These aren't Zen 5 CPUs, they're Zen 4 chips with better integrated graphics (which gamers likely won't care about anyway) and some AI accelerators (which probably won't see wide adoption for at least another year)
The 8700G should be seen as a successor of that I think.
Enough to play a huge amount of games nicely under 1080p.
But in a certain way at the lowest end of desktop gaming.
Still better then the low-mid range of gaming on a laptop, tho.
But for a lot of people that is exactly the right balance of what they get to what they pay. Weather that's because they don't have a lot money or they don't do a lot gaming and don't want to wast money.
The main "problem" the 8700G might run into is I guess that the cost of AM5 motherboards and RAM.
Also AMD (and I think Intel, too) have in recent years slowly worked to take advantage of integrated graphics even if you have also dedicated graphics (of the same vendor) if that sees some more improvements the 8700G could also become interesting in some use-case you wouldn't expect today. We will see.
https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-5600-ryzen-5-5000-series/... $150
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007709%20601394871&Order=1 starts at $210 indeed.
People might argue the 5600 is Zen 3 where the 8700G is Zen 4.
That combination uses more than a little extra power, relative to the APU.
The dGPUs have more cores and wider memory buses/dedicated memory which delivers higher performance than the space constrained integrated GPUs.
And 8500G is $176 also with stock cooler.
At least if the infos in this interview with someone from AMD hold up until marked release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNrOY9YCRSs (2min in)
the 8600G seem to be $229 instead of $299, which seem to have been a mistake of the interviewer in the video
the 8500G seem to be $179 instead of $176 which was a typo on my side
Like OP mentioned they have only 8 and 4 CUs respectively.
In comparison the Steam Deck has 8 (RDNA2) CUs, so while you can't really call a 8600G a "desktop gaming" APU it still can somewhat run a lot of games, enough for many very causal gamers.
For comparison the minimal GPUs in the 7x00X CPUs have 2 (RDNA2) CUs, which is still enough for most office PCs and still can run stuff like Dead Cell on 1080p reasonable well. Now Dead Cell is highly optimized but what I'm trying to say is: If you get yourself a cheap office PC or update of one and want to sometimes play some simpler older games a 8500G can still be all you need.
Last time I checked, AMD's support was terrible.
> AMD is also bringing the power of a dedicated AI neural processing unit (NPU) to desktop PC processors for the first time with the introduction of Ryzen™ AI
In the same post they also wrote that they are gonna look at integrating more of those "unsupported" cards into their suite.
Honestly, I hope they change their wording for this to something like "validated", "supported" and "unsupported" with actual explenations what each of these mean (fully tested, works theoretically, does not work even theoretically)
Edit: I actually found the post I was talking about https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d...
There's also questionable OS compatiblity. ROCm is Linux-based and has extremely limited and rather experimental Windows support. Their fancy new neural processing unit is Windows-only, tied in with a Microsoft framework, and they don't seem to have any kind of definite plan for supporting it elsewhere. So there's quite possibly no single OS where all the hardware that theoretically could be used for machine learning and AI in these chips actually has even vaguely functioning code that works on that OS to make it work that way.
What they did was embed their Vitis IP in their CPUs. Those IP modules have been available in ASIC accelerator cards from AMD or their Xilinx FPGA offerings for a while now and have Linux support.
So they are releasing these APUs (which are primarily focused at a windows audience) with Windows support via ONNX. And then once there are chips in circulation, AMD can get Linux Vitis support for these chips set up with members of the Linux community being able to review and validate those patchsets.
They should be able to afford testers, doing both manual and automated testing on a wide range of cards.
ROCm's "supported hardware" list is small to the point of concerning.
More cards also means more testers outside of AMD itself.
AMDs wording isn't helping either of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_graphics_process...
The integrated GPUs of the 7000 serious (not APUs) are maximal minimalist to a point I think they couldn't have shrunken them more without running into unusual issues (assuming not changing the architecture/design). They are only suited for web browsing, office use-cases and debugging (but also kinda where made only for that use-case). Well I guess Dead Cells and similar "low requirement/high optimized" games still run nicely on it on 1080p.
Still nice to have them if you only have such use-cases saves a ton of money.
> integrated GPUs of the 7000 serious (not APUs) are maximal minimalist to a point I think they couldn't have shrunken them more
Right, because these are meant as a backup display output in parts that are aimed at the gaming market, where they will almost always be paired with a GPU. Comparable parts in prior Ryzen generations didn't even have an iGPU. Intel offers you the choice (no GPU in the "K" SKU) which is nice.
sure, the point is that not all integrated graphics are better, only such which try to do so, which happens to be marketed as APUs
Seriously? I'm through with buying expensive space heaters. These CPUs are 65 W so I might upgrade the cpu with integrated graphics in my x86 box with them.
And my main entertainment is games.
Besides, APUs really got good for gaming unless you push resolution high.
Integrated GPUs are becoming far more appealing to the general consumer, including (especially?) gamers, with how fucking expensive discrete GPUs are getting these days (AMD is part of that problem).
We might just witness dGPUs becoming the sound cards of this decade.
That is bullshit expensive. It's still nowhere near as bad as during the cryptomining craze, but remember a GTX 1080 MSRP'd for about $430 back in the old days. An RTX 4080 for context is around $1,500 to $2,000 right now.
If I'm just looking to game and only have a reasonable budget like most people, I'll just grab some AMD APU and be done with it. Better yet just go and buy a console or game on my phone.
Lol?
It's another ~$100 what would not yield you any performance gains.
Older 5700G was ~$300 so it was hardly a part of a budget build, but 5 5500GT is $125 (and would probably drop below $100 in a half/year) and would clearly offer at least 30fps on FullHD[0] and you would buy it anyway because it's a CPU.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-5600g-revie...
This is the part that needs to be emphasized more, that iGPU is practically free because it comes with the CPU we're buying anyway.
It's already hard enough to compete with free, but on top of that dGPUs are asking for Keksimus Maximus monies. The value proposition for gamers, let alone most consumer users, is very strongly favored towards iGPUs.
Free means you aren't going to pay anything.
A bunch of handhelds (Steam Deck , Asus ROG Ally) that can comfortably run even AAA games with 30fps+ on small screens (as an example Red Dead Redemption 2 runs with 50fps on my LCD Deck) with battery and thermal limitations would imply that desktop versions would be totally acceptable, unless you're looking at 4K on the latest big titles.
[0]Which currently sees me playing a whole bunch of Rule the Waves 3..... poor underutilized 3080.
Let's also add Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail to the list.
Based in Tokyo, actually.
I hope you're not flying anything you cannot afford to lose in Eve Online.
So does x-plane.
Of course, Rimworld, Prison Architect and such are fortunately lightweight.
That depends entirely upon how deep into the modding rabbit hole you go.
<Typed on my iPhone while Rimworld loads through a couple hundred mods>
...Probably.
:V
When humanity eventually collapses in on itself due to resource exhaustion or outright hubris, our heavenly benefactors will zoom into our tech tree and say "Damn! They were just about to unlock interstellar travel and goodwill towards all mankind. What the hell were they speccing into earlier?"
Remember that AMD Radeon 7600XT (16GB vram, faster than 4060) is a dramatically better option than that, at $330.
* Their naming scheme is undiluted nonsense.
* Their software is jank, which makes their hardware also jank.
* I don't have time for jank anymore; I'm an ancient geezer in his mid-thirties, not a teenager with acne and far too much time I need to waste.
* They aren't providing any meaningful competition to Nvidia nor Intel with regards to pricing.
Maybe a Radeon 6500XT or a Arc A380; Geforce 1650 are still kind of a lot of money, and you're looking at at Geforce 1030 if you want something for not a lot of money. But why buy a Geforce 1030, unless you really just need something low profile.
... has similar performance than 480/580 or what's expected from these APUs.
The APU is cheaper overall, uses less power (even cheaper!), and has a clear upgrade path (add beefy discrete GPU or otherwise replace with newer APU).