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
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Khato - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    Yes there is. Mobile is the primary market for GT3e - there are 3 mobile products with Iris Pro 5200 and only 1 desktop product.
  • kyuu - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    Apologies. I actually missed that 47W Haswells were considered "mobile" when I read about it the first time. Still, given the price and TDP disparity, I don't think comparing Iris Pro to Richland is terribly interesting.
  • FwFred - Friday, June 28, 2013 - link

    I sure hope 'Part 2' had battery life... an essential part of any mobile CPU review.
  • Frenetic Pony - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    WE never needed Bulldozer to begin with. AMD shot itself in the face with Bulldozer, just after its former CEO hoodwinked the shareholders that stuck with AMD and the company itself by making off with the manufacturing arm in the way of Global Foundries just as he was simultaneously making the entire thing a viable, moneymaking business.

    WE need Bulldozer gone with, a long time ago. AMD, and thus us, needs a new much less power hungry architecture that can fit into a SOC like structure on the low end and makes Intel stop piddling around on the high TDP end. But unless both Kabini and the PS4/Xbone do very well this holiday season, AMD might not get a chance to produce that.

    Still, maybe Qualcomm will be up for it. I could see them even buying out the GPU division if AMD goes under. And their updates Krait this year are perfectly competitive with ARM's new Cortex a15 AND Apple's Swift. Maybe they can just keep getting better. Start to put pressure on Intel from the bottom of the power scale up.
  • torp - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    But where are the notebooks with *just* a Richland and no discrete graphics?
    If I get an A10 I'll get it for the 'good enough' performance at a low price using just the integrated GPU.
    Does anyone make such a notebook, preferably that's not a piece of crap, build quality wise?
  • Kalelovil - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    "In this reviewer's opinion, 35W isn't the target, it's the halo. 15W-17W is the target, and while AMD has offerings at those TDPs, they're woefully uncompetitive."

    True, their 17W offerings are disappointing, but AMD has the 19W A8-5545M and 25W A10-5745M which offer reasonable specifications (

    Any chance you will be having systems using either of those in for review?
  • Kalelovil - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    Corrected link:
  • TerdFerguson - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    All the "we need AMD" shtick is getting very long in the tooth. Maybe it wouldn't be so offensive if authors were able to provide some scholarly references to back up the claims that consumers are going to really be hurt by AMDs failure to compete. There are certainly plenty of industries with many vendors where competition isn't a huge factor in pricing, even in the tech sector. I'm nowhere near convinced that AMD should somehow derive credit for Intel's progress, and the baseless whining in this article has done nothing to convince me otherwise.
  • kyuu - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    ... I generally dislike being so blunt, but: wow, that's clueless even for someone who's name is "Terd".
  • Pneumothorax - Saturday, June 29, 2013 - link

    Wow... Somebody forgets the 'good ol days' of the 90's when Intel basically completely owned the x86 market and routinely released their latest chips always around $900. For example the original Pentium in the 'cheaper' 60mhz variant was released in 1993 at $847. And no that was not an 'extreme edition' either. In today's dollars it's close to $1400. That is the x86 world without a viable competitor to greedy Intel.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now