AMD dgpu, and routinely recommend an Athlon x4 cpu and a HD7770 as a much better option than APUs for gaming.

 

[USER8000]

No, it is called getting 50% more performance for 10% more cost (maybe the cost of one AAA game, or one months cell phone bill, or one months internet bill, etc) in a performance range where every smidgen of performance has a huge effect on playability.

And if you think I have something against AMD, I have an AMD dgpu, and routinely recommend an Athlon x4 cpu and a HD7770 as a much better option than APUs for gaming.

Except for a cost of £68,that still makes an X4 860K and a discrete GPU with enough of a performance improvement over the GPU section as close to £130,or double the cost. The IGP section of the A8 7600 is not bested in any real way unless you spend £50 and above.

The A8 7600 can be had for £64:

http://www.ebuyer.com/657970-amd-a8...6s0D39bjD_P0wzpaJSYff_z3Ll46ltgwtVBoCZ1rw_wcB

The X4 860K can be had for £55:

http://www.dabs.com/products/amd-at...IUKWlU5PTZgWlmcXBTi9vRSEOrWyHf53QixoCTJnw_wcB

That is a £9 premium for an IGP which you would need to spend at least £50 to best.

This is cheaper than even a Core i3 which is £85.

The A68 motherboards are more feature rich that the low end H81 ones and are similarly priced too.

Even fast RAM is not really sold at a premium now.

Look at the prebuilds - they are not expensive but will run many games at reasonable settings out of the box,and if in a year or two if they want to improve performance,just drop a £100 card in when they can afford it. People don't always spend stuff in one big go - its about balancing what they can at the time.

But then games like LOL,DOTA 2,etc will run fine on the IGPs.

But that is also assuming people want bulky desktops.

Improved IGPs have made sure than even cheap laptops can run games far better than they used to,and that is an even more significant development than 4K,VR and poxy high end cards.

Edit to post.

This laptop is dirt cheap:

http://www.ebuyer.com/660261-lenovo-thinkpad-e555-laptop-20dh000tuk

Add another 4GB 1600MHZ SODIMM for around £20 to £25 to run the RAM in dual channel and you have reasonable graphics performance for not much outlay.
This is only a few quid more than say an Atom or Jaguar based laptop.

 

[Ramses]

Did anyone ever figure out what percentage of home PC's and personal laptops have dGPU vs iGPU?

 

[Erenhardt]

There are some 3dMark scores for the flagship 8800P:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9453670

Compare this to Anandtech's review of the 7600:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7677/amd-kaveri-review-a8-7600-a10-7850k/14

Now, I would expect the phsyics portion of the score to be higher for the A8-7600. But the 8800P has more GCN cores, so overall, it's going to put up a better 3dMark11 score. It's a shame we don't have numbers for it on Ice Storm etc. Also, what's interesting here is that the 8800p shows up even the 7850k! How you like them apples?



I agree, though perhaps for different reasons.

This laptop apu is giving better scores than dedicated geforce 940m/750m if those are real.

 

[monstercameron]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rutk9ErhKG4
a sign of things to come?

 

[superstition]

Heck, I game most of the time on a 1440x900 monitor...... It looks good enough for me and my lowly GTX 650 TI runs everything silky smooth. It would be nice to game at 4K, but I just think it still costs too much to do so.

The idea is not being able to distinguish individual pixels. Anything beyond that is overkill.

The distance at which a person uses their screen makes a vast difference in how dense the pixels need to be in order for them to be "retina" (indistinguishable).

1080 isn't enough, generally, unless you sit really far away or have less than 20/20 vision. However, 4K is overkill for TV viewing distances. 1440 really should have been the HDTV standard. It's not retina for computer monitor use at close distance but it's plenty for TV distances while providing an important detail boost above 1080.

 

[DrMrLordX]

This laptop apu is giving better scores than dedicated geforce 940m/750m if those are real.

I know, right? Heck, take a look at my heavily-overclocked 7700k:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1r8mgaaa8ydpcq2/win107700k3dmark114700CPU2100NB1028GPU.png?dl=0

It isn't THAT much better than the stock 8800P. As you might expect, I win on physics and combined, but the graphics scores are neck-and-neck. That's really impressive! The results "look" real enough . . . we'll see after Carrizo launches officially whether or not shipping products can maintain that sort of performance.

Another note: that physics score is from Kaveri at 4.7 ghz. I have +124% clockspeed for +45% physics score. Wow.

 

[Erenhardt]

That voltage! I bet you crack 250Watts in OCCT power supply stress test! Nice clocks.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Interestingly that score is comparable to an HD5750/HD6750 or HD5770/HD6770.

But it's not that impressive when you consider how much more efficient GCN is, but it is impressive when you consider what kind of memory system the APU is stuck with. Maybe AMD beefed up the amount of cache? Also, what is also impressive is that it's close to a stock A10-7850k.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Lets wait for some validated results from a reliable testing site in a known 20 watt TDP. It is still less powerful than what I would consider a solid gaming gpu, but if they can truly get 840m performance, sustained over time, in real games, it would be a nice achievement. Seems to good to be true though, because that is close to GDDR5 HD7750 level performance with DDR3 system memory.

 

[SPBHM]

as far as I can remember 3dmark 11 is almost entirely limited by the GPU speed and not memory bandwidth

 

[DrMrLordX]

That voltage! I bet you crack 250Watts in OCCT power supply stress test! Nice clocks.

Maybe someday, I'll get a Kill-a-Watt and find out for sure. hwmonitor craps out and won't track power usage for anything other than stock speeds (boo). What's scary is that a lot of the current (read: non-refresh) Kaveri APUs take more voltage than that for 4.5 ghz.

as far as I can remember 3dmark 11 is almost entirely limited by the GPU speed and not memory bandwidth

I'm not so sure about that. That might be true for dGPUs, but APUs like Kaveri and Carrizo are running under bandwidth conditions that are much worse. The CPU and iGPU are both fighting over the same bandwidth, after all. In my limited testing, I have seen improved scores from increasing iGPU speed without increasing bandwidth, but I have also seen improved scores from increasing memory clockspeed (example: I did some limited testing at DDR3-2538 with elevated bclk).

Carrizo is supposed to have that whiz-bang color compression which ought to help it out quite a bit.

Lets wait for some validated results from a reliable testing site in a known 20 watt TDP. It is still less powerful than what I would consider a solid gaming gpu, but if they can truly get 840m performance, sustained over time, in real games, it would be a nice achievement. Seems to good to be true though, because that is close to GDDR5 HD7750 level performance with DDR3 system memory.

We won't see that performance within a 20W limit. The 8800P should be the advertised 35W Carrizo part, unless I'm missing something.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Maybe someday, I'll get a Kill-a-Watt and find out for sure. hwmonitor craps out and won't track power usage for anything other than stock speeds (boo). What's scary is that a lot of the current (read: non-refresh) Kaveri APUs take more voltage than that for 4.5 ghz.



I'm not so sure about that. That might be true for dGPUs, but APUs like Kaveri and Carrizo are running under bandwidth conditions that are much worse. The CPU and iGPU are both fighting over the same bandwidth, after all. In my limited testing, I have seen improved scores from increasing iGPU speed without increasing bandwidth, but I have also seen improved scores from increasing memory clockspeed (example: I did some limited testing at DDR3-2538 with elevated bclk).

Carrizo is supposed to have that whiz-bang color compression which ought to help it out quite a bit.



We won't see that performance within a 20W limit. The 8800P should be the advertised 35W Carrizo part, unless I'm missing something.

That makes more sense. It *might* be possible in a 35 watt envelope. I thought Carrizo was max 20 watt, but maybe I was wrong.

 

[escrow4]

Well, they had to pick some scenes without too many npcs or too much going on on the APU would tank.

May as well buy a console. V is nothing special for one, but playing it maximum ugly at low res isn't the way to enjoy it.

 

[Enigmoid]

as far as I can remember 3dmark 11 is almost entirely limited by the GPU speed and not memory bandwidth

It generally is.

Here is a review of trinity scaling for bandwidth.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-scaling-trinity,3419.html

Scaling of 10% from 1600 to 2400 mhz.

Games performance increased by 22%

With 512 shaders I can see the situation even more lopsided.

A number of other sites have also benchmarked.

for 3dmark, while in games

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Memory...ed-AMD-APU-Memory-Scaling/Graphics-Benchmarks
It looks like games are generally twice as sensitive to bandwidth as 3dmark is. This may also be because while running the game there is a lot more CPU stuff going on and the CPU is chewing up valuable bandwidth.

 

[frozentundra123456]

May as well buy a console. V is nothing special for one, but playing it maximum ugly at low res isn't the way to enjoy it.

Well, for current AAA games, I would agree with you. However, a PC does offer a lot of other types of games that are not on console, as well as the functionality of Windows.

I also just dont feel comfortable with a controller, even if the game does play well with one. DA:I for example, I tried a controller, but eventually went back to kb/mouse.