Soldato
Just a shiny new am4 and a... 2800 (probably) cpu away in my case
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Soldato
The problem is if you added HBM2 or GDDR5 to an APU,they would basically make their entire range under the RX560 pointless. 512 to 704 shaders with decent bandwidth,and the RX550 would probably be slower and the RX460 wouldn't really be enough of an upgrade over an AMD APU,and that would be two products lines,ie,Polaris 11 and Polaris 12. Even some of their Raven Ridge laptops are going to be shipping with lowish end graphics cards after looking over over on NBC. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense,since I would assume engineering their APUs to use some high speed RAM,would be a more cost efficient solution and hopefully in the near future they do this! I think they are more content in being able to decisively beat Intel ATM it seems.
Edit!!
This is what the A12 9800 can do and I suspect the CPU section is not helping that much either due its relative slowness. So the Ryzen 3 2200G with a faster CPU section and faster IGP should be able to run Overwatch at 1080p at OKish framerates,and this will be a sub £100 CPU. I think that is pretty impressive for the money!!
Last edited:
I played DoS2 for a couple of nights whilst away for work using my 2011 laptop. It has a separate GPU (NVS 5200M) but it's barely better than the IGP (HD4000), maybe 10-20% faster at best. With the latest drivers and with all graphics settings at a minimum, I was getting 17 FPS on the main menu. Dropping from 1080p to 1366x768 increased this to 30 FPS. In-game it was sort-of playable, maybe 20 FPS on average, but there were some battles that literally crawled at 1 FPS or lower. So basically I understand how crap IGPs are.
On the surface, being able to play Overwatch at 1080p sounds great but that presumably also means with minimum graphics settings, and it's actually a well optimised game, so I'm not sure how impressive that is. I'd be interested to see DoS2 benchmarks for the R5 2400G to see how a state-of-the-art IGP compares with a 7 year old IGP-esque card. I'd hope it's far better but who knows.
Don
Remember though the two divisions CPUs and Graphics are essentially two different companies and are focused solely on improving profit. If selling low-end GPU cores to the CPU division (or indeed to Intel), makes more money than selling them to board partners for discrete cards - why wouldn't you?
With Intel now buying AMD GPUs for use on-package in some of their CPUs, the market share for lower end AMD GPUs is disappearing anyway.
Soldato
If you look at the CPU utilisation the BD based CPU is being pushed sometimes to 100% and its consistently at the edge,and the engine actually does scale reasonably well with more threads it seems,but also higher single thread performance is important. The Excavator CPUs also had a very weak DDR4 memory controller which was licensed from another company - it had much poorer efficiency than Intel ones and the one Ryzen has,and in some memory tests regressed over the previous DDR3 ones. It could only run 2400MHZ DDR4 and at best with an overclock it could just about manage around 2600MHZ. You need to consider that you will need to spend the better part of nearly £60 to get something faster with a discrete graphics card,and the 2200G is $99,ie,around £85 to £90 in theory when it is launched here unless there is launch price gouging or exchange rate issues.
Those results are with a BD uarch CPU with reduced L2 cache which dropped CPU performance in certain games and even the Core i5 8400 gets utterly hammered by it in games if you use the IGP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FINQBqCZneE
This is with a CPU section which is not that great and probably is bottlenecking certain sections of the games tested. The IGP on Raven Ridge has two generations newer bandwidth compression,and probably higher peak clockspeeds,but the biggest improvement will be the CPU part in online games like OW. Also consider OW has the better part of 30 million players,so if they can reasonable decentish FPS at 1080p that would be a big deal,and the cartoony style of Blizzard games means they tend to not look too bad with settings turned down anyway.
They are still under one board of directors and one CEO though,so even though they are separate units I don't think they have as much freedom as we think they would have. If you think about it logically having an APU with highspeed RAM would make more sense,as instead of two chunks of silicon doing a similar job,there would only be one. The only real explanation is both units don't want to step on each others toes - even the new Intel CPUs with AMD GPUs are a totally different market segment to Raven Ridge and are being targetted towards premium devices which are thinner.
AMD has hardly any traction in the mobile markets with their dGPUs sadly,so the competition is not really hurting them and they will probably ship more midrange and higher dGPUs because of Intel now. These are the kind of markets dominated by Intel CPUs,which most of the time get bundled with Nvidia cards.
Raven Ridge is targeted towards cheaper devices and according to AMD the GPU in the Intel CPU is also being released as a seperate standalone dGPU. It also looks very likely they might be using similar packaging too - the Intel CPU+ AMD GPU package looks to have the same thickness as the Vega M dGPU on its own.
Last edited:
Caporegime
@CAT-THE-FIFTH
Meh, the 15 Watt Ryzen 2500U already does pretty well at gaming, better than you'd think.
The 2500G is a faster part, i think the RX 550 is already in deep water and we have the 2700G to come yet.
Meh, the 15 Watt Ryzen 2500U already does pretty well at gaming, better than you'd think.
The 2500G is a faster part, i think the RX 550 is already in deep water and we have the 2700G to come yet.
Last edited:
Soldato
I know that! But I was trying to highlight how poor even the latest Intel sub £200 CPUs were when compared to the previous generation APUs! Now imagine a better IGP,better memory controller and a far better CPU than the old A12 9800.
The same channel tested dozens of games on the Ryzen 5 2500U:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdgMv_9A0z8&vl=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqGnYR_bNIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9MYwQbR5bc
The desktop Ryzen 3 2200G should be far less TDP limited,so peak clockspeeds should be better.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yeah, your right but isn't the point of APU's that they are cheap for very budget mind people when all they want in XBox One level gaming performance?
You stick HBM on them and suddenly they ain't $100 anymore, double that.
Soldato
Up to a degree it is engineered to be a lower cost solution,but it does make me wonder if the Ryzen 5 2400G had a version with a stack of the cheapest HBM2,how it would be compare graphics performance wise with something like an RX460,and what would be cheaper to make overall. Who knows we might see something like this in the future at the lower end of the market.
Edit!!
But,interestingly the Ryzen 5 2400G,probably is approaching the level of a XBox One in graphics performance anyway(althought the Xbox One had SRAM which alleviated some of the bandwidth limitations). 704 Vega shaders at a higher clockspeed when compared to 768 lower clocked GCN1.1 type shaders.
It would be an interesting test to see if the Ryzen 5 2400G with some fast DDR4,ends up being faster than an Xbox One in identical games.
Use some high speed system RAM,and that would be a console in its own right!!
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yeah, it would be grate if AMD could make one available, even if it is £200+, just to see how its received, you never know it might sell like hot cakes.
The R3 2200G has the same IGP as the R5 2500U, except that the former might be able to boost for longer with its higher TDP. The R5 2400G indeed has a better IGP though and may well be decently faster.
Soldato
RR packaging design spotted:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-3-and-ryzen-5-raven-ridge-packaging-spotted.html
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-3-and-ryzen-5-raven-ridge-packaging-spotted.html
Soldato
Indeed, hopefully 3200 on hynix is possible with these new chips.
A minor advantage of Summit/Pinnacle Ridge having no IGP.
Soldato
I think the upcoming AMD APUs will be the go to option for a lot of people for a first gaming pc (budget side of a build) 30-40fps for lots of games at 1080p is quite brilliant really. AMD may suck with discreet graphics cards but their CPU and APU side is really good for the money.
Soldato
I doubt it, single socket system is likely to be way less profitable than a multi-GPU rig
To put this in perspective:
The i7-7700 was released 16 months after the i7-6700. It featured 200 MHz higher base and boost clocks and higher power consumption (and technically a "newer generation" IGP, which actually performs no better). Otherwise they were essentially identical: 4c/8t, same IPC, same price.
The R5 2400G is being released 13 months after the i7-7700. They are essentially identical in terms of CPU power: 4c/8t, similar IPC, same base clock, the i7 has a 300 MHz higher boost clock but the R5 probably has XFR. Yet it costs half as much ($169 vs $303), has a far superior IGP, is overclockable (although probably not by much), and is compatible with a platform that will be supported for much longer.
It's worth remembering how much of a difference a competitive AMD makes to the CPU market!
Last edited:
This, really
We've had years of stagnation, then suddenly 6 cores is the norm and 65w is the power target. Maybe we should all be hoping Via finally come back with something competitive :')