Review AMD Trinity and FX Desktop Processors

Klaus Hinum, Till Schönborn (translated by Martina Osztovits), 05/07/2013

Desktop roundup. Notebookcheck leaves the beaten track: We compare current PC processors of the FX and the A series with each other and want to know whether AMD can outperform the seemingly overwhelming competition from Intel.

For the original German article, see here.

Although we usually focus on mobile devices like smartphones, tablets, and notebooks, we will have a look at the current CPU series from AMD in this test. At the center of our interest are especially the three Trinity-APUs A4-5300, A8-5600K, and A10-5800K, which we will compare to the competition from Intel and the current CPU flagship from AMD, the FX-8350.

Apart from the performance of the processors, we will also evaluate the performance of their integrated graphics solutions. The one from the Trinity family is said to be especially powerful. How do the "smaller APUs" with significantly less units perform? Can they run current games smoothly with decent graphics quality?

Test system

Some of the components of our test systems come directly from the manufacturers and some come from retail shops:

Contenders

An overview of the most important technical details of the AMD processors is available below. The linked special articles of our CPU database provide detailed information. The following Intel CPUs are also not described closer here: Pentium G860, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3470, Core i5-3550, and Core i7-3770K. In addition, we want to refer to our special articles for the Trinity architecture and the Ivy-Bridge series.

  • AMD A10-5800K2 modules (4 integer cores, 2 FPUs), 3.8 - 4.2 GHz, Radeon HD 7660D (384 shader units, 800 MHz), 100 Watt TDP;
    Special feature: free multiplier
  • AMD A8-5600K2 modules (4 integer cores, 2 FPUs), 3.6 - 3.9 GHz, Radeon HD 7560D (256 shader units, 760 MHz), 100 Watt TDP;
    Special feature: free multiplier
  • AMD FX-83504 modules (8 integer cores, 4 FPUs), 4.0 - 4.2 GHz, 125 Watt TDP; Special features: free multiplier, no graphics unit

Processor Performance


Cinebench R10
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
9285 Points ∼34%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
9266 Points ∼34% 0%
A8-5600K
8838 Points ∼32% -5%
A4-5300
4345 Points ∼16% -53%
FX-8350
16904 Points ∼62% +82%
i7-3770K
22190 Points ∼81% +139%
Pentium G860
7695 Points ∼28% -17%
Core i3-3220
10193 Points ∼37% +10%
Core i5-3550
17762 Points ∼65% +91%
Core i5-3470
17192 Points ∼63% +85%
Rendering Single 32Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
3131 Points ∼49%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
3056 Points ∼48% -2%
A8-5600K
2941 Points ∼46% -6%
A4-5300
2734 Points ∼43% -13%
FX-8350
3201 Points ∼50% +2%
i7-3770K
5536 Points ∼87% +77%
Pentium G860
3964 Points ∼62% +27%
Core i3-3220
4626 Points ∼73% +48%
Core i5-3550
5191 Points ∼81% +66%
Core i5-3470
5006 Points ∼78% +60%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
12987 Points ∼37%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
12959 Points ∼36% 0%
A8-5600K
12505 Points ∼35% -4%
A4-5300
5867 Points ∼17% -55%
FX-8350
23538 Points ∼66% +81%
i7-3770K
27536 Points ∼78% +112%
Pentium G860
9063 Points ∼26% -30%
Core i3-3220
12546 Points ∼35% -3%
Core i5-3550
22729 Points ∼64% +75%
Core i5-3470
21594 Points ∼61% +66%
Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
4221 Points ∼17%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
4139 Points ∼17% -2%
A8-5600K
3983 Points ∼16% -6%
A4-5300
3645 Points ∼15% -14%
FX-8350
4346 Points ∼18% +3%
i7-3770K
6972 Points ∼28% +65%
Pentium G860
4953 Points ∼20% +17%
Core i3-3220
5847 Points ∼24% +39%
Core i5-3550
6568 Points ∼27% +56%
Core i5-3470
6328 Points ∼26% +50%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Multi 64Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
3.3 Points ∼28%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
3.33 Points ∼28% +1%
A8-5600K
3.2 Points ∼27% -3%
A4-5300
1.45 Points ∼12% -56%
FX-8350
6.89 Points ∼58% +109%
i7-3770K
7.88 Points ∼66% +139%
Pentium G860
2.34 Points ∼20% -29%
Core i3-3220
3.31 Points ∼28% 0%
Core i5-3550
5.81 Points ∼49% +76%
Core i5-3470
5.57 Points ∼47% +69%
CPU Single 64Bit
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
1.04 Points ∼1%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
1.02 Points ∼1% -2%
A8-5600K
0.98 Points ∼1% -6%
A4-5300
0.91 Points ∼1% -12%
FX-8350
1.1 Points ∼1% +6%
i7-3770K
1.65 Points ∼1% +59%
Pentium G860
1.2 Points ∼1% +15%
Core i3-3220
1.38 Points ∼1% +33%
Core i5-3550
1.56 Points ∼1% +50%
Core i5-3470
1.51 Points ∼1% +45%
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit - Total Score
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
6969 Points ∼56%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
6945 Points ∼56% 0%
A8-5600K
6520 Points ∼52% -6%
A4-5300
4268 Points ∼34% -39%
FX-8350
11198 Points ∼90% +61%
i7-3770K
12435 Points ∼100% +78%
Pentium G860
5393 Points ∼43% -23%
Core i3-3220
7008 Points ∼56% +1%
Core i5-3550
8990 Points ∼72% +29%
Core i5-3470
9721 Points ∼78% +39%
wPrime 2.0x - 32m
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
15.9 s * ∼3%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
15.9 s * ∼3% -0%
A8-5600K
16.7 s * ∼3% -5%
A4-5300
35.5 s * ∼7% -123%
FX-8350
7.96 s * ∼2% +50%
i7-3770K
6.39 s * ∼1% +60%
Pentium G860
23.6 s * ∼5% -48%
Core i3-3220
14.66 s * ∼3% +8%
Core i5-3550
9.98 s * ∼2% +37%
TrueCrypt
AES Mean 100MB
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
1.9 GB/s ∼37%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
1.9 GB/s ∼37% 0%
A8-5600K
1.8 GB/s ∼35% -5%
A4-5300
0.823 GB/s ∼16% -57%
FX-8350
3.6 GB/s ∼69% +89%
i7-3770K
3.9 GB/s ∼75% +105%
Pentium G860
0.229 GB/s ∼4% -88%
Core i3-3220
0.318 GB/s ∼6% -83%
Core i5-3550
2.7 GB/s ∼52% +42%
Twofish Mean 100MB
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
0.38 GB/s ∼44%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
0.379 GB/s ∼44% 0%
A8-5600K
0.36 GB/s ∼41% -5%
A4-5300
0.165 GB/s ∼19% -57%
FX-8350
0.749 GB/s ∼86% +97%
i7-3770K
0.678 GB/s ∼78% +78%
Pentium G860
0.179 GB/s ∼21% -53%
Core i3-3220
0.288 GB/s ∼33% -24%
Core i5-3550
0.448 GB/s ∼52% +18%
Serpent Mean 100MB
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
0.209 GB/s ∼12%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
0.208 GB/s ∼12% 0%
A8-5600K
0.198 GB/s ∼12% -5%
A4-5300
0.093 GB/s ∼5% -56%
FX-8350
0.423 GB/s ∼25% +102%
i7-3770K
0.392 GB/s ∼23% +88%
Pentium G860
0.102 GB/s ∼6% -51%
Core i3-3220
0.166 GB/s ∼10% -21%
Core i5-3550
0.28 GB/s ∼16% +34%
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0
Pass 1
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
107.6 fps ∼62%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
105.6 fps ∼60% -2%
A8-5600K
102.44 fps ∼59% -5%
A4-5300
50 fps ∼29% -54%
FX-8350
139 fps ∼80% +29%
i7-3770K
172.3 fps ∼99% +60%
Pentium G860
70.31 fps ∼40% -35%
Core i3-3220
98.55 fps ∼56% -8%
Core i5-3550
163.8 fps ∼94% +52%
Pass 2
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
21.9 fps ∼40%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
21.8 fps ∼40% 0%
A8-5600K
20.93 fps ∼38% -4%
A4-5300
9.62 fps ∼18% -56%
FX-8350
43.5 fps ∼79% +99%
i7-3770K
43.4 fps ∼79% +98%
Pentium G860
12.69 fps ∼23% -42%
Core i3-3220
18.82 fps ∼34% -14%
Core i5-3550
32.7 fps ∼60% +49%
WinRAR - Result
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
2530 KB/s ∼49%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
2472 KB/s ∼48% -2%
A8-5600K
2449 KB/s ∼47% -3%
A4-5300
1347 KB/s ∼26% -47%
FX-8350
4562 KB/s ∼88% +80%
i7-3770K
3698 KB/s ∼71% +46%
Pentium G860
1655 KB/s ∼32% -35%
Core i3-3220
2695 KB/s ∼52% +7%
Core i5-3550
3375 KB/s ∼65% +33%
3DMark 06 - CPU
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
4311 Points ∼51%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
4464 Points ∼53% +4%
A8-5600K
4295 Points ∼51% 0%
A4-5300
2284 Points ∼27% -47%
FX-8350 GTX 470
6648 Points ∼79% +54%
i7-3770K
7606 Points ∼90% +76%
Pentium G860
3065 Points ∼36% -29%
Core i3-3220
4019 Points ∼47% -7%
Core i5-3550
6405 Points ∼76% +49%
Core i5-3470
6179 Points ∼73% +43%
Legend
      A10-5800K DDR3-1600 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A10-5800K DDR3-1866 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A8-5600K AMD A8-5600K, AMD Radeon HD 7560D,
      A4-5300 AMD A4-5300, AMD Radeon HD 7480D, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 AMD FX-8350, AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 GTX 470 AMD FX-8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      i7-3770K Intel Core i7-3770K, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Pentium G860 Intel Pentium G860, Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i3-3220 Intel Core i3-3220, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3550 Intel Core i5-3550, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3470 Intel Core i5-3470, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A

* ... smaller is better

Gaming Performance

We will try to explain the vast quantity of numbers: On average, the fastest APU of the Trinity series, the A10-5800K, is about on par with the Intel Core i3-3220 of the Ivy Bridge generation. However, the results heavily depend on the benchmark: While the Core i3 especially profits from its high performance per MHz, the A10 takes advantage from its 4 integer cores. Therefore, the AMD processor performs better in well-parallelized applications and the i3 in single-threaded tasks. This gets especially obvious in the single and multi thread tests of Cinebench. Furthermore, there is another important difference: While only the more expensive Intel Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs implement the instruction set extension AES-NI which accelerates encryption, AMD does not restrict this feature to special CPU series. So, the AMD CPUs perform better in TrueCrypt and similar tasks.

While the A8-5600K is only slightly slower than the A10-5800K because of its lower clock rate, the A4-5300 and A6-5400K (not tested here) are significantly slower. Only half of the two modules or four CPU cores of the Trinity chip are active in these two models and so, the performance is cut in half. As a result, the A4-5300's performance does not even come close to the dual core Pentium G860: AMD's CMT technology, the base of the innovative module design, cannot reach the performance of "real" CPU cores.

The FX-8350, the Core i5-3470/3550, and the Core i7-3770K are at the top of the price and the performance ranking. Compared to the similarly expensive Core i5 models, the FX performs well and is even marginally better than the Intel on average. However, the AMD CPU profits from our application selection, as most of the applications are well-parallelized. The i7-3770K is still the undisputed winner. But, its unrivaled combination of performance, energy efficiency and OC potential is quite pricey.

3DMark 06 - 1280x1024 Standard AA:0x AF:0x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
8658 Points ∼29%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
9146 Points ∼31% +6%
A8-5600K
8202 Points ∼28% -5%
A4-5300
5450 Points ∼18% -37%
FX-8350 GTX 470
20462 Points ∼69% +136%
i7-3770K
6834 Points ∼23% -21%
Pentium G860
3142 Points ∼11% -64%
Core i3-3220
3742 Points ∼13% -57%
Core i5-3550
4442 Points ∼15% -49%
Core i5-3470
3816 Points ∼13% -56%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
1393 Points ∼9%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
1444 Points ∼9% +4%
A8-5600K
1076 Points ∼7% -23%
A4-5300
580 Points ∼4% -58%
FX-8350 GTX 470
4393 Points ∼28% +215%
i7-3770K
674 Points ∼4% -52%
Core i3-3220
341 Points ∼2% -76%
Core i5-3550
374 Points ∼2% -73%
Core i5-3470
360 Points ∼2% -74%
3DMark Vantage - 1280x1024 P GPU no PhysX
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
5047 Points ∼12%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
5205 Points ∼12% +3%
A8-5600K
4180 Points ∼10% -17%
A4-5300
2269 Points ∼5% -55%
FX-8350 GTX 470
15484 Points ∼36% +207%
i7-3770K
3277 Points ∼8% -35%
Pentium G860
807 Points ∼2% -84%
Core i3-3220
1378 Points ∼3% -73%
Core i5-3550
1561 Points ∼4% -69%
Core i5-3470
1423 Points ∼3% -72%
3DMark (2013)
1280x720 Ice Storm Standard Graphics
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
62939 Points ∼18%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
64972 Points ∼19% +3%
A8-5600K
56869 Points ∼16% -10%
A4-5300
41542 Points ∼12% -34%
FX-8350 GTX 470
162190 Points ∼47% +158%
i7-3770K
48923 Points ∼14% -22%
Pentium G860
13132 Points ∼4% -79%
Core i3-3220
21978 Points ∼6% -65%
Core i5-3550
24676 Points ∼7% -61%
Core i5-3470
23511 Points ∼7% -63%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
7256 Points ∼9%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
7581 Points ∼10% +4%
A8-5600K
6415 Points ∼8% -12%
A4-5300
4236 Points ∼5% -42%
FX-8350 GTX 470
26403 Points ∼34% +264%
i7-3770K
5701 Points ∼7% -21%
Pentium G860
1420 Points ∼2% -80%
Core i3-3220
2509 Points ∼3% -65%
Core i5-3550
2825 Points ∼4% -61%
Core i5-3470
2700 Points ∼4% -63%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Standard Graphics
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
981 Points ∼8%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
1013 Points ∼8% +3%
A8-5600K
791 Points ∼7% -19%
A4-5300
445 Points ∼4% -55%
FX-8350 GTX 470
2768 Points ∼23% +182%
i7-3770K
672 Points ∼6% -31%
Core i3-3220
314 Points ∼3% -68%
Core i5-3550
353 Points ∼3% -64%
Core i5-3470
322 Points ∼3% -67%
Legend
      A10-5800K DDR3-1600 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A10-5800K DDR3-1866 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A8-5600K AMD A8-5600K, AMD Radeon HD 7560D,
      A4-5300 AMD A4-5300, AMD Radeon HD 7480D, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 AMD FX-8350, AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 GTX 470 AMD FX-8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      i7-3770K Intel Core i7-3770K, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Pentium G860 Intel Pentium G860, Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i3-3220 Intel Core i3-3220, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3550 Intel Core i5-3550, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3470 Intel Core i5-3470, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A

Let's turn to the integrated graphics solutions. As expected, Intel can hardly keep up with AMD in this aspect. This could change with the Haswell architecture expected shortly. So far, the Trinity APUs dominate the competition - that is apart from the smallest A4-5300. However, the performance also differs much within the APU series: The Radeon HD 7660D is more than twice as fast as the severely cut down Radeon HD 7480D. The mid range Radeon HD 7560D positions itself in-between the two and is just slightly faster than the HD Graphics 4000. Also, the fastest model is still a multiple slower than a dedicated mid-range graphics card for about 80 Euros (~$104). The fast DDR3-1866 RAM also does not improve this. It only brings a performance gain of about 4%.

Meanwhile, you can find the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) and the HD Graphics 2500 at the tail end of the field. These are versions of the HD Graphics 3000 (Sandy Bridge) or HD Graphics 4000 (Ivy Bridge) with deactivated parts. As a result their performance is even lower. Also, GPUs of the Sandy Bridge generation do not support DirectX 11. Therefore, they cannot run several benchmarks, e.g. 3DMark 11.

Hitman: Absolution
1024x768 Lowest Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
39.6 fps ∼46%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
39.1 fps ∼46% -1%
A8-5600K
38.5 fps ∼45% -3%
A4-5300
19.8 (min: 15.1) fps ∼23% -50%
Core i3-3220
18.4 fps ∼21% -54%
Core i5-3470
20.1 (min: 15.6) fps ∼23% -49%
1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
29.2 fps ∼37%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
29.7 fps ∼38% +2%
A8-5600K
27.8 fps ∼35% -5%
A4-5300
18 fps ∼23% -38%
Core i3-3220
10.7 fps ∼14% -63%
Core i5-3470
11.6 fps ∼15% -60%
1366x768 High Preset AA:2xMS AF:8x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
13.4 fps ∼19%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
13.7 fps ∼19% +2%
A8-5600K
12 fps ∼17% -10%
A4-5300
6.8 fps ∼10% -49%
Core i5-3470
3.8 fps ∼5% -72%
1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4xMS AF:16x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
6.4 fps ∼10%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
6.45 fps ∼10% +1%
A8-5600K
5.6 fps ∼9% -12%
A4-5300
3.5 fps ∼5% -45%
Core i5-3470
1.9 fps ∼3% -70%
BioShock Infinite
1280x720 Very Low Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
67.7 fps ∼27%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
70.2 fps ∼28% +4%
A8-5600K
64.7 fps ∼26% -4%
A4-5300
45.4 fps ∼18% -33%
FX-8350 GTX 470
162.3 fps ∼64% +140%
1366x768 Medium Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
35.4 fps ∼15%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
36.5 fps ∼16% +3%
A8-5600K
31.4 fps ∼13% -11%
A4-5300
20.1 fps ∼9% -43%
FX-8350 GTX 470
111.5 fps ∼48% +215%
1366x768 High Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
29 fps ∼14%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
30.09 fps ∼14% +4%
A8-5600K
26.1 fps ∼13% -10%
A4-5300
17.4 fps ∼8% -40%
FX-8350 GTX 470
100.9 fps ∼48% +248%
1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
8.5 fps ∼8%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
9.1 fps ∼9% +7%
A8-5600K
7.2 fps ∼7% -15%
A4-5300
4.4 fps ∼4% -48%
FX-8350 GTX 470
32.8 fps ∼32% +286%
SimCity
1024x768 Low
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
63 fps ∼28%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
67 fps ∼29% +6%
A8-5600K
55 fps ∼24% -13%
A4-5300
27.4 fps ∼12% -57%
FX-8350 GTX 470
166 fps ∼73% +163%
Core i5-3550
14.8 fps ∼6% -77%
1366x768 Medium
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
27.2 fps ∼19%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
29 fps ∼20% +7%
A8-5600K
24.3 fps ∼17% -11%
A4-5300
15.1 fps ∼10% -44%
Core i5-3550
8 fps ∼5% -71%
1366x768 High AA:on
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
19.9 fps ∼18%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
21.8 fps ∼20% +10%
A8-5600K
17.8 fps ∼16% -11%
A4-5300
11.2 fps ∼10% -44%
1920x1080 Ultra / High AA:on
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
8.3 fps ∼12%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
8.1 fps ∼11% -2%
A8-5600K
7.3 fps ∼10% -12%
A4-5300
4.3 fps ∼6% -48%
FX-8350 GTX 470
39 fps ∼54% +370%
Tomb Raider
1024x768 Low Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
70.5 fps ∼15%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
84 fps ∼17% +19%
A8-5600K
61.2 fps ∼13% -13%
A4-5300
41 fps ∼8% -42%
FX-8350 GTX 470
305.6 fps ∼63% +333%
1366x768 Normal Preset AA:FX AF:4x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
36 fps ∼9%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
42.2 fps ∼11% +17%
A8-5600K
31.5 fps ∼8% -12%
A4-5300
20 fps ∼5% -44%
FX-8350 GTX 470
155.5 fps ∼40% +332%
1366x768 High Preset AA:FX AF:8x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
22.2 fps ∼8%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
26.8 fps ∼9% +21%
A8-5600K
20 fps ∼7% -10%
A4-5300
13.3 fps ∼4% -40%
FX-8350 GTX 470
115.2 fps ∼39% +419%
1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:FX AF:16x
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
9.7 fps ∼7%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
11.8 fps ∼8% +22%
A8-5600K
7.8 fps ∼6% -20%
A4-5300
4.4 fps ∼3% -55%
FX-8350 GTX 470
44.1 fps ∼31% +355%
F1 2012
1024x768 Ultra Low Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
85 fps ∼46%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
92 fps ∼50% +8%
A8-5600K
82 fps ∼44% -4%
A4-5300
45 fps ∼24% -47%
Core i3-3220
37 (min: 27) fps ∼20% -56%
Core i5-3470
40 fps ∼22% -53%
1366x768 Medium Preset
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
64 fps ∼45%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
66 fps ∼47% +3%
A8-5600K
51 fps ∼36% -20%
A4-5300
32 fps ∼23% -50%
Core i3-3220
21 fps ∼15% -67%
Core i5-3470
26 fps ∼18% -59%
1366x768 High Preset AA:2xMS
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
47 fps ∼35%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
48 fps ∼36% +2%
A8-5600K
43 fps ∼32% -9%
A4-5300
28 fps ∼21% -40%
Core i3-3220
21 fps ∼16% -55%
Core i5-3470
22 fps ∼16% -53%
1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4xMS
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
17 fps ∼16%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
17 fps ∼16% 0%
A8-5600K
14 fps ∼13% -18%
A4-5300
12 fps ∼11% -29%
Core i3-3220
12 fps ∼11% -29%
Core i5-3470
12 fps ∼11% -29%
Legend
      A10-5800K DDR3-1600 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A10-5800K DDR3-1866 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A8-5600K AMD A8-5600K, AMD Radeon HD 7560D,
      A4-5300 AMD A4-5300, AMD Radeon HD 7480D, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 AMD FX-8350, AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 GTX 470 AMD FX-8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      i7-3770K Intel Core i7-3770K, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Pentium G860 Intel Pentium G860, Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i3-3220 Intel Core i3-3220, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3550 Intel Core i5-3550, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3470 Intel Core i5-3470, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A

One of the most interesting questions of this review is whether the APUs, especially the smaller ones, are capable of current 3D games. Let's start with the A10-5800K / Radeon HD 7660D: Depending on its graphical demands, a game can be run with about medium settings and a resolution of 1366x768 pixels. So, most occasional gamers should be satisfied. Apart from Tomb Raider, which gets about 20% faster, faster RAM hardly has an impact.

The A8-5600K / Radeon HD 7560D follows close behind the A10-5800K.  Although it only features a third of the shader units, it is only 10% slower. Meanwhile, the A4-5300 / Radeon HD 7480D is only half as fast as the top model. This might not only be caused by the slower GPU, but also by the severely cut down CPU. So, the user has to live with 1024x768 pixels and minimum details and this will still not guarantee smooth frame rates in all situations and games.

Further game tests are available in our always up-to-date graphics articles about the Radeon HD 7660D, Radeon HD 7560D, and Radeon HD 7480D.

As this review does not focus on Intel GPUs, we refer to the special articles of the HD Graphics, HD 2500, and the HD 4000 for further details. The ranking in our synthetic benchmarks and real games only marginally differs.

Compute Performance


ComputeMark v2.1
1024x600 Normal, Score
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
869 Points ∼15%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
883 Points ∼15% +2%
A8-5600K
646 Points ∼11% -26%
A4-5300
382 Points ∼7% -56%
i7-3770K
589 Points ∼10% -32%
Core i3-3220
282 Points ∼5% -68%
Core i5-3550
294 Points ∼5% -66%
Core i5-3470
286 Points ∼5% -67%
1024x600 Normal, Fluid 3DTex
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
131 Points ∼18%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
151 Points ∼21% +15%
A8-5600K
129 Points ∼18% -2%
A4-5300
88 Points ∼12% -33%
i7-3770K
65 Points ∼9% -50%
Core i3-3220
44 Points ∼6% -66%
Core i5-3550
44 Points ∼6% -66%
Core i5-3470
44 Points ∼6% -66%
1024x600 Normal, Fluid 2DTexArr
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
83 Points ∼13%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
82 Points ∼13% -1%
A8-5600K
83 Points ∼13% 0%
A4-5300
52 Points ∼8% -37%
i7-3770K
79 Points ∼12% -5%
Core i3-3220
44 Points ∼7% -47%
Core i5-3550
44 Points ∼7% -47%
Core i5-3470
44 Points ∼7% -47%
1024x600 Normal, Mandel Vector
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
241 Points ∼19%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
241 Points ∼19% 0%
A8-5600K
163 Points ∼13% -32%
A4-5300
99 Points ∼8% -59%
i7-3770K
125 Points ∼10% -48%
Core i3-3220
63 Points ∼5% -74%
Core i5-3550
65 Points ∼5% -73%
Core i5-3470
64 Points ∼5% -73%
1024x600 Normal, Mandel Scalar
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
171 Points ∼14%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
171 Points ∼14% 0%
A8-5600K
92 Points ∼8% -46%
A4-5300
46 Points ∼4% -73%
i7-3770K
101 Points ∼8% -41%
Core i3-3220
45 Points ∼4% -74%
Core i5-3550
45 Points ∼4% -74%
Core i5-3470
45 Points ∼4% -74%
1024x600 Normal, QJuliaRayTrace
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
243 Points ∼12%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
238 Points ∼12% -2%
A8-5600K
178 Points ∼9% -27%
A4-5300
97 Points ∼5% -60%
i7-3770K
219 Points ∼11% -10%
Core i3-3220
87 Points ∼4% -64%
Core i5-3550
97 Points ∼5% -60%
Core i5-3470
90 Points ∼5% -63%
LuxMark v2.0 64Bit
Sala Scene, OpenCL GPUs-only
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
228 Samples/s ∼9%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
221 Samples/s ∼9% -3%
A8-5600K
162 Samples/s ∼6% -29%
A4-5300
84 Samples/s ∼3% -63%
i7-3770K
70 Samples/s ∼3% -69%
Core i3-3220
47 Samples/s ∼2% -79%
Core i5-3550
53 Samples/s ∼2% -77%
Core i5-3470
50 Samples/s ∼2% -78%
Room Scene, OpenCL GPUs-only
A10-5800K DDR3-1600
91 Samples/s ∼6%
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
100 Samples/s ∼7% +10%
A8-5600K
74 Samples/s ∼5% -19%
A4-5300
39 Samples/s ∼3% -57%
i7-3770K
39 Samples/s ∼3% -57%
Core i3-3220
30 Samples/s ∼2% -67%
Core i5-3550
32 Samples/s ∼2% -65%
Core i5-3470
31 Samples/s ∼2% -66%
Legend
      A10-5800K DDR3-1600 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A10-5800K DDR3-1866 AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
      A8-5600K AMD A8-5600K, AMD Radeon HD 7560D,
      A4-5300 AMD A4-5300, AMD Radeon HD 7480D, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 AMD FX-8350, AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      FX-8350 GTX 470 AMD FX-8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      i7-3770K Intel Core i7-3770K, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Pentium G860 Intel Pentium G860, Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i3-3220 Intel Core i3-3220, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3550 Intel Core i5-3550, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
      Core i5-3470 Intel Core i5-3470, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A

Thanks to standardized interfaces like OpenCL or DirectCompute the shader units of the integrated GPUs can also perform general calculations. That is except for the Sandy Bridge graphics. Once again the AMD APUs perform better here. This said, Intel's HD 4000 can at least keep up with the A4-5300.

Please note: The recently introduced 15.31 driver significantly improved the OpenCL performance of Ivy Bridge GPUs. In Luxmark, the scores increased to 251 (Sala) and 163 points (Room) and exceed the Radeon HD 7660D's.

At present, there are still only few applications which profit from the compute features in practice. But, this should change in the medium term. So, a fast GPU should no longer only pay off in games. This is a further reason why AMD and Intel consider the graphics unit more and more important. AMD is still slightly better here, but Intel quickly recovers lost ground.


Verdict

The APUs of the A series are inexpensive alternatives to the FX family without GPU and deliver sufficient performance reserves for many everyday tasks. Even the cheapest model, the A4-5300 for only about 40 Euros (~$52), more than suffices for multimedia tasks, web surfing, and simple office tasks.

If you use more demanding software for image editing or video conversion (without GPU support) you should consider the A8-5600K (about 80 Euros, ~$104) or the A10-5800K (about 100 Euros, ~$130). As they feature double the modules and cores, they are more appropriate for excessive multitasking and shine with fast GPUs, which can run many of today's games without stuttering. If desired, the "K"-APUs can simply be overclocked by increasing the multiplier. If the cooling system works sufficiently, 4.5 GHz is possible without problems in many scenarios. On the contrary, the Intel CPU counterparts of the Celeron, Pentium and i3 series unfortunately do not support overclocking, but have other advantages like significantly lower energy consumption (under load and partial load).

The energy consumption is also one of the biggest disadvantages of the FX-8350. If you do not need an integrated graphics solution, you'll get vast processing performance for comparably little money (about 170 Euros, ~$222). In well-parallelized applications the FX even achieves a performance close to the Core i7-3770K, which costs about 100 Euros (~$130) more. But, on average, it "only" delivers a performance about on par with Core i5 CPUs.

Finally, many thanks to AdataAsus, the pco.co.at shop AMD, and Intel for making the respective components available to us!

A10-5800K DDR3-1600
AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
A10-5800K DDR3-1866
AMD A10-5800K, AMD Radeon HD 7660D,
A8-5600K
AMD A8-5600K, AMD Radeon HD 7560D,
A4-5300
AMD A4-5300, AMD Radeon HD 7480D, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
FX-8350
AMD FX-8350, AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
FX-8350 GTX 470
AMD FX-8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-3770K, Intel HD Graphics 4000, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
Pentium G860
Intel Pentium G860, Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
Core i3-3220
Intel Core i3-3220, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
Core i5-3550
Intel Core i5-3550, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
Core i5-3470
Intel Core i5-3470, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Intel SSD 520 Series SSDSC2CW240A
Cinebench R10
-1%
-5%
-34%
42%
98%
-1%
24%
72%
65%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit92859266
0%
8838
-5%
4345
-53%
16904
82%
22190
139%
7695
-17%
10193
10%
17762
91%
17192
85%
Rendering Single 32Bit31313056
-2%
2941
-6%
2734
-13%
3201
2%
5536
77%
3964
27%
4626
48%
5191
66%
5006
60%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit1298712959
0%
12505
-4%
5867
-55%
23538
81%
27536
112%
9063
-30%
12546
-3%
22729
75%
21594
66%
Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit42214139
-2%
3983
-6%
3645
-14%
4346
3%
6972
65%
4953
17%
5847
39%
6568
56%
6328
50%
Cinebench R11.5
-1%
-5%
-34%
58%
99%
-7%
17%
63%
57%
CPU Multi 64Bit3.33.33
1%
3.2
-3%
1.45
-56%
6.89
109%
7.88
139%
2.34
-29%
3.31
0%
5.81
76%
5.57
69%
CPU Single 64Bit1.041.02
-2%
0.98
-6%
0.91
-12%
1.1
6%
1.65
59%
1.2
15%
1.38
33%
1.56
50%
1.51
45%
Geekbench 2 - 32 Bit
Total Score69696945
0%
6520
-6%
4268
-39%
11198
61%
12435
78%
5393
-23%
7008
1%
8990
29%
9721
39%
wPrime 2.0x
32m *15.915.9
-0%
16.7
-5%
35.5
-123%
7.96
50%
6.39
60%
23.6
-48%
14.66
8%
9.98
37%
TrueCrypt
0%
-5%
-57%
96%
90%
-64%
-43%
31%
AES Mean 100MB1.91.9
0%
1.8
-5%
0.823
-57%
3.6
89%
3.9
105%
0.229
-88%
0.318
-83%
2.7
42%
Twofish Mean 100MB0.380.379
0%
0.36
-5%
0.165
-57%
0.749
97%
0.678
78%
0.179
-53%
0.288
-24%
0.448
18%
Serpent Mean 100MB0.2090.208
0%
0.198
-5%
0.093
-56%
0.423
102%
0.392
88%
0.102
-51%
0.166
-21%
0.28
34%
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0
-1%
-5%
-55%
64%
79%
-39%
-11%
51%
Pass 1107.6105.6
-2%
102.44
-5%
50
-54%
139
29%
172.3
60%
70.31
-35%
98.55
-8%
163.8
52%
Pass 221.921.8
0%
20.93
-4%
9.62
-56%
43.5
99%
43.4
98%
12.69
-42%
18.82
-14%
32.7
49%
WinRAR
Result25302472
-2%
2449
-3%
1347
-47%
4562
80%
3698
46%
1655
-35%
2695
7%
3375
33%
3DMark 06 - CPU
43114464
4%
4295
0%
2284
-47%
6648
54%
7606
76%
3065
-29%
4019
-7%
6405
49%
6179
43%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-0% / -0%
-4% / -5%
-55% / -49%
64% / 64%
54% / 54%
78% / 85%
-31% / -28%
-1% / -1%
46% / 50%
51% / 57%

* ... smaller is better

Comment this article:

> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > Review AMD Trinity and FX Desktop Processors
Author: Klaus Hinum, Till Schönborn, 2013-05- 7 (Update: 2013-06-24)