Yup not noticed drawback due to lack of cache using any APU really, I have had a few, Renoir was certainly effcient, on a b450 with a Couple of SSDs mine was doing ~17w, can't see how you could get it down to 10w my chip was a 4300GE which is the efficient one.
-
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.
Ryzen 5 5600G and Ryzen 7 5700G coming in August.
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Well, the review I was thinking of was actually 13W:
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-09...test/#abschnitt_mit_13_bis_106_watt_unterwegs
They did later review another ASRock which idles at 10W but it was another custom mobo job.
https://www.computerbase.de/2021-01/asrock-mars-4500u-amd-ryzen-test/2/#abschnitt_leistungsanalyse
But some Intel NUCs beat that.
True but what if you have a GPU already?
I mean in games if the 5600x is like 6-8 frames better off then thats not a massive deal to me and if its going to be cheaper then surely thats win win right?
If that's the case and making a decent saving is important then consider the 11400F at £150
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,251
- Location
- UK.
Can't wait for an APU powerful enough to run games at decent settings at 1080P, maybe with some up-scaling technique for 4K gaming too. Then I can kiss goodbye to overpriced DGPU's 
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Gamersnexus tested the Ryzen 5 5600G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KycNI1FxIPc
The IGP is around GT1030 GDDR5 level at lower settings,but falls behind when resolution is increased. The CPU is in-between a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Core i5 10600K,and seem a decent amount slower than a Ryzen 5 5600X.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KycNI1FxIPc
The IGP is around GT1030 GDDR5 level at lower settings,but falls behind when resolution is increased. The CPU is in-between a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Core i5 10600K,and seem a decent amount slower than a Ryzen 5 5600X.
Good review for those looking to add a dGPU in future, but they'll need to do some real content showing what it is actually capable of with decent tweaking, and faster RAM/IF speeds for the iGPU.
From a personal point-of-view all my APU's from the 2200G to 4650G have been maxed out, both in GPU clock speed and RAM/IF speed, and actually used like that daily, I don't really OC the CPU part as much.
No where near as in depth or technical, but a good effort video below showing how easy it is to OC these APU's without really trying.
From a personal point-of-view all my APU's from the 2200G to 4650G have been maxed out, both in GPU clock speed and RAM/IF speed, and actually used like that daily, I don't really OC the CPU part as much.
No where near as in depth or technical, but a good effort video below showing how easy it is to OC these APU's without really trying.
Yip definitely needs some memory/IF overclocking benchmarks. GN’s review also doesn’t mention how much memory they allocated to the APU.
My 4650G runs a good 15% faster over stock from overlocking just the RAM and IF to 4200mhz.
My 4650G runs a good 15% faster over stock from overlocking just the RAM and IF to 4200mhz.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,374
- Location
- Portsmouth
Performance looks like a 3600 with a GT1030 :/
I think Tech Jesus is being a bit too black and white with interpreting his numbers. Yes, it's slower as a CPU than the 5600X - but it's supposed to be, isn't it? Yes, the iGPU struggles at decent visual fidelity and larger resolutions - but it's an APU with 7 CUs. But surely this is irrelevant?
He has numbers which show 1080p low settings banging out 100+ FPS with 1% minimums over 70 FPS on a £250 APU! Nobody in their right mind (or sufficient understanding) buys an APU for kick-ass gaming performance. For what it does and what it's intended for, surely this this is actually really good?
What exactly are people expecting here?
He has numbers which show 1080p low settings banging out 100+ FPS with 1% minimums over 70 FPS on a £250 APU! Nobody in their right mind (or sufficient understanding) buys an APU for kick-ass gaming performance. For what it does and what it's intended for, surely this this is actually really good?
What exactly are people expecting here?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 1,702
- Location
- Doon the watah ... Scotland
I whole heartedly agree. To see people expecting mid level tier performance from them are completely deluded.
The reason I'm meh about it, is that the graphics haven't improved really since the 3400G, or even the 2400G. With high-end DDR4 the performance is a lot better, so maybe it'll take DDR5 to make the jump in memory bandwidth to push 1080p into playable territory at high settings. Not beating a 1030 yet just shows how much both Intel and AMD are sandbagging, in my opinion. Intel have zero excuse with the power envelope too, because the mobile GPUs have more EUs.
But AMD can't do everything at once, they don't have the money. Incremental gains, keep pushing, keep innovating, that's all AMD can do right now. And it's working. Those Vega CUs are light years ahead of what was in Radeon VII, and they're still superior to anything Intel has. But AMD are still forced into the position of allocating their resources to areas that net the biggest return, and if enhanced Vega is still the superior option on mobile chips and APUs, then it's more beneficial to get the CPU portion up to scratch. However much we may not like it.
Rembrandt is where RDNA2 comes into play for APUs, let's see what laptops can do then. I just think it's a little unreasonable to think "this is all meh junk because I can't do 60fps 1080p ultra on AAA games on a 35W APU costing 250 bucks".
Rembrandt is where RDNA2 comes into play for APUs, let's see what laptops can do then. I just think it's a little unreasonable to think "this is all meh junk because I can't do 60fps 1080p ultra on AAA games on a 35W APU costing 250 bucks".
It's not that I have AAA-level expectations, but monitors have moved on since APUs have been a thing and if it struggles to play even decade old games at 1080p (which is a budget monitor nowadays), then I consider that poor. It's not just the APUs though, AMD and nvidia have been extremely slow refreshing the low-end and that's making the APUs look relatively more capable, than they would otherwise have been. Since the Intel IGP has started to catch up that's more evidence of how little AMD have improved the GPU.
*looks at Gamers Nexus benchmarks, sees contemporary e-sports games running over 100fps at 1080p*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktY12GiO18
Hmm...
Well, if you think this is all poor then I won't argue.
Ah, well that's the trick, isn't it. Like I said before, AMD can only evolve certain aspects at a time, they can't do everything in one fell swoop. Intel have only just started to close the iGPU gap because they have a new GPU arch finally being integrated into their CPUs. So do AMD, and it's not Vega. RDNA 2 is coming to Rembrandt very soon.
Most esports games are designed to run on a toaster, but even then, it's often low or low/med settings. I accept the APUs need fast memory, but from what I can gather, he/she is also using DDR 4400 to achieve that level of performance, the premium of which would almost buy you a GT 1030, which is a 4 year old budget card.
This video kind of shows you what I mean, when it's GPU limited the APU is barely any faster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrkt3mnusWk
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Except you don't need to buy 4400MHz RAM, just a kit of Micron E-die ballistix for £65. Every kit I've tested does 4000MHz+ with out really trying, and normally it is the CPU IF that causes you to stop pushing with a normal AMD CPU's, the APU's are much more fun. Looking forward to getting the 5600/5700G in a test system to see what I can make it do.