News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können Sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über notebookrelevante Dinge diskutieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Worgarthe
 - Today at 15:23:05
Quote from: Prassel on Today at 14:19:54Doesn't matter though, because Intel and AMD have made a decision (or so it seems), which is that they have no interest in that, and instead want to sell the good iGPUs only soldered into laptops, mini-pcs, probably because they make more money with it. It's all about the money again ...
The whole comment is true and accurate, you said it all well, but the answer to this is simple - because cheap dGPUs for desktops will still outperform anything that an iGPU can offer. For less money.

The old RX 7600 is 231€ brand new in the EU (Germany), and it is noticeably faster than the B390: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeon-RX-7600-vs-Arc-B390-Panther-Lake-iGPU_11600_13268.247598.0.html

If you up your budget to 360€, you get the 9060 XT with 16 GB VRAM and even more performance over the B390: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeon-RX-9060-XT-vs-Arc-B390-Panther-Lake-iGPU_13070_13268.247598.0.html

So for desktops, you can save tremendous amounts of money - which you won't spend any time soon on the electricity difference by going with a 100-150W TGP dGPU (because those dGPUs idle at 0.5 to 3W and they work at full TGP only in full load, usually in gaming, but if you game 20 hours per day then you have other problems in your life, I'd argue) - and still completely wipe the floor with the B390 (or any other iGPU), plus get far greater CPU performance (also for less money).

A desktop about 2.5x faster than the X9 388H + B390 is also not just upgradable for the future but also about 45% less expensive (which you can use to get a beautiful 27" 4K/FHD dual mode 240/480 Hz display, and still have a lot of money left). Sure, you can't carry a desktop around but then getting an expensive iGPU for desktop to get less performance than cheaper dGPU - matters even less. It's easy to put an iGPU in a laptop, but the same is not possible with a desktop GPU (eGPU setup as the only option).

Posted by Prassel
 - Today at 14:19:54
Quote from: NVL-S on Today at 11:30:46I don't really consider 6400 MT/s as fast. More like 9600 or at least 8533.

That was not the point. You were saying that socketed RAM is slower than soldered RAM, which was wrong. Both are equal in speed if they have the same raw specs. CSODIMM sticks (the new ones with clockdriver) will sooner or later also come with 9600 MT/s.

Quotebut looking at raw specs they've always been woefully lacking compared to modern budget dgpus and never been able to replace them. It's always been that way.

It has been this way for a long time, but it changed approximately 5 years ago, when both AMD and Intel put more effort in iGPUs, to the point entry level dGPUs have become obsolete (and AMD and Nvidia stopped producing them).
Today Intel could put their top-end Panther Lake iGPU tile (Arc B390) into a standard desktop CPU socket, and its graphical capabilities would be sufficient for most people (even for most gaming purposes).

Doesn't matter though, because Intel and AMD have made a decision (or so it seems), which is that they have no interest in that, and instead want to sell the good iGPUs only soldered into laptops, mini-pcs, probably because they make more money with it. It's all about the money again ...
Posted by Prassel
 - Today at 13:19:05
Quote from: Walls of text on Today at 12:02:15If it makes you feel any better, future laptop mainstream apu zen6 medusa point (990m?) will also have the half the CUs. So at least you don't feel left out this time and it's fair xD.

I don't own an AMD computer, but the potential of a standard socketed CPU with decent iGPU is huge. Unfortunately neither AMD nor INTEL seem to like that, probably because it would be too flexible for the customer.

In some way I'm also "relieved" that AMD now plays the same §hitshow as INTEL - which is that they both stopped making iGPUs better for desktop CPUs, and only offer better versions as soldered in laptops or mini-pcs. Now people (especially AMD supporters) can really see both companies use the same tactics and don't care a f... about them.
Posted by Walls of text
 - Today at 12:02:15
Quote from: Prassel on Today at 10:51:33The Radeon 890m already exists with 16 CUs (iGPU), but the upcoming desktop equivalent only gets 8 CUs, which obviously is much slower.

If it makes you feel any better, future laptop mainstream apu zen6 medusa point (990m?) will also have the half the CUs. So at least you don't feel left out this time and it's fair xD.
Posted by NVL-S
 - Today at 11:30:46
I don't really consider 6400 MT/s as fast. More like 9600 or at least 8533.

They may have been marketed that way but looking at raw specs they've always been woefully lacking compared to modern budget dgpus and never been able to replace them. It's always been that way.

I've always seen them, as just slightly faster office igpu pcs with a bit better performance at rendering PowerPoint slides. IMO, the G series has always been a very niche market.

Whenever a fast desktop APU was made it was just too overpriced which perpetuated the stereotype that nobody is interested in them.

Doesn't help that the type of memory that CPU and GPU memory require is completely different. CPUs require low latency (which is typically low bandwidth) and GPUs require high bandwidth (which typically is high latency).

On consoles, the high latency GDDR setup isn't a big deal because the OS and games are coded for it but windows isn't. Its a completely different platform.

Anyways, things are changing with LPCAMM2 memory, maybe when that becomes more mainstream things will change for the better...
Posted by Prassel
 - Today at 10:59:26
Quote from: NVL-S on Yesterday at 19:53:41Probably not the answer you're looking for but in the entire history of desktop APUs, I can only think of maybe once or twice where graphics performance was a priority and taken seriously.

You need faster ram but socketed ram is always slower which is why the focus is on laptops because soldered there is more popular there.

The entire point of a desktop APU is the focus on a better iGPU, which made specific AMD CPUs popular, like the 5000G or 8000G series, coming in a standard, swappable, socketed CPU chip.

Also it's wrong that socketed RAM is slower than soldered RAM. Check benchmarks of soldered 6400 MT/S LPDDR5x versus 6400 MT/s CSODIMM, and you'll see they're practically equal.
Posted by Prassel
 - Today at 10:51:33
Quote from: Now you understand on Today at 10:11:51Ok, let's calculate the maximum performance you could expect from your desktop PC

No. You don't have to calculate anything. Performance is roughly known already. The Radeon 890m already exists with 16 CUs (iGPU), but the upcoming desktop equivalent only gets 8 CUs, which obviously is much slower. And a joke to many AMD users, specifically because AMD made itself known by having good iGPUs in the standard socketed desktop CPUs (5700G, 8700G).

I'm also not sure what your textwall wants to prove, as it's mostly offtopic, and btw. looks like it's coming straight from ChatGPT, and you even admitted you have no idea about iGPUs. Not sure why you are even posting here ...

Quote from: Now you understand on Today at 10:11:51I have a 16400 Time Spy score GPU, so I'm not in the iGPU CPU market
Posted by Now you understand
 - Today at 10:11:51
Quote from: Prassel on Yesterday at 17:54:38
Quote from: Now you understand on Yesterday at 17:18:29Strix Halo iGPU ... not enough bandwidth.

Uhm ... "Halo" is not the point. It wouldn't fit on a default socket anyways.


I'm talking about the smaller chips, like the socketed 8000G-series, which has up to 12 CUs for the iGPU.

And now the "successor" comes as the socketed 450G-series, which gets 8 CUs only... and even though the same small chip in laptops has 16 CUs (Radeon 890m).
Ok, let's calculate the maximum performance you could expect from your desktop PC: A normal/typical desktop PC has its RAM connected to 128-bit (2*64-bit per RAM channel, aka dual-channel) wide memory bus and the dual-channel RAM is typically running at 5600 to maaaybe 6400 MT/s:

Strix Halo (4060 Laptop level of performance): 256 GB/s = 256-bit * 8000 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
Typical dual-channel DDR5 desktop PC: 96 GB/s = 128-bit * 6000 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
256 GB/s / 96 GB/s -> Expect a maximum iGPU performance that is 2.67 times slower than a 4060 Laptop.

Let's compare -- 3dmark.com/search (Time Spy):
  • 8700G (780M (12 CUs)): ~3300
  • Radeon 880M iGPU (12 CUs): "Average score: 3473"
  • 4060 (notebook): "Average score: 10506"
(the factory of roughly 3 lines up)
  • And now desktop CPU iGPU perf: "Radeon Graphics" iGPU (Ryzen 7000 & 9000 series) (2 CUs): "Average score: 826"

While 3 times slower than a 4060 Laptop doesn't sound like fast, such an iGPU in a desktop CPU would still be roughly 4 times (3502/826) faster.
(names from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDNA_2#Integrated_graphics_processing_units_(iGPUs))

You are right, the memory bandwidth would allow for a (roughly) 4-time increase in performance vs the current 2CUs iGPU ones and putting such an iGPU into a 9000G series would make sense for those, where a 4-time perf increase is all they need.

AMD is prob not prioritizing a G-series CPU because even a, say, 3500 score in Time Spy isn't that much when compared vs e.g. a RX 6600 (non-XT) ("Average score: 8040") that can be bought (used) cheaply (and undervolted, power-scaled, too). Yes, such a dGPU PC is going to be less slim (or is harder to build slim (there are low profile GPUs, tho)), but is also 2.4 times faster (8040/3300). And the GPU can be upgraded vs in a CPU you'd have to change the whole CPU.
Or the sales of the 8000G series were bad.

Let's take a newer GPU architecture (thanks to TSMC's better node) that has a better perf/W than RDNA2 (and other features):
  • RX 6600: 132W TDP and "Average score: 8040" = 60 points per Watt.
  • RX 9060 XT: 150W TDP and Average score: 14601 = 97 points per Watt.
(the smallest non-OEM RDNA4 GPU is the RX 9060 XT and it's 150W TDP)
  • RTX 4060: 115W TDP and "Average score: 10398" = 90 points per Watt.

Being able to simply upgrade the (low profile) GPU and not needing to buy a new CPU, is understandably a very big thing.

Even if one would prefer AMD, it's NVIDIA that offers the lower TDP card (115W vs 150W).

I have a 16400 Time Spy score GPU, so I'm not in the iGPU CPU market, but I'd still find it nice if there were variants with more than 2 CUs, but only if this wouldn't pull AMD's other important resources much.
Posted by Ryzen AI PRO 400 lineup
 - Yesterday at 20:11:48
Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 475
Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470
Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465
Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450
Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440
Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435

"In addition to the desktop launch, AMD also announced the Ryzen AI PRO 400 Series mobile processors designed for enterprise-class mobile workstations like laptops and tablets. The company mentions that the top-of-the-line Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470, with its 50 TOPS AI power, delivers 30% faster multithreaded performance compared to the competition, along with all-day battery life."
Posted by NVL-S
 - Yesterday at 19:53:41
Prassel,

Probably not the answer you're looking for but in the entire history of desktop APUs, I can only think of maybe once or twice where graphics performance was a priority and taken seriously.

I think this was Intel's Crystal Well (22nm Haswell processor) and later 14 nm Broadwell with on-package 128MB eDRAM L4 Cache.

You need faster ram but socketed ram is always slower which is why the focus is on laptops because soldered there is more popular there.
Posted by Prassel
 - Yesterday at 17:54:38
Quote from: Now you understand on Yesterday at 17:18:29Strix Halo iGPU ... not enough bandwidth.

Uhm ... "Halo" is not the point. It wouldn't fit on a default socket anyways.


I'm talking about the smaller chips, like the socketed 8000G-series, which has up to 12 CUs for the iGPU.

And now the "successor" comes as the socketed 450G-series, which gets 8 CUs only... and even though the same small chip in laptops has 16 CUs (Radeon 890m).
Posted by Now you understand
 - Yesterday at 17:39:20
Here is another with bad 1% FPS lows in Panther Lake's Arc B390: youtu.be/A_jHa0d1aFA?t=319 (YT/Just Josh: "Intel's New Integrated GPU vs 10 Popular Games (Shockingly Playable)")
Quote from: youtu.be/A_jHa0d1aFA?t=319..we wouldn't recommend it. The 1% lows and .1% lows are just too rough.
Posted by Now you understand
 - Yesterday at 17:18:29
For those who still don't know: Ryzen AI 400 is just a rename of Ryzen AI 300.

Quote from: Prassel on Yesterday at 11:51:13So it shows that AMD, like Intel, is "allergic" to desktop APUs ...

Their goodwill for desktop APUs only goes as far as approximately GTX 1050 Ti graphics power.
Quote from: captainobvious on Yesterday at 13:09:31Very true, neither company is interested in selling top iGPU to customers.

Strix Halo' iGPU has access to 256 GB/s memory due to its 256-bit RAM access and its performance is approx on the level of a 4060 Laptop. 256 GB/s equals to quad-channel (4 * 64-bit per RAM channel) in the desktop. In desktop (if we define the word "desktop" as anything that looks like a (big) desktop tower), only the (entry level) Threadripper platform offers quad-channel.

So, there's simply not enough bandwidth.

PS: Panther Lake's Arc B390 iGPU is connected to 128-bit (dual-channel) memory running at LPDDR5X-9600 MT/s, but it has bad 1% FPS lows (YT/Just Josh: ExpertBook Ultra Panther Lake youtu.be/jduWl1J_4lQ?t=630). I wonder what is up with that and if it's caused by the LPDDR5X' high latency when running it at 9600 MT/s. Now I wonder if Strix Halo also has bad 1% FPS lows issue.
Posted by captainobvious
 - Yesterday at 13:09:31
Very true, neither company is interested in selling top iGPU to customers.
Coincidentally, neither am I interested in buying their monster graphics cards with hundreds of watt power consumption just to play the latest "Silly man-animal of fluid gender" FPS game.
Posted by Prassel
 - Yesterday at 11:51:13
So it shows that AMD, like Intel, is "allergic" to desktop APUs ...

Their goodwill for desktop APUs only goes as far as approximately GTX 1050 Ti graphics power. Sad. APUs could completely remove the need for any dGPU if you keep your expectations in gaming at low settings (but not necessarily ugly settings). Add to that the possibility to easily upgrade the chip by swapping in and out the socketed chip - would have been great. Imo as a custom ITX build better than a NUC (because of standard coolers, standard PSUs, etc)

But "they" don't want that. Both AMD and Intel. They don't want that flexibility for customers. Obviously.