AMD announces Ryzen 4000 G-series processors

[HEXUS]

OEM-only in the first instance.

Read more.

[nwmark]

Only 6% improvement in 3D Mark TimeSpy for the Ryzen 5 (3400G vs 4600G) is really disappointing I was hoping for a much bigger GPU improvement.

I don't need 12 threads I need more GPU power for a tiny build.

Give me a 4c/8t CPU with 12 Vega cores pretty please.

[Hoonigan]

I've got a 3200G paired with an X570, 16GB of RAM and an NVMe SSD in my server. I've got Plex running on it and it runs great, especially when Plex is able to transcode the files on the VEGA8 GPU, but I really need some extra cores for when more than one person is using it.

The 4700GE would do me absolutely perfect. 35W TDP, 8c/16t and a VEGA8 with a little bit more performance. That could handle a couple of 2160p transcodes without issue.

[DanceswithUnix]

It could be quite promising that AMD are having to hand all their chips over to the OEMs if that means they are getting good sales traction. Let's hope the resulting machines are decent.

Only 6% improvement in 3D Mark TimeSpy for the Ryzen 5 (3400G vs 4600G) is really disappointing I was hoping for a much bigger GPU improvement.

I don't need 12 threads I need more GPU power for a tiny build.

Give me a 4c/8t CPU with 12 Vega cores pretty please.

The jump from 7 to 8 Vega cores seems to add another 13% performance. If you make the leap that it scales well, 12 Vega CUs will give another 4*13 = 52% on top of the 19% uplift already, so 71% faster than the 3400G in that benchmark. Is that really enough? I think if I cared that much about graphics then for starters I would want the extra CPU threads so you can't rob silicon from there, and frankly I would probably just go for a proper (possibly laptop) GPU added on.

[nwmark]

It could be quite promising that AMD are having to hand all their chips over to the OEMs if that means they are getting good sales traction. Let's hope the resulting machines are decent.



The jump from 7 to 8 Vega cores seems to add another 13% performance. If you make the leap that it scales well, 12 Vega CUs will give another 4*13 = 52% on top of the 19% uplift already, so 71% faster than the 3400G in that benchmark. Is that really enough? I think if I cared that much about graphics then for starters I would want the extra CPU threads so you can't rob silicon from there, and frankly I would probably just go for a proper (possibly laptop) GPU added on.

Its not as simple as that, as well as the extra 1 Vega core, you're getting an extra 200MHz on that core and you're getting 2c/4t extra on the CPU with an extra 200Mhz boost frequency on those too.

When real gaming benchmarks are released the performance benefit over the equivalent 3000 series chips (3400G vs 4600G) will be negligible which is a disappointment.

[scaryjim]

... When real gaming benchmarks are released the performance benefit over the equivalent 3000 series chips (3400G vs 4600G) will be negligible which is a disappointment.

Why? These aren't marketed as hard-core gaming chips. They're CPUs with adequate graphics to play 1080p low quality e-sports titles. They'll already match or beat an RX 550 - the previous generation managed that - so you're getting dGPU performance. If you *need* more than that, buy a dGPU.

Besides, they're still sharing dual-channel DDR4 memory - officially limited to 3200MT/s - with the CPU. The previous generation were already being partially bottlenecked by the memory interface (they got a decent boost from memory overclocks). AMD aren't stupid - they'll have done the calculations on the diminishing returns they'll get from trying to cram more GPU power through limited memory bandwidth. Why waste silicon on another CU if it's going to be memory-starved?

[Iota]

When real gaming benchmarks are released the performance benefit over the equivalent 3000 series chips (3400G vs 4600G) will be negligible which is a disappointment.

Honestly I'd see the market as more for business use where dGPU isn't required, AMD has focused more on other areas while giving a small tweak to improve the graphics element "just enough" to keep pace.

Sure some people are going to use these in media centres or for low level gaming, I'm guessing if OEMs are getting this first that the market for these is elsewhere though.

[half_empty_soul]

what is the point of public it if its just for OEM's?

[DanceswithUnix]

Its not as simple as that, as well as the extra 1 Vega core, you're getting an extra 200MHz on that core and you're getting 2c/4t extra on the CPU with an extra 200Mhz boost frequency on those too.

When real gaming benchmarks are released the performance benefit over the equivalent 3000 series chips (3400G vs 4600G) will be negligible which is a disappointment.

Ah yes, I forgot the 10% clock boost, that makes the maths rather more interesting. So going from a 4600 to 4700 you have a 14% increase in number of CUs and a 10% boost to clock speed, which in ideal circumstances should give a 24% overall speed increase but actually we see a 13% increase. I said before that it was a leap that more CUs would help, this constrains it way more as the chip looks to be hitting a wall here, probably memory.

I suspect a 12CU part would require a third memory channel to be meaningful, or have some embedded HBM2. The return of "Sideport Ram" Either way, you are probably better off adding a DGPU.

Edit: Actually. an 8 CU part with HBM2 added would probably bump the performance somewhat.

[scaryjim]

... Edit: Actually. an 8 CU part with HBM2 added would probably bump the performance somewhat.

I'll be interested to see the memory overclocking results - asssuming the 4k APUs have the same memory enhancements as the 3k CPUs, 4000+ MT/s may well be possible, which would be a pretty significant boost over stock performance...

[DanceswithUnix]

I'll be interested to see the memory overclocking results - asssuming the 4k APUs have the same memory enhancements as the 3k CPUs, 4000+ MT/s may well be possible, which would be a pretty significant boost over stock performance...

Those are with a 12nm I/O die, if these are integrated 7nm then it's a whole different game.

Edit: Those new Athlons look interesting. The 3000G was already a nice cheap chip, but those new quad cores are faster in CPU terms than my 2200G.

And once again, I'm seeing why AMD worried about ROM space in their AM4 motherboards.

[scaryjim]

Those are with a 12nm I/O die, if these are integrated 7nm then it's a whole different game.

Ah, of course, I really should've noticed that. Now I'm even *more* interested in what happens with RAM overclocking!

Edit: Those new Athlons look interesting. The 3000G was already a nice cheap chip, but those new quad cores are faster in CPU terms than my 2200G.

And once again, I'm seeing why AMD worried about ROM space in their AM4 motherboards.

Yeah, 4C/4T under Athlon branding is pretty tasty. And also comparatively sane in terms of product stack - although I kind of wish they'd brought back Duron or Sempron for the 2C variant

Wonder what IGP layout the Athlons will have. Previous gens have dropped down to 3 CU at the bottom end, but with Ryzen 3 hosting 6 CUs perhaps we'll get a chunkier IGP in Athlon Gold...?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The lower end SKUs are 12NM.

[DanceswithUnix]

The lower end SKUs are 12NM.

That's kind of what makes it interesting. What was a mainline 3200G last week is now slower than an Athlon. Well, in CPU tasks at least which I expect is what these will be used for. The 3 CUs on the Athlon 3000G seemed pretty nippy for desktop rendering duties, but I never tried gaming on one and we don't seem to know what's offered on these parts.

I guess with the new 4000G series coming out on 7nm, having some 12nm parts coming off a different line to fill in the low end makes sense, but Athlon branding is all these parts are now worth. It makes the 3400G an odd stand out though with its 8 threads.


Edit: These Athlons are what a few years ago we would have called an i5. Reasonable CPU power and (possibly) a crappy IGP. One of these and a cheap RX570 should get you a VR capable (just) gaming rig pretty cheap.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That's kind of what makes it interesting. What was a mainline 3200G last week is now slower than an Athlon. Well, in CPU tasks at least which I expect is what these will be used for. The 3 CUs on the Athlon 3000G seemed pretty nippy for desktop rendering duties, but I never tried gaming on one and we don't seem to know what's offered on these parts.

I guess with the new 4000G series coming out on 7nm, having some 12nm parts coming off a different line to fill in the low end makes sense, but Athlon branding is all these parts are now worth. It makes the 3400G an odd stand out though with its 8 threads.


Edit: These Athlons are what a few years ago we would have called an i5. Reasonable CPU power and (possibly) a crappy IGP. One of these and a cheap RX570 should get you a VR capable (just) gaming rig pretty cheap.

They are marked as Athlons:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15921...-cant-buy-them

[DanceswithUnix]

Ah, of course, I really should've noticed that. Now I'm even *more* interested in what happens with RAM overclocking!

Looks like people are already playing

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-475...pu-overclocks/