AMD A10 7850K 

Released January, 2014
  • 3.7 GHz
  • Quad core
  • Unlocked
8.8 Out of 10

Still, we expect the performance benefits of the A10-7850K's GPU to outshine the higher clock speed on the older part.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
Unlike the AMD A8-7600, which was a huge advance over the AMD A8-6500T, the A10-7850K is a much more modest improvement over its last-generation counterpart.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of the AMD A10 7850K among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

A10 7850K
8.2
A10 7860K
6.2
A8 7600
7.8
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

A10 7850K
7.5
A10 7860K
5.6
A8 7600
7.1
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

A10 7850K
10.0
A10 7860K
n.d.
A8 7600
8.5
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

A10 7850K
9.9
A10 7860K
9.6
A8 7600
9.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

A10 7850K
8.4
A10 7860K
7.4
A8 7600
7.9
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

A10 7850K
6.7
A10 7860K
n.d.
A8 7600
n.d.
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

A10 7850K
8.8
A10 7860K
8.2
A8 7600
8.9

Benchmarks Real world tests of the AMD A10 7850K

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

A10 7850K
89.37 mHash/s
A8 7600
64.45 mHash/s
A10 7860K
89.4 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

A10 7850K
1.44 fps
A8 7600
1.07 fps
A10 7860K
1.36 fps

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated Data courtesy FutureMark

A10 7850K
3,374
A8 7600
3,177
A10 7860K
n.d.

Sky Diver Data courtesy FutureMark

A10 7850K
6,222
A8 7600
4,484
A10 7860K
n.d.

Cloud Gate Data courtesy FutureMark

A10 7850K
7,530
A8 7600
5,957
A10 7860K
n.d.

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A10 7850K
7,022
A10 7860K
5,054
A8 7600
6,014

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A10 7850K
2,328
A10 7860K
1,765
A8 7600
2,062

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

A10 7850K
2,370,000 MB/s
A10 7860K
155.3 MB/s
A8 7600
1,970,000 MB/s

Reviews Word on the street for the AMD A10 7850K


6.0
This indicated that the A10-7850K is best for cryptographic workloads (at least in terms of price/performance).

What People Are Saying Give it to me straight

Socket Type

A Flattened Curve In our AMD A8-7600 review, we noted that the new 45W chip was far faste, in every metric than the 45W chip it replaced.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
That's because AMD's old A8-6500T has a base clock speed of 2.1GHz and a burst clock of 3.1GHz, while the new A8-7600 runs at 3.1GHz base with a boost up to about 3.4GHz.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
Our comparison chips from Intel were the dual-core Intel Core i3-4330 (3.5GHz, no Turbo Mode, Hyper-Threading enabled) and the quad-core Intel Core i5-4670 (3.1GHz base, 3.8GHz Turbo, no Hyper-Threading).
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

Socket

TrueCrypt 7.1a's combined Serpent-TwoFish-AES benchmark test put the A10-7850K neck-and-neck with the Intel Core i5-4670S, with the AMD chip just a breath behind at 165MBps of encryption/decryption bandwidth compared with 168MBps for the Intel i5-4670S.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
A few months ago, we covered the launch of the AMD A8-7600 and the new core's significantly improved performance in the 45W TDP envelope.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
The AMD A10-7850 APU's great graphics performance and new computer features are partially undercut by the CPU performance.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

Performance

Total CPU performance isn't dramatically better than the chip it replaces.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
These results show the AMD processors being outperformed by the Intel CPUs, thanks to the superior CPU performance of the latter.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
Combine the fact that the Steamroller architecture is more efficient than AMD's older Piledriver CPU core, and you've got a recipe for strong performance gains.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

Gpu

Architecturally, the two cores are built from the same blocks: The new Steamroller CPU and a new GPU core are based on AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN).
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
The A10-7850K is a quad-core chip with 512 GPU cores based on AMD's GCN architecture.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
The A10-7850K moves the bar forward on the CPU side, but most of the improvements here are focused on the GPU.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

Multicore

Unfortunately, those improvements didn't change the fact that an Intel dual-core CPU was still outperforming an AMD quad-core processor in this test.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
Intel cores still offer better CPU performance for the money.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)
The Steamroller core has one set of advantages that it hasn't lost to a decreasing clock speed; the CPU takes a far smaller penalty when it scales in multithreaded scenarios.
by PCMag (Jun, 2014)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Clock speed 3.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4 GHz
Cores Quad core
Socket type FM2+
Is unlocked Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes
Has virtualization support Yes
Instruction set extensions
  1. AES
  2. AMD-V
  3. AMD64
  4. AVX
  5. BMI1
  6. F16C
  7. FMA3
  8. FMA4
  9. MMX
  10. SSE
  11. SSE2
  12. SSE3
  13. SSE4.1
  14. SSE4.2
  15. SSE4a
  16. Supplemental SSE3
  17. TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in
Memory type
  1. DDR3-2133
  2. DDR3-1866
  3. DDR3-1600
  4. DDR3-1333
Channels Dual Channel
Supports ECC No
Maximum bandwidth 34,133.32 MB/s

details

Architecture x86-64
Threads 4 threads
L2 cache 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 28 nm
Max CPUs 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C

integrated graphics

GPU GPU
Label Radeon™ R7 Series
Latest DirectX 11.0

power consumption

TDP 65W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 11.2 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 18 comments.
two years later..... still no fucking fx releases. The 1st sentence applies to me now.
Well, but there are multiple disadvantages to this approach: 1. You spend additional cash on system memory for the GPU unit of the APU - it must have higher capacity (lack of GPU VRAM) and high bandwidth (GPU performance also depends on its frame buffer troughput) 2. very low-end video cards like the R7 250 provide a bad price/performance ratio (a.k.a. value) 3. A setup where the APU is replaced by the 860K quadcore Athlon and a regular dedicated GPU for the same price will beat the crossfired dual-R7 250 while allowing for more overclocking capabilities
the XB1 uses an APU with a chip based on the Radeon HD 7790. The PS4 uses an APU with a chip based on the Radeon HD 7850, but this chip is cut (several ROPs are disabled - this is as if you would cut a few cylinders from a nice sports car engine). This combined with the form factor which impacts proper cooling which leads to thermal throttling (the chip produces too much heat for the console sized cooling to handle at original speeds so the clock speeds need to get reduced for the console) is the reason why a PS4 is performing only on a R7 260X (entry/mild gaming video card) level. Here is a video showing a direct comparison between the video card (~90$ new) and an XB1 (350$)/PS4 (400$): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGw92feB0
I believe the new consoles are based off the R7 260x or R9 270 graphics cards.
Yes...set up that 7850k integrated graphics in crossfire mode with an R7 250 card and increase performance even more. R7 250 cards can be had for cheap.
then there is no point in getting an APU. he could have as well gotten a 860K and a R7 260X for better performance at a lower price point. Also, when going dedicated the memory doesnt need such a high speed because games wont benefir from increased RAM speeds when the GPU can access its own VRAM.
The A10 7850K is not a challenge for the next gen consoles but a 860k paired with a R7 260X definitely is
a setup with an R7 (the integrated gpu of the 7850K) will wipe the floor with a setup running a pathetic GT630. No shit sherlock. Nothing "surprising here". Cut the ridiculous i7 4770K, slap an overclocked pentium g3258 on a GTX 750 and you have a pendant to the A10 7850K
Surely you will need to buy a gpu of course.
Can someone provide me with AMD A10-7850K datasheet, please?
APUS fill a role that dedicated machines can't...mini PCs (size of the Zbox etc) With this APU you can build a PC small enough that you can carry it around in a handbag...and still play the newest titles (of course not maxed out) Once AMD manages to use the 20 NM process....APUs are actually going to be interesting even for gamers that always demand high to max settings. AMD is certainly on the right path....they know that they can't compete with intels high end segment of CPUs...so they are going a different path...and while this APU is far from perfect...with some tweaking it's actually a solid 1080P gaming chip that fits in a PC as small as a kid shoebox.
Im using a xeon and am hoping for some fucking fx releases, seems like a hopeless waiting. the APUs are really nice for htpcs and office pcs but please god amd dont sell this for gaming. Concentrate on cpus and gpus, you once were really strong on the cpus thinking back to the athlon and phenom times, now we have 8 core 5ghz cpus that cant compete with 4 core(8 thread) 3.8Ghz cpus. At all. AMD should bring out a cpu again, but they should put a lot of work in it, new architecture and better performance, and please god throw away am3+ not even supporting native usb 3.0.
I would love AMD more if they'd drop this horrible on-die integrated graphics. Integrated graphics will always suck and will always be unusable for gaming. This is by design. The same handful of companies own the foundries that make CPUs, GPUs, and motherboard chipsets. It's not the 1990s any more. You don't have a lot of choices. 3DFX? Gone. Savage? Gone. VIA? Trident? Gone. Gone. SIS? Gone. ALI? Gone. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia gobbled up all their competitors. And if they made integrated video--on-die or on-board, it's a distinction without a difference from their perspective--it'd reduce sales of add-on video cards that use chips from the same tiny handful of companies, which are very profitable for them. So they push this on-die integrated video, which is even cheaper and crappier than on-motherboard integrated video from 1997. It's made to be just barely usable, so that Grandma can look at kitten pictures on her set-top box, and maybe send an email or two. That's all it has to be good for. So we who are looking for performance get shafted again, because the on-die GPU pushes up the manufacturing price of the CPU whether we want it or not, whether we will ever use it or not, and if we don't like it our only choice is to buy an add-on card from either Nvidia or ATI, which is owned by AMD. Bleh. Was anyone else hoping for an eight-core Piledriver with additional cache, that could have competed with Intel on processing power? Yeah. Me too. Instead, this is what we get.
On my 7850K with 8GB of DDR3-2133, to get >45fps during normal gameplay for me (1440x900), I play medium-high settings with 2x AA. And even then the fps drops during action scenes. Yes, it's a whole new world of integrated graphics, but it's still not a dedicated GPU.
i love amd :D
try to watch this video and you will be suprised: http://youtu.be/HjAM2zYNqko
i dot think it will run bf4 at ultra because the gpu in this apu not that much but i think it will run the game in high so yes amd did it this time as always
I'm excited for this looking from a gaming perspective; as in a preview i saw it could run games like battlefield 4 smoothly on 1080p. Would be a huge challenge to the 8th gen console, with m-itx builds
comments powered by Disqus