AMD's latest Kaveri refresh APU is the affordable A8-7670K

Quote:

---

It features ten compute cores for the "ultimate Windows 10 experience".

---

Read more.

Is Hexus getting one in for test then? Would be nice to see some benchmarks that aren't hand picked by AMD!

Who compares graphics gaming performance against anything that's *30? Even if it is LoL and other supposed E-Sports? Once again, PR at it's worst -

Hey, look at me! I'm better than the 2nd worst offering of a generation!

@guidoLS it's to do with price-points. It'd be daft to compare a 100ukp graphics card with a <100 pound CPU. So, they've taken a 35-40ukp graphics card and a 50ukp cpu. Assuming a 90ukp pricetag for the AMD part, that seems a reasonable price comparison (about 90ukp on each). They could also benchmark against a low end i3 with no descrete GPU.

Their point is that a price equivalent setup from intel/nvidia is outperformed by their APU. That's entirely reasonable, and a positive message all round. If you're building a PC to a low budget, and intend to have any kind of 3D capability, an AMD APU like this is a perfectly valid choice. On the flip side, you'd also be well advised to wait until you have another 50-100ukp and open up more options. But isn't that always the case?

This is definately a product for the sub-300ukp PC brigade, and that's entirely fine.

well, they finally made cpu thats actually cheaper AND better than i3... so as far as budget systems concerned they have done it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irien

@guidoLS it's to do with price-points. It'd be daft to compare a 100ukp graphics card with a <100 pound CPU. So, they've taken a 35-40ukp graphics card and a 50ukp cpu. Assuming a 90ukp pricetag for the AMD part, that seems a reasonable price comparison (about 90ukp on each). They could also benchmark against a low end i3 with no descrete GPU.

Their point is that a price equivalent setup from intel/nvidia is outperformed by their APU. That's entirely reasonable, and a positive message all round. If you're building a PC to a low budget, and intend to have any kind of 3D capability, an AMD APU like this is a perfectly valid choice. On the flip side, you'd also be well advised to wait until you have another 50-100ukp and open up more options. But isn't that always the case?

This is definately a product for the sub-300ukp PC brigade, and that's entirely fine.

---

Nothing personal, but I'd expect a quad core offering with their newest APU to beat a dual core w/a 730 attached. I think I'd be disappointed if they didn't. I wouldn't brag about it.

@GuidoLS Indeed, but the only quad core parts intel have to offer are the much less impressive atom-esque parts (J1900 or whatever they're offering this year) or i5s at 50ukp more. The cheapest i5 on scan is 120+VAT roughly, whereas I'd imagine the AMD APU will be 90-ish inc. If it's more than 100ukp its a fail IMHO. Thus the only real choices are "top-of-the-dual-core-pile" or "the lower end of i3". My guess is that in the games they're talking about, a dual-core+730 is actually faster than an i3 with integrated graphics, so pound for pound, AMD are actually being quite reasonable. That said, I suspect the i3 might have done better in other tests which would have shown up AMDs traditional IPC weakness.

Note, I only supply Intel system, so I'm no AMD fanboy, although I used to supply AthonXP/64/X2 systems when they were competitive. These days the Intel IPC single threaded performance is critical for my customers so AMD can't really compete.

looks good and prices are really affordable

If Intel were to give a G3258 or an i3 the best integrated Iris pro graphics for a similar price to the A8 surely they would be onto a winner?

This looks quite good. If I was building a PC that's not for games, I see no reason not to go for an APU given the price and performance.