Because LuxMark uses OpenCL, we can use it to test both GPU and CPU performance. OpenCL code is by nature parallelized and relies on a real-time compiler, so it should adapt well to new instructions. For instance, Intel and AMD offer integrated client drivers for OpenCL on x86 processors, and they both support AVX. The AMD APP driver even supports Bulldozer's and Piledriver's distinctive instructions, FMA4 and XOP. We used the Intel ICD on the Intel processors and the AMD ICD on the AMD chips.
Interesting. Intel has a clear advantage in CPU performance, while AMD has the edge in GPU horsepower. When both components are working together to render the scene, the scales tip in Intel's favor. The Core i3-4330's faster CPU cores are just too much for the A8-7600's integrated Radeon to overcome.
To AMD's credit, the A8-7600 scores better than the A10-6700T. The difference in CPU performance is relatively small, but the gaps in the GPU and combined tests are huge. Some of Kaveri's advantage there probably comes courtesy of its faster memory interface. The deltas between the A10-6700T and A8-6500T suggest that the GPU and combined tests are particularly sensitive to memory bandwidth.
The Cinebench benchmark is based on Maxon's Cinema 4D rendering engine. It's multithreaded and comes with a 64-bit executable. This test runs with just a single thread and then with as many threads as CPU cores (or threads, in CPUs with multiple hardware threads per core) are available.
The A8-7600 goes zero for two in Cinebench. Its single-threaded performance is substantially slower than that of the Core i3-4330, and the multithreaded test doesn't provide much relief.
The multithreaded test gives Kaveri a chance to beat up on Richland a little, though. In that test, the A8-7600 has a big lead over the A10-6700. The difference between the two chips is much smaller in the single-threaded test.