Read more.Compared to the Ryzen 7 4700G, it appears to be 13(8) per cent faster in 1T(nT) tests.
Read more.Compared to the Ryzen 7 4700G, it appears to be 13(8) per cent faster in 1T(nT) tests.
Better than the previous best Ryzen 3400G, but unless if goes on sale it is irrelevant.
All I can think of when I see things like this is that meme from that scene in The Simpsons featuring AMD killing Intel - stop! stop! he's already dead!
Why compare to the 9900KF? CPU-Z has more recent Intel offerings in there to compare to, especially considering the generational gap between them. I'd honestly have thought comparing to a 3700X would have been far better (also 8c/16t) and would give a much better indicator of the performance available from this.
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
It would be great to have it on shelves. I need to renew equipment, this one would be the first to consider.
Interesting that this nominally 65W part gets pretty close to the 5800X a 105W part. I guess with turbo and sufficient cooling these numbers don't mean much
One thing NOBODY ever does (becoz Amd has banned it?) is compare the generational differences between the graphics i.e LLano ?? 2400G 3400G 4700g 5700G ... the gfx seem to be improving at a snails pace.
I could happily have a 5300G (4C/8T) with top-end gfx ... but .. segmentation.
We may never see these at retail anyway , the fact that its a "pro" (business friendly) tolls ominous. 65w TDP is great imo.
IIRC 4000 and 5000 series use the SAME graphics. If so it's no wonder they wouldn't want that highlighting.
No banning, just not that interesting if you want strong graphics.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/revi...enoir-review/3
It uses quite a bit of the die for the performance level, and more CUs would probably just bump up cost and hit a memory speed wall so not actually go any faster.
But maybe next gen will use 5nm for more transistors and DDR5 to move the memory wall along perhaps with the hypercache of recent AMD GPUs, so you might get your wish then. But this gen? Nice for a budget laptop or in my case a really cheap workstation if you add some ECC ram, but otherwise add a GPU.
DanceswithUnix (08-04-2021),Saracen999 (12-04-2021)
Honestly I don't think that's really the market for these CPUs, certainly it would be a "nice to have" in terms of strong graphics, but I can see these ending up in PCs that are not used primarily for gaming on. I used the 2400G in the PC I built for my mum, it's low power usage combined with onboard graphics that are perfectly sufficient for using programs like Microsoft Word / Excel etc. It was a much better option than an Intel based system with higher power draw and less performance.
If AMD started beefing up the on die graphics I could see that having a knock on effect on the low end of their GPU business, I fail to see the benefit in them doing that to themselves.
I suppose the flip side is that you don't want CPUs to have strong enough graphics to have a good hash rate, not with Eth sat around $2000 atm.
I honestly don't know, but sadly the 5700 XT was apparently a really superb mining GPU which as they got a bad rep for driver issues on release for gaming were quite cheap, so I think they sold out first in the mining rush.
I'm typing this on a work machine which has an RX550 as that was the only thing I could find. There seem to be some 1030 cards knocking around.
A ChipHell user has published photos and tests said to be of the retail version of the 'R7-5700G'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)