System and Futuremark Performance

While AMD's Enduro software is apparently still a mess on Intel-based systems, I actually found my only problem with it was messing with the interface to disable the MSI GX60's Radeon HD 7970M. For the purposes of isolating the A10-5750M's performance and giving it the best chance I could, I swapped in a second memory stick from the much maligned MSI GT70 Dragon Edition I recently reviewed and then disabled the 7970M.

PCMark 7 (2013)

PCMark 7 is always going to respond primarily to the storage system, so the GX60's SSD takes a bath. What we want to see are scores that more directly isolate the performance properties of the A10-5750M itself.

Cinebench R11.5 - Single-Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R11.5 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD 5.x

x264 HD 5.x

On the CPU side, we can see that Richland provides a healthy performance boost over Trinity. Only the first pass in our x264 benchmark doesn't show a notable jump, but the second pass boasts a remarkable 20% increase in performance. We're still some way from catching up to Haswell, much less Ivy Bridge, but I'll take the improvement where I can get it.

Futuremark 3DMark (2013)

Futuremark 3DMark (2013)

Futuremark 3DMark (2013)

Futuremark 3DMark 11

3DMark also continues to heavily favor AMD's on-die graphics, but while CPU performance got a healthy boost from Richland, the refresh doesn't move the needle on the graphics hardware nearly as much. It's generally improved apart from the odd results in the Cloud Gate test, but Richland's primary reason for being seems to be driving up CPU performance.

Introducing the AMD A10-5750M and Mobile Richland Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

82 Comments

View All Comments

  • FwFred - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    I am very interested to see 28W Haswell GT3 vs. 37W Haswell GT2 vs. 25W/35W Richland, and 17/19W Richland vs 15W Haswell GT2/GT3. Reply
  • Gabik123 - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    Why not boot camp a 2013 macbook air to show Richland performance against a GT3 HD5000? Reply
  • takeship - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    Or just post the Tomb Raider - Value number from that review. ~28fps. This is really a chip in search of a market. Richland can't replace a discrete setup except at the margins, and has lost it's DX11 leg over Intel as well. Battery life was not mentioned for a reason. I'm very curious Dustin, what the performance of the MSI looked like before you populated out the last RAM slot. It seems that most OEMs would rather save the few dollars rather than even deliver baseline performance with these chips. Also, is there any chance at all that the Richland ULV line will get a review from Anandtech sometime in the future? Reply
  • xTRICKYxx - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    Battery Life was omitted because the laptop came with a 7970M. A 100W GPU is going to skew the results. Reply
  • wcg66 - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    The APU is a good niche for AMD. These gaming numbers are pretty impressive IMO given the cost versus the Intel competition. I hope the continue to improve to the point that they can offer midrange discrete graphics card performance in a single chip (say Radeon 7790 levels of performance.) Reply
  • mikk - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    desktop Haswell is a joke

    I would say Dustin Sklavos is a joke. Bad reputation for Anandtech.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    While a bit harsh for a professional review, it's not wrong. Reply
  • superjim - Tuesday, July 2, 2013 - link

    ^ this Reply
  • solarisking - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    Actually I'm glad he put that in there. Somebody's telling it like it is. I was a little surprised Anand seemed as pleased as he was with the first Haswell performance article. Reply
  • claysm - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    I agree. Desktop Haswell is a total snooze. There's no upgrade incentive whatsoever from IVB or even SNB in my opinion. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now