Single page Print

Battlefield 4
Unfortunately, the A8-7600 isn't part of AMD's Battlefield 4 bundling promo. The chip runs the game rather well, though, as we learned while blasting through a portion of the single-player campaign's Shanghai mission. As usual, we tested the game by measuring each frame of animation produced. The uninitiated can start here for an intro to our methods.

We stuck to a 1920x1080 display resolution for all our game testing. Surprisingly, the A8-7600 handled that resolution with medium detail settings.

At these settings, Battlefield 4 runs much better on the A8-7600 than on any of the other configs. All our metrics agree; the Kaveri setups have higher FPS averages, lower 99th percentile frame times, and fewer frames beyond each of our "badness" thresholds. Frame production isn't silky smooth, as the frame time plot indicates, but it's a massive improvement over the other solutions.

The data match my subjective impressions. BF4 may not be especially pretty with medium details, but it's definitely playable on the A8-7600's integrated graphics, and there isn't much of a penalty associated with shifting the chip into 45W mode. That said, 28 FPS is a little on the sluggish side for multiplayer gaming. You may want to lower the in-game detail when playing online, where 64-player servers can generate a lot more on-screen mayhem than the average campaign mission.

We had hoped to test BF4 with multiple memory speeds, but the A8-7600 wouldn't boot with the DIMMs set to 2400 MT/s. We did manage to get Kaveri running with 1866 MT/s memory, though. That setup dropped the 65W config's FPS average by two frames per second and increased its 99th percentile frame time by 2.5 milliseconds—relatively small changes. Those small deltas suggest that the A10-6700's deficit is due to more than just its slower memory interface. The A8-7600's closest Richland-based competition has much higher frame latencies.