Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 20 of 20

Thread: Details about AMD's low-power low-cost Van Gogh APU emerge

  1. #17
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,713
    Thanks
    758
    Thanked
    1,509 times in 1,273 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 36 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: Details about AMD's low-power low-cost Van Gogh APU emerge

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    I would imagine for the same reason Intel have been re-customising the Core design for the last decade or so. I'm not going to pretend to know their reasons but a Van Gogh chip using RDNA 2 is defiantly a thing.
    OK, I'm not disputing it using RDNA 2, just that I don't see a causal link to console chips.

    Let me put it another way. SoC design is hierarchical, and an HDL allows you to create instances of hardware blocks in your design. So in an xbox chip the top level design will call up 2x Zen2 CCXs and a bunch of RDNA CUs. In this Van Gogh case, you get one CCX and something like 10 RDNA2 CUs. My point is that there is an absolute ton of other stuff going on in an SoC in terms of PCIe connectivity, memory interfacing, SerDes lanes for SATA + USB + etc.

    So, if I wanted to make a low cost laptop chip, I would start with AMD's usual fabric, hang the usual laptop IO and memory off it connected to the usual AMD laptop pinout (to make integration and driver issues easier) and create instances of the required quantities of CPU and GPU cores. If it just happened to end up sharing some blocks with a games console, then that would be entirely by accident.

    Now perhaps this isn't an accident, perhaps Microsoft want to make an Xbox compatible Surface. But more likely, AMD saw some risk in using Zen3 in a budget market where Zen 2 is plenty, but RDNA2 is more cache friendly and would be ideal in an APU with limited memory bandwidth.

  2. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: Details about AMD's low-power low-cost Van Gogh APU emerge

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    OK, I'm not disputing it using RDNA 2, just that I don't see a causal link to console chips.
    I get the feeling people have taken me saying they're based on the PlayStation and Xbox Soc's when the TPU article said "The APU is believed to be a design similar to the one found in the SoC of the latest PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S consoles" a little too literally, i did provide a link to the article and perhaps should've quoted that line verbatim rather than simply saying "based on", i expected people would read the article rather than take my word as gospel, apologises.

    I assumed "a design similar", "based on", the console SOC's would be interpreted in the same way as i did, that the APU having more in common with the features of console SOC's than previous gen APU's.

  3. #19
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: Details about AMD's low-power low-cost Van Gogh APU emerge

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    I'm sure the dual core Athlon 3000 series die started off as an embedded part for controlling advertising displays etc. That might explain the oddball look of these.
    That was pretty much my thought - it's likely to essentially be an embedded/industrial part that might find its way into the low-end consumer stack. It would also explain using a more established core architecture to allow more mature drivers/compiler support etc.

    I suspect you're right about RDNA 2 being used as it's low-bandwidth-friendly. Also given the core clocks we've seen it hitting in dGPUs I wonder if it can hit 1~1.5GHz with practically no voltage/power draw, allowing them to really can power draw across the SoC: I've seen comments around 7.5W - 15W target, but I'd hope 4 Cores + 10 RDNA CUs could go lower than that...

  4. #20
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked
    188 times in 147 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: Details about AMD's low-power low-cost Van Gogh APU emerge

    They've never been wrong in the past

    Lots of noise from that guy, very little signal. I'd like to buy a cheap 4C zen2 APU, and it's probably a lot easier to put a zen2 CCX in a design than half a zen3 CCX, but why would AMD waste 7nm wafers on this in the current climate?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •