CPU performance: Steamroller stands still
As we mentioned above, the Bulldozer family has lower CPU performance than Intel's recent architectures, in part because each pair of Bulldozer CPU cores share resources like floating-point units and L2 cache. Steamroller gives each core some dedicated decode hardware, and this does appear to have had a positive impact on single-threaded performance.
The bad news is that the move from 32nm to 28nm has lowered CPU clock speeds a few hundred MHz from where they were in previous-generation Richland parts, so the performance gains are largely masked by the clock speed reductions. A given Kaveri CPU isn't usually slower than its Richland counterpart, but it's not much faster, either. If clock speeds increase as manufacturing processes improve, this may change over Kaveri's lifetime, but at least at launch you'll usually break even.
The one exception comes at lower TDPs—at 45W, the A8-7600 actually has higher base clock speeds than comparable Richland chips (AnandTech used the A8-6500T and A8-6700T to compare). Between the process shrink and the architectural improvements, power consumption and temperatures have apparently come down enough to allow CPU performance to increase while staying in the same power envelope. It's mostly at the upper end—the 100W and 95W parts—where Kaveri's clock speed is limited and it begins to break even with Richland.
GPU performance: Plausible at 1080p
There are two different GPUs shipping with the three Kaveri APUs being announced this week: the six-core (384 stream processor) variant in the A8-7600 and A10-7700K, and the eight-core (512 stream processor) version in the A10-7850K. Both GPUs share the same architecture and run at the same 720MHz clock speed. For reference, the Xbox One has 768 stream processors and the PS4 has 1,152. While both consoles can provide their GPUs more memory bandwidth than a Kaveri desktop can, we're getting closer and closer to a future where game consoles are just PCs with special software installed.
AMD thinks that Kaveri's integrated GPUs can provide 30 FPS gaming at 1080p in modern games as long as you've turned enough settings down, and in most cases it doesn't look like it's far off. For example, the A8-7600 could play Battlefield 4 at just about 30 FPS at medium settings in the Tech Report's testing. AnandTech's numbers shows these GPUs trading blows with Intel's Iris Pro 5200, the top-end integrated GPU for Haswell chips. Iris Pro does slightly better at lower resolutions, while Kaveri does best at higher resolutions.
Iris Pro isn't the GPU that most Intel desktop chips ship with, though—it's only available in soldered-in ball grid array (BGA) CPUs and can't be purchased separately (it shows up the most frequently in small or thin systems like the Gigabyte Brix or the 2013 iMac). Socketed desktop CPUs from Intel usually come with the Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU, which is only somewhat faster than the HD 4000 GPU that shipped with some high-end Ivy Bridge CPUs. Compared to the HD 4600, Kaveri is a much faster chip and can double Intel's GPU speeds depending on the game and settings.
In any case, the integrated GPU performance on display here still pales in comparison to dedicated cards—you can beat all the Kaveri and Iris GPUs with a $90 card, and you could obliterate them with a $200 one. Kaveri's GPU is still reasonably impressive if you're looking to game in a small form-factor box or on a budget, though.
Kaveri is in most respects an improvement over previous-generation Richland chips, and HSA is an intriguing technology that could be quite handy if developers decide to pick it up. Today, though, Kaveri doesn't really alter the balance of power in the x86 world: if you need lots of CPU performance, Intel's still the only game in town. Quad-core Steamroller parts often struggle to keep up with similarly priced dual-core Haswell parts, and the more expensive quad-core Haswell chips widen that gap even further for some tasks.
Kaveri is best suited for cash-strapped gamers and people who can accept low-end-to-midrange CPU and GPU performance in exchange for a cheaper, less power-hungry system. Still, AMD's desktop APUs seem like products trapped between two different markets—the high-end gamer who prioritizes performance is better served by a midrange Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU, and people who don't care about gaming at all can find better general performance and lower power consumption with low-end Intel chips—the Tech Report's power consumption analysis shows the AMD APUs consuming more power than dual- and quad-core Intel chips to complete the same task. There's still a niche for AMD's desktop CPUs—it's just not all that big.