In Q2 of 2015, AMD officially launched Carrizo, their new APU aimed at mobile devices such as laptops and portable all-in-ones that normally accommodate 15W-35W processors. Quoted in the media as 'the biggest change to Bulldozer since Bulldozer itself', the marketing arm of AMD released information regarding the Excavator architecture of the new processor, and which contained a long list of fluid and dynamic implementations on improving the Bulldozer based architecture over the previous iteration of Steamroller (Kaveri). Despite this, AMDs target market for the Carrizo platform has not been receptive to AMDs product stack in recent generations due to issues surrounding performance, battery life and designs. AMD believes to have solved the first two of those matters with Carrizo, whereas the third is out of their hands and up to the OEMs to embrace AMDs platform. We wondered if the OEM’s concerns were well placed, and organized some special testing to confirm AMD’s claims about Carrizo.

Who Controls the User Experience: AMD’s Carrizo Tested

Back in early 2015, we performed a long analysis on Intel’s Core M platform, featuring 4.5W processors under the Broadwell microarchitecture. The purpose of that piece was to test several designs using that line of processors, and examining how the design of the chassis and features of the platform directly affected both performance and user experience. For Brett and I at the time, it was an eye opening endeavor, showing just how the slowest processor in a stack in the right notebook chassis can outperform the fastest, most expensive processor in a bad chassis that is wholly un-optimized.

This review is along similar lines, but instead we are testing AMD’s latest Carrizo platform, which is focused on 15W mobile parts in the $400 to $700 market. We approached AMD after the Carrizo Tech Day back in May with a proposal – to speak to engineers and to test the claims made about the platform. Typically sourcing AMD laptops, at least over the past few years, has been a veritable minefield as they are seemingly never promoted by OEM partners as review samples, or as one senior member put it, ‘Some sales people only seem to offer AMD devices if people specifically ask for them’. Our proposal involved sourcing a number of Carrizo laptops when they were launched and tackling them head on, to see how many of the claims made on the Tech Day were testable but also noticeable and true. The issue AMD and OEMs have is that everyone in the AMD-to-OEM-to-retailer chain is invested in selling the platform, so there needs to be a source of third-party testing for people who don’t trust that chain.

Over the course of a few months, our proposal changed and merged with ideas to speak with AMD’s VPs and engineers, with a number of meetings and discussions. It emerged the best way to do this was to fly to AMD’s HQ in Austin, Texas for a week and get hands on time in the labs. We agreed, as speaking to engineers and learning what is going on behind the scenes at AMD is always a good thing, but on the condition that we were free to setup, test and report without any predisposition to the results. There is an added benefit of having engineers only a floor or two away if a problem was to arise. There have been similar events in the past where media have been invited on-site for canned testing, but we made sure this wasn’t going to be the case before we arrived. For example, Qualcomm has invited select media to in-hand, temporary Snapdragon testing on a couple of occasions, with media free to test and report whatever results.


The Testing

We had four Carrizo devices on hand to test for a week, along with a single Kaveri system. These devices were sourced by AMD, and I put in requests for a variety of price points, hardware configurations and styles, along with some specific testing equipment to which we don’t have access. While it wasn’t possible to get everything on hand due to timing issues, the arrangement at least captured a number of areas we planned on testing.

The testing aimed to cover the devices as units, the underlying hardware, as well as the Tech Day claims. Some of this piece will read like a regular review, some of it similar to our Core M testing regarding performance, power and temperature, but a large part is reserved for discussing both the results and the market. When building a platform like Carrizo, a lot of binary decisions are made that can be good or bad for the processor manufacturer, the OEM or the user. We discuss these in detail as a result of our findings. 

The Devices: #1 The HP Elitebook 745 G2 (Kaveri, A10 PRO-7350B)
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • basicmath - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    can you post a link to those dual channel benchies please :)
  • basicmath - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    actually just saw the notebook check graph, that is a considerable increase in performance!
  • zodiacfml - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link

    Right! The review should have included dual channel performance. Going through the review, I thought Intel finally came close with AMD in graphics performance. With dual channel, Carrizo is well ahead in gaming benchmarks at nearly half the price.
  • extide - Thursday, March 24, 2016 - link

    AMD does not have a partnership with Samsung. GF does, but GF is, now, a separate company.
  • Gc - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Anandtech: how did you determine that the Y700 pre-production unit that you tested was accessing its two memory cards through a single channel only? Are you simply reporting what AMD told you, or is there a test that readers can use to check production laptops, and other machines? (Might the two memory cards be mismatched in some way, so the processor backed off to single channel mode?)

    s/ R9 385MX / R9 M385X /
  • Ian Cutress - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Aside from being told directly, I did memory bandwidth testing and other software indicators (CPU-Z, AIDA, etc). Both modules were matched, I took them out and had a look.
  • basicmath - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    @Ian Cutress, any reason you didn't put an extra 4GB stick in the G3 745? Seems like a really simple thing to do and would have given a really useful graphical comparison. I guess you guys are too poor to have a stick floating around!
  • Ian Cutress - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Aside from your snarky comment, your answers are explained in the review.

    The laptops were tested as sold. This is a review on the user experience of these devices. As shown on the Carrizo vs Core page, device after device from Carrizo comes by default with a single stick of memory. Most users who pick a device and go don't want to understand why their UX is the way it is, it just needs to work when they buy it.

    I'd also like to mention that testing five laptops with a our suite of tests plus power testing and thermal testing in a single week without an opportunity to revisit is mightily tough for one person who doesn't have access to all their normal gear (testing was done on location, as mentioned), and adding in more variables extrapolates testing time which I didn't have.

    We'll be doing further testing for Carrizo, specifically on generational updates, when the Athlon X4 845 comes out. I'm hoping to rope in an R-Series Carrizo platform as well (with IGP) to test DDR3/DDR4 comparison points.
  • basicmath - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Dude, you highlighted the fact that the 512 core Carrizo chip was running on a single channel, weren't you even slightly curious to find out how it performed on dual channel? It's like reviewing a water proof phone and not trying to drown it!
  • erple2 - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link

    No, its like testing a phone as it came from the factory, then not paying for some third party "waterproofing" company to waterproof the phone and testing it underwater.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now