AMD Athlon X4 845 Processor (Carrizo ) Review

Had the same thought. Given this is a quad core CPU comparison against i5's would be more meaningful I think.

 

Absolutely right. People still seem to underestimate the need for CPU grunt, especially when it comes to pairing with semi high-end cards. Just like the idiots on the Linus Tech Tips forum recommending a GTX 970 to people with G3258's because they could be overclocked :bang: That seriously makes me want to split some heads. For a semi high-end or high-end card you need the cores AND the frequency/IPC, they don't compensate for each other (excluding some games that is, especially older games).

 

It's a two module CPU, where each module contains two ALUs and a single FPU. It's not exactly quad core, but it's much more than a dual core.

 

Why is the graphics tests based on using a discrete GTX1080? That is completely unrealistic. A much more realistic comparison would have been using a R9-480, since it's considerably cheaper and a much more likely candidate if someone were to use a discrete card.

Also, can the APU be crossfired like older APU's, and if so, with what cards? I know that with earlier APU's it was limited, but I believe it was still greater performance than either the integrated graphics or the APU alone. Maybe that won't be available until the lower end Polaris cards are released? Remembering that this APU is purely budget focused.

Maybe you could do a comparison of an i7-6700K with a GTX950? It's along similar lines as pairing an Athlon X4 with a GTX1080 , and probably a little unfair since the i7-6700K and a GTX950 is probably more closely matched than an Athlon X4 and a GTX1080.

 

In Laptops yes but the laptops was all gimbed to hell being locked at 15w TDP by almost everyone, think Lonovo was the only one that didn't gimb theirs.

Over all i think this processor is pretty good, well performance was meh but temps max 45C, with a tiny aluminium and no coper at all heatsink running at 3.5GHz

 

Is there anything really internally different in these cpu's because on paper they just look like better binned chips with lower voltages.

 

If there is it's not enough. 1 or 2 years ago some AMD's head of something made a description of how amazing carrizo was going to be. Vaporware once again. I believe the dude even said it would have DDR4.

This is what I hate about AMD. Why can't their PR just shut up if they aren't sure it's going to be what they say?

 

Plex box

This would be a good basis for a Plex media streaming / NAS build, coupled with my old GTX 460, maybe even some mmo gaming. Much cheaper than an actual NAS.

 

I love the "meh nothing exciting" posts, when the cpu is like $80. You can get the CPU, a motherboard and memory, for the cost of a higher end i3. Under DX12 it will probably give you similar framerates too.

 

Honestly, while it's nice to see a new CPU from AMD, I'm seriously not impressed by the single-core performance. I'd personally (and most likely based on a bias) go with the Pentium G4400 for $10 cheaper CAD. Better power consumption, IGP, and per-core performance. If you're web browsing it's more than sufficient and is a very capable CPU even for gaming.

I'm a little sad to see that it even loses to the Phenom II series from many years ago. Even though it's 200MHz slower the improved architecture should at least make it on par. And it even loses to the i5 760 which is now 6 years old.

 

It's the target marget you have to consider. You would NOT be buying this CPU, nor a Pentium G4400 if you were serious about CAD! Also the GPU performance would be better than the Pentium G4400. You would also not be pairing it with a discrete GPU, especially not a GTX 1080 (still don't know why that was done for the review).

The other issue with going the G4400 is you never know how long Intel will support the graphics. As an all-in-one, budget orientated CPU which this APU definitely is, it's quite a good choice. If you're planning on intensive gaming, heavy processing, video editing, CAD etc, you'd be silly to get this, a Pentium branded CPU, or an i3 for that matter.

 

Considering that it is faster than 7870k apu in a lot of situation with lower clock speed 30w less power usage with smaller l2 cache. I think amd did good with this. It would be good bit faster if they did not neuter it this much tho.

There should be Carrizo with ddr4 out later this year with the new fm3 platform called bristol ridge still 28nm tho. Why be so negative we knew there won't be anything AMAZING coming out before Zen anyway, and there is a good limit on what you can do on 28nm lol and AMD has done a lot on that node.

 

I think Amd is doing great with the (apu) line-up hell at this point in time the only amd I would consider is a apu there traditional cpu's lack pretty-much in every department compared to intel. This carrizo would be almost perfect for a mid-range gaming build.

Make a really high-end apu with 1000 stream prossesors 8 cpu cores plus 8 gpu cores and let it gpo fo0r $200 dollars.....

Mid-range - 800 stream prossesors 6 cpu cores + 6 gpu cores /12 core $150

 

Bristol Ridge's performance is a miracle, all things considered. AMD's CPU department gets a lot of (deserved) sh*t, but what they have managed to recover out of Bulldozer is amazing.

 

Quick question how tall is the heatsink/fan? Is it under 65mm?

 

I don't know exactly but it's very puny (though, it gets the job done well); it wouldn't surprise me if it was less than 50mm. If you're wondering if it'll fit ok in a low-profile case, I'm pretty confident it will.

 

I know this is a little bit of a necro, but with zen information continuing to pop up, i'm wondering if anyways has done a test to see how much better, in reality, excavator is then steamroller, piledriver and bulldozer?

AMD keeps talking about Zen performance compared to Excavator, which is what this CPU is, but most of us who have AMD processors are on either bulldozer or piledriver and therefore can't really relate to "how much faster" AMD's Zen is "supposed" to be.

 

Your comment about what "most of us" have is exactly why there aren't any direct architecture changes, let alone a direct idea of what Zen is supposed to be like. Generally speaking, benchmarking laptop parts isn't worth considering because there are way too many variables to consider, many of which are relatively difficult to control. But when it comes to desktops, AMD hasn't made it too easy for the 15h family. To my understanding, Bulldozer only existed on AM3+. Piledriver was on AM3+ and FM2. Steamroller was only on FM2+ and I think AM1. Excavator was only on AM1 and even then, it's not a typical excavator chip due to the independent CPU cores. The varying sockets complicates things because they all serve different purposes (except FM2 vs FM2+).

So, unless you got a quad core CPU from each generation, disabled the IGPs, used single-channel memory, disabled turbo speeds, and underclocked them all to have the same frequency, it's pretty difficult to get any solid direct comparison between them all. But when you consider that these AM1 parts are competitive against Sandy Bridge (clock per clock) I'd say Zen has a good future, even if the 40% improvement AMD claims is a best-case scenario.

 

...This processor isn't a mobile processor. It's FM2+, it's the desktop version without APU of excavator

 

I'm aware it isn't mobile... I never said it was.

Anyway, I accidentally confused this article with another one (referring to the AM1 excavator parts) but my overall comment doesn't really change.