Read more.Quote:
Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G offer a high-performance CPU and Radeon IGP solution.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G offer a high-performance CPU and Radeon IGP solution.
So how does this compare to the 5800U etc don't those also have onboard graphics? Or is the difference that this is available as a part to consumers not just OEM builders?
5800U is a 25W BGA chip that is soldered down, this is a 65W device that fits in an AM4 socket. Silicon sounds the same, just different clocks and packaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
So if you do a currency conversion,the Ryzen 7 5700G will be around £300,and the Ryzen 5 5600G around £220. So these essentially are the Ryzen 6 5600 non-X and Ryzen 7 5700x in the current line-up. Looking at that it looks like the Ryzen 5 3600 will be continue soldering along.
The Ryzen 5 5600G has been tested by UFD Tech recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReN06Kw4y4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReN06Kw4y4I
In some games in can be upto 10% slower,and even in the odd game a few percent faster than the Ryzen 5 5600X. However,in some MOBA games the reduction of L3 cache to 16MB,can cause a 50% reduction in performance. It also lacks PCI-E 4.0 apparently(24 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 instead of PCI-E 4.0 lanes).
Cat - I think this continues AMDs approach (not that I necessarily agree) of the CPU-only versions being targetted to people who will use a GPU, with the APUs aimed at those who don't have a need for dedicated GPU.
These APUs are definitely needed (esp in a GPU shortage) for those with no interest in gaming or GPU-heavy work. Intel need competition in the 150-300ukp market, and that means processors with integrated graphics. Glad AMD are stepping up (although prices feel 50ukp too expensive).
There's a few issues here to break down:
No 5300G for retail? The OEM chip is ideal for my HTPC replacement but the article implies that AMD aren't making that chip available at retail. That's a problem as I don't need more than 4 cores so would rather save money. With the entire 4000 series being OEM only as well, that only leaves the Zen+ based 3200G for £185 (around double MSRP), or an Intel build - which right now makes more sense considering the 10100/10105 is around £120 and has HT whereas the 3200G does not. And dropping down to dual-core options doesn't get me much of a performance improvement over my existing i3-3220T.
The lack of PCI-E 4.0 can be justified on the basis of these APUs being in builds without a dGPU, but the reduction of L3 cache does appear to affect performance - that doesn't come across as a great move.
tbh I'm not sure I'm happy with AMD making their APUs a very different chip to their CPUs as there's a clear difference between a 5600X and the 5600G. Personally I prefer Intel's route of the -F chips with a disabled iGPU being otherwise the same.
I don't know if AMD have a proper quad core chip yet for this generation (vs a die salvage 8 core). They could do with one to squeeze a few more chips out of a wafer for low end machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by thewelshbrummie
It did sound like quad core was going to end up as Athlon territory.
Linus made a comment in his computex coverage video about a potential side comment that AMD are restricting how many dies go to the low end because they just don't have enough to go around. It makes sense but it does beg the wondering, is their manufacturing defect density so low that they have so few defect dies that they can get away without having a 4 core CCD and generally stick to a 6 core minimum?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
If the HTPC is used for media work a modern intel CPU with onboard may be the way to go anyway. Quicksync has far wider support for enabling hardware acceleration than the Nvidia and (especially) AMD equivalents although ffmpeg is now improving on that front. It also doesn't have the silly restriction that nvidias geforce drivers do (unless you use the hacked drivers) limiting to 2 streams consecutively.Quote:
Originally Posted by thewelshbrummie
Yes, their yield has been that good on earlier parts, no idea about the Zen3 ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
The quad core Athlon was generally not a salvage part. They had a native quad core Vega 3 die, which at 12nm they could still be pumping out at global foundries if they hadn't stopped support on 5xx series motherboards for 12nm chips. Now once you add in the memory controller, video decoding, PCIe lanes and all that other stuff that makes up an SoC it wasn't that much smaller than the 8 core main die, but it was smaller so they could make more chips per wafer on an Athlon die than if they pump out the high end stuff. The downside for AMD is the increased volume off a wafer won't offset the lower price a quad core can command, so I expect AMD would gain market share but lose money.
Gamersnexus tested the Ryzen 5 5600G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KycNI1FxIPc
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.
The APU's tend to be a bit slower than the CPU of the same range, ie 5600G vs the 5600X, the G will be a touch slower as they tend to have lower clocks, I would also expect them not to OC as well due to the APU side of things..
However, I should imagine these will sell like hot cakes, given people cant buy GPU's at the minute people, or me at least, are leaning into APU builds with the idea that at least you have a PC you can game on, all be it limited, until you can get a GPU and then unleash the powaaar!