Computers & Electronics

AMD quietly releases "7th Gen" APUs and AM4 platform

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 13th, 2016 11:28 am
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
27413 posts
7734 upvotes

AMD quietly releases "7th Gen" APUs and AM4 platform

Looks like AMD has released new "7th Gen" APU and CPUs...still based on Bulldozer (Excavator, more specifically) :rolleyes: but I guess the power improvements from Carrizo (and slight IPC improvements) should be seen here. They may be OEM-only, I'm not sure?

Just kind of stumbled upon it visiting AMD's site. Funny how they've taken a page from Intel (as usual) by describing these as "7th Generation" APUs. Excavator of course, is 4th gen Bulldozer, but I guess somehow they arrive at 7th by counting Llano, Trinity,...etc. as the separate gens of APU. These are Bristol Ridge CPUs, coming after Carrizo and the more popular Kaveri/Godaveri CPUs. The highest-end ones named A12, having an iGPU of the same 8CUs (guessing the same 512:32:8 config), but with clock rates over 1100Mhz on the top model. Guessing it's still GCN 3rd gen here, and not Polaris, though they are going on about 65W power consumption like it's something special. I mean that's the same as the 7860K, though that has the GPU at only 750Mhz. Surely the Zen APUs will be more impressive on the GPU side, but it's a start. Side note: the A12 naming seems stupid as it's still the same 2 modules as the A10 was. You'd think it'd be another module or two, them calling it A12 but nope.

There's an interesting low-power part, the 9800E (similar to Intel's S CPUs I guess), which dumps the base clock down to 3.1Ghz but still has a healthy 3.8Ghz turbo, and still runs the GPU at 900Mhz--faster than even a 7890K--and it's 35W TDP. However like previous APUs I'm guessing it's going to throttle one side or the other to stay within that envelope (i.e. stress the GPU and I doubt you're seeing 3.8Ghz on the CPU).

So none too exciting but more info here:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2593 ... -apu-specs
http://www.amd.com/en-us/solutions/desktops/consumer#
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases ... sep05.aspx

At least they've got the new socket out. The platform will also support the not-yet-released Zen mainstream CPUs. Not that I put that much faith in that (or AMD at all anymore) but on the APU side, Zen paired with Polaris and possibly something close to the RX 460 and they might have a winner on their hands.
30 replies
Deal Fanatic
Nov 17, 2004
7033 posts
1365 upvotes
Toronto
AMD needs to stop posting graphs that are obviously not in the realm of reality, that misleads consumers. That graph in the first link showing Excavator as fast or faster than a Skylake i5 is to their own detriment. It is indicative that AMD is either ******** or deceitful, probably both.
I workout to get big so I can pickup bricks and ****.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
27413 posts
7734 upvotes
toalan wrote: AMD needs to stop posting graphs that are obviously not in the realm of reality, that misleads consumers. That graph in the first link showing Excavator as fast or faster than a Skylake i5 is to their own detriment. It is indicative that AMD is either ******** or deceitful, probably both.
Well I mean it's only in a couple benchmarks. PCMark8 doesn't tell the whole story. Plus the A12-9800 is likely running 4.2Ghz to the i5's max-turbo-on-four cores-of 3.3ghz. In other words it has a nearly 1Ghz clock advantage, which is about right to even out with Intel and again that's just in PCMark and that's just getting even with it, not surpassing it. The E processor being able to turbo to 3.8 is again not that surprising over an Intel T processor which is limited to 2.8Ghz on four cores--again 1Ghz disadvantage. The numbers are not entirely unbelievable given we're only talking about PCMark and we have some significant clocks involved.

Also the graphs for the iGPU have no doubt really. HD 530 has caught up to AMD a good bit but it's still a little behind where a 7850K is in the graphics dept, even with it being stuck on DDR3. The fact that the iGPU in these now runs over 1Ghz (and using DDR4) means it should easily kill HD 530 in 3DMark; and, as noted they're using the fastest RAM possible which helps boost the score even more against the Intel using slightly lower clocked DDR4. Yes there's a little bit of "tricks" in there, but it's not hard to believe the R7 integrated at the clock it's at is going to well outpace HD 530. A more interesting question would be how it does against the iGPU champ, Iris Pro.

Personally I don't even care about this crap that much (I've only ever owned one or two AMD CPUs) but it's funny this thread has over 700 views now and just one reply. Kind of goes to show ppl's interest in AM4 is just not there. Zen may well be a failure before it gets out of the gates.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 12, 2008
4145 posts
190 upvotes
Toronto
I want Zen to be a success quite honestly (my sig shows im still rocking a their chip) and yes it is showing its age. Last AMD chip I bought was the FX4300 which was suppose to be close to the core I3-2100 I think.

Regardless AMD needs to step up their game and they shouldn't have stepped out of the market after that mishap of the FX8350 or w/e its called. This is their saving grace. Would be nice to see them back where they were against intel almost 10 years ago but that might just be wishful thinking.
Nothing to see here...keep looking.
Sr. Member
Dec 29, 2013
820 posts
490 upvotes
Montr
The A12 have R7 iGPU. Can we crossfire an R7 370 with it ?
Member
Jun 8, 2015
281 posts
49 upvotes
funkland
toalan wrote: AMD needs to stop posting graphs that are obviously not in the realm of reality, that misleads consumers. That graph in the first link showing Excavator as fast or faster than a Skylake i5 is to their own detriment. It is indicative that AMD is either ******** or deceitful, probably both.
This is great news I think, people can buy an AM4 motherboard that will hopefully last a very long time. Intel changes motherboards every single cycle, so its much less of a pain in the long run.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 6, 2005
5782 posts
802 upvotes
Yeah same, hope Zen really delivers this time cause really Intel has no incentive to do anything differently. If Intel really wanted to crush, they would just bring even Iris 540/550 to Mainstream.

However I guess you have to give them props to finally updating their video decoding engine, it seems the new APUs have hardware support for 4K H264/H265.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
27413 posts
7734 upvotes
Desperadude wrote: The A12 have R7 iGPU. Can we crossfire an R7 370 with it ?
Hmm it is R7 but I don't know how well that would work. Though what would work would be EMA in DX12 with the two of them but not many games support that right now (not many games are even DX12 right now).

The iGPU in these is still 8CUs, likely the same 512:32:8 config as before so an R7 370 is still over twice that. While they haven't seemed to say anything about Dual Graphics (Hybrid Crossfire) yet, I'm guessing it'll still pair up best with Oland XT (R7 250/350) as that's a slower GPU but GDDR5 evens it out. AMD is so unclear abou this stuff. I would have thought R7 250E was probably the best match GPU wise with a closer core config at 512:32:16, but it's a Cape Verde GPU and apparently it can't Dual Graphics with Kaveri at all despite having been branded "R7".

The iGPUs here have been updated (the UVD/VCE has been updated for 4K and HEVC, as we can see), but it's definitely unclear as to whether this would Crossfire up with the same Oland GPUs as before or what the story is.

In any event R7 370 is way faster than this and not a good Crossfire pair, even if you could. Whether it would help out in DX12 EMA remains to be seen. I wouldn't put my money on it. It's fast for an iGPU and they've boosted clock speed and included new UVD, but still less than half the speed of a 370.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 12, 2008
4145 posts
190 upvotes
Toronto
meowman9000 wrote:
toalan wrote: AMD needs to stop posting graphs that are obviously not in the realm of reality, that misleads consumers. That graph in the first link showing Excavator as fast or faster than a Skylake i5 is to their own detriment. It is indicative that AMD is either ******** or deceitful, probably both.
This is great news I think, people can buy an AM4 motherboard that will hopefully last a very long time. Intel changes motherboards every single cycle, so its much less of a pain in the long run.
+1

I hate reading that every new chip from Intel needs a new damn socket in order to operate. I miss the 775 days. So much simpler back then.
Nothing to see here...keep looking.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 24, 2012
11536 posts
2535 upvotes
Montreal
Zero1 wrote: I hate reading that every new chip from Intel needs a new damn socket in order to operate. I miss the 775 days. So much simpler back then.
Oh please, you are being nostalgic and forget about the bad stuff. You think that older LGA775 motherboards were compatible with newer LGA775 CPUs? Ya, imagine that, they weren't always comptabile! It wasn't simpler back then, it was tricky.

What I hate reading is AMD failing over and over. AMD has been seriously lagging in CPU for almost 10 years and GPU for a couple of years. Who knows what the CPU prices would be today had ADM been able to continue seriously compete with Intel.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 12, 2008
4145 posts
190 upvotes
Toronto
alkizmo wrote:
Zero1 wrote: I hate reading that every new chip from Intel needs a new damn socket in order to operate. I miss the 775 days. So much simpler back then.
Oh please, you are being nostalgic and forget about the bad stuff. You think that older LGA775 motherboards were compatible with newer LGA775 CPUs? Ya, imagine that, they weren't always comptabile! It wasn't simpler back then, it was tricky.

What I hate reading is AMD failing over and over. AMD has been seriously lagging in CPU for almost 10 years and GPU for a couple of years. Who knows what the CPU prices would be today had ADM been able to continue seriously compete with Intel.
Can't do much about manufacturers not wanting to release a bios update. But generally a lot of boards had support for a good portion of Intel's CPU list on the 775 socket. Transferring from one board to another for me wasn't that much of an issue.

As far as competition and pricing goes, we can only hope AMD would be able to rectify that with their upcoming releases.
Nothing to see here...keep looking.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 24, 2012
11536 posts
2535 upvotes
Montreal
Zero1 wrote: Can't do much about manufacturers not wanting to release a bios update. But generally a lot of boards had support for a good portion of Intel's CPU list on the 775 socket. Transferring from one board to another for me wasn't that much of an issue.
My point was that LGA775 wasn't all that great either because of the compatibility roulette. The convenience isn't all that great anyway. Most of the time when you upgrade your CPU, you are also upgrading a secondary rig (a relative's computer) using your old CPU, which requires a mobo anyway.
Zero1 wrote: As far as competition and pricing goes, we can only hope AMD would be able to rectify that with their upcoming releases.
I don't see AMD catching up anytime soon. I think they'll need to be bought out by a big tech company before they ever catch up.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 12, 2008
4145 posts
190 upvotes
Toronto
alkizmo wrote:
Zero1 wrote: Can't do much about manufacturers not wanting to release a bios update. But generally a lot of boards had support for a good portion of Intel's CPU list on the 775 socket. Transferring from one board to another for me wasn't that much of an issue.
My point was that LGA775 wasn't all that great either because of the compatibility roulette. The convenience isn't all that great anyway. Most of the time when you upgrade your CPU, you are also upgrading a secondary rig (a relative's computer) using your old CPU, which requires a mobo anyway.
Zero1 wrote: As far as competition and pricing goes, we can only hope AMD would be able to rectify that with their upcoming releases.
I don't see AMD catching up anytime soon. I think they'll need to be bought out by a big tech company before they ever catch up.
That would be a BIG price tag to buy out AMD.
Nothing to see here...keep looking.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
27413 posts
7734 upvotes
Zero1 wrote:
I hate reading that every new chip from Intel needs a new damn socket in order to operate. I miss the 775 days. So much simpler back then.
Meh, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It's more like every other generation...

-Lynnfield and Clarkdale both worked on the same boards (with the only real nitpick being some chipsets not having FDI for the iGPU in Clarkdales, though the CPU would still work fine).

-SB and IB both work on the same boards for the most part. Just as with Core2 there were some nitpicks here and there. But the vast majority of 6-series chipset boards had BIOS updates to support IB CPUs even if Intel intended them only to work on 7-series chipsets.

-Haswell and Broadwell... Well here it gets a bit more intricate. Intel said Broadwell would only be supported on 9-series but in the end, releasing only two desktop CPUs and them being very rare it really didn't matter--very few people have a 5775C or 5675C CPU. If Broadwell had more models and been more popular, I guarantee board makers would have released BIOSes to support those CPUs on 8-series boards, Intel's specification notwithstanding. But since no one cares about Broadwell, it never happened.
alkizmo wrote: Oh please, you are being nostalgic and forget about the bad stuff. You think that older LGA775 motherboards were compatible with newer LGA775 CPUs? Ya, imagine that, they weren't always comptabile! It wasn't simpler back then, it was tricky.
Agreed. LGA775 actually goes pretty far back. You could even have an 84x and later (e.g. 845 chipset) board that had LGA775 sockets, and those certainly cannot and do not in any way support Core2 CPUs. Stuff like 845 could support Prescott (perhaps even Cedar Mill?) at most. There were both LGA775 and S478 Prescott CPUs; 845 chipset boards with LGA775 were probably rare but they could indeed exist. Even stuff like 915 and 925 which were pretty much all LGA775, could not support newer Core2 CPUs. For that you needed 945 and later and 945 with Core2 isn't exactly ideal either. 3-series chipsets similarly dropped support for P4 processors meaning though 3-series boards were all 775, they could not support P4 processors for that socket.

I think you're right about people just remembering it more fondly than it was, but it's probably because a lot of people didn't have early LGA775 boards (what nut would have wanted a PrescHOTT processor anyway :lol: ). Personally I stayed on S478, and furthermore Northwood, in the P4 days; but, most ppl I knew had Athlon XPs and A64s back then. NetBurst was really not good times for Intel. By the time most people moved to LGA775 it was with 3-series chipsets and Core2 CPUs--so they never remember the days of 845, 915, 925, and 945 boards with LGA775--those are just forgotten.

But you know AMD is not that easy either. From what I can remember...AM2 and AM2+ CPUs are mostly interoperable between boards but you need a board with BIOS support for newer CPUs. Then it starts getting more tricky. AM3 CPUs work on AM2+ boards since they have both DDR2 and DDR3 controllers; but, AM2/+ CPUs won't work in AM3 boards because they have no DDR3 controller. OTOH AM3+ CPUs have no DDR2 controller and can't work on AM2/+ boards. Then AM3 and AM3+ are again largely cross-compatible...again depending on BIOS updates.

What gets confusing again is the FM (APU) sockets. FM1, FM2, and FM2+, have no compatibility between themselves which makes FM2+ somewhat misleading to people used to the AM platform...why didn't they just call it FM3 instead? Who knows, but forwards and backwards compatibility with AMD is not so simple either.
alkizmo wrote: What I hate reading is AMD failing over and over. AMD has been seriously lagging in CPU for almost 10 years and GPU for a couple of years. Who knows what the CPU prices would be today had ADM been able to continue seriously compete with Intel.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 10 years but they've certainly never been competitive with i7 CPUs. AMDs solution has simply been to, "throw more cores" at the problem of their uncompetitive IPC. Of course with Bulldozer they also decided on the whole "modules" bit where two cores share one FPU--just a poor way of doing things. The end result is that they needed a CPU with as many "cores" as Intel had threads and an IPC deficiency where they needed about 30% more clockspeed to come even with Intel. In other words an "four core" Bulldozer would need to be running at like 4ghz to compete with an i3 at 3ghz. That and the heavy power consumption. Funny enough they've really pulled in the power consumption (obv. still not at Intel levels but much better) with Carrizo and these new Bristol Ridge CPUs. Very minor IPC improvement doesn't give them much else though.

So in the end the fastest of AMD CPUs compete with mid-range i5s from Intel, and that's what's been happening the last 5 years or so. AMD is not that bad but their pricing is not any better (FX-8xxx still cost around as much as i5s) and the power/heat expenditure has just not been worth it. Simply no point for people to buy AMD CPUs. I think if FX-8xxx CPUs were the price of i3s, they'd have had a much better time selling them. Of course I'm sure they'd also have gone bankrupt doing that lol.

Zen supposedly fixes a lot of this but I don't really buy into AMD's marketing given their recent scam games with Polaris. We'll see what it does when it releases.

I also think people put too much faith into AMD to produce some product to "beat" Intel. It's really not going to happen and even history tells us so. AMD had some hits with the K6 CPUs back in the Super7 days but we have to remember that though those processors were much better than Pentiums, Intel had moved on to PII by then and really the Super7 CPUs couldn't totally compare with PIIs. But they were much, much cheaper IIRC. They could compete with PIIs in Windows 95/98 but they couldn't hold a candle in NT performance. The lucky part there was that all regular consumers used the former and NT wasn't popularized/made mainstream until Windows XP. By this time AMD was competitive with Intel's PIII with the Athlon but it wasn't that huge a gap and many people were content to stick with Intel esp. given Athlons ran hotter and had no thermal protection in case of HSF failure. Intel made a big mis-step with NetBurst and the P4 and that faltering allowed AMD to run away with it, with later Athlons and eventually the Athlon 64. But we have to ask ourselves if that was really so much as AMD having an amazing processor or if it was just Intel stumbling so bad that AMD was able to beat them soundly in performance. Given what we've seen the last 10 years, and in the years going back to the 486, it's easy to see that's the real case.

AMD should just go back to what they used to do best. Providing a very cost-effective and attractively-priced alternative to Intel. It doesn't have to be better than Intel, it just has to be a good lot cheaper for great performance. As said, if an FX-8350 was $130 and an A10-7890K was $100...I mean despite the shortcomings of these processors, they'd have a ton more people interested. But when they're $200 and $170, respectively, who the heck is going to use them over Intel alternatives? I really think they should try to focus on cost-effectiveness with Zen, however from the looks of it they're just trying to beat Intel performance-wise or at least have people believe they are as fast/faster :rolleyes: Totally wrong way to go about it IMO, but then so is heavily advertising a videocard at a certain price and then never bothering to manufacture them in the first place! AMD's slowly going down the wrong hill it seems.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 24, 2012
11536 posts
2535 upvotes
Montreal
This is a very interesting post ES_Revenge. I always knew there was an issue with AMD, but it’s nice to see it explained like this.
ES_Revenge wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to say 10 years but they've certainly never been competitive with i7 CPUs.
ES_Revenge wrote: So in the end the fastest of AMD CPUs compete with mid-range i5s from Intel, and that's what's been happening the last 5 years or so.
While it’s been obvious for the last 5 years that AMD can’t compete, the decline has started 10 years ago when multicore CPUs were becoming more common on the consumer level.
I remember buying AMD cpus over the course of 10-ish years (1996 to 2006 ish). I’d go back and forth between Intel and AMD cpus depending on who had the best value in the mid-range CPUs.
2006 was the last year I considered buying an AMD CPU. I bought an Intel that year, and ever since then I could never even find a contender in the AMD CPU line up. This brings us to an excellent point you made…..
ES_Revenge wrote: AMD should just go back to what they used to do best. Providing a very cost-effective and attractively-priced alternative to Intel. It doesn't have to be better than Intel, it just has to be a good lot cheaper for great performance.
This is indeed what AMD was about. I’ve often bought AMD because their CPUs had great value. They catered more to overclockers as well by giving us unlocked CPUs when Intel was locking everything down.
I think the AMD we knew will never be again. I just wish we had some 3rd desktop CPU competitor. There are so many mobile CPU manufacturers; the PC market needs competition.

Top