AMD Ryzen 5 8500G: A surprisingly fascinating sub-$200 CPU
phoronix.com
phoronix.com
It's coming with the Halo Strix with it's 256 bit wide memory, but should it really have taken over a decade?
I guess it's difficult to replicate the console performance when those run on GDDR as system memory and PCs on DDR so the bandwidth difference is huge.
But it's not like a system integrator like Asus or Gigabyte couldn't have built a small form factor PC based on a PC variant of the consoles APU and use GDDR instead.
AMD really missed out on this, especially during the pandemic when everyone was stuck indoor trying to game and looking for inexistent GPUs.
PS4 came out in 2013, 11 years ago, with an AMD CPU.
Just mystifies me that AMD hasn't shipped similar in a laptop, SFF, or desktop yet. Especially during the GPU shortage. The AMD 780m iGPU does pretty well, clearly AMD could add more cores and ship a faster memory bus, like the ones on their Threadripper (4 channel), Siena (6 channel), threadripper pro (8 channel), or Epyc (12 channel).
Apple's doing similar with M1/m2/m3 (128 bit), M1/M2/M3 Pro (256 bit), and M1/M2/M3 Max (512 bit wide) available in laptops, tiny PCs (up to 256 bit wide) with the mini, and small desktops (studio).
Most importantly, buyers didn't want machines with soldered memory, and that was main method of going with wider bus without prohibitively expensive boards etc.
Based somewhat on Xbox 1 design.
So it's really been a question of whether AMD could spare the cash to tape out a larger laptop chip with the goal of cutting off the low end of NVIDIA's dGPU sales for laptops.
They obviously could have done it from a technical standpoint, as they had done it for consoles, but those are not general purpose from the viewpoint of who is laying out the motherboard design.
That enables them to take bigger bets than most, and their reputation means customers are more likely to buy into their big bets.
Well, those in the cult sure do.
Also their software is garbage if you need to connect to or use something outside of apple ecosystem.
I routinely heard and experienced issues with Windows and Android, though.
Case in point. Back in 2018, me and my gf bought new laptops. I’ve opted for MBP and she bought Asus Rog Strix. Both were over 2k euro.
Two years after her laptop has constant issues with Windows updating all the time, WiFi modem dies until you power cycle whole machine, it randomly turns on at night or doesn’t go to sleep at all, fans that sound like jet engines even on lowest of speeds.
My MBP 2018 is still a champ after all these years, I had literally zero issues with it and the only reason why I’m contemplating upgrading is how amazing M processors are.
And seriously? More expensive? MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM and M processor starts at 1500 euro. It has far superior build quality, software and battery life than any Linux/Windows machine in any category. And on top of that it runs completely silently. Apple=expensive meme needs to die.
Yeah there are some junky laptops out there, but case in point I've only had sub-1000 Euro Windows notebooks from Acer, HP and Lenovo, and all worked fine and lasted no matter how hard I abused them. Maybe I'm just super lucky. Or maybe I was an informed consumer with a trained eye to spot the good from the junk. Or both.
>And seriously? More expensive? MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM and M processor starts at 1500 euro
16GB ram and how much storage?
Yeah, that's pretty expensive for the specs and EU purchasing power. Case in point, for Christmas I bought myself a new Lenovo with the new 4nm Ryzen 7840HS, 32GB RAM and 1TB NVME, for ~800 Euros sticker price, no special promotion or sale. That seemed like a good deal to me.
Now how much does Apple charge for 32GB RAM and 1TB storage? 2500+ Euros for 24GB RAM. Damn son! Apple are only price competitive at the bare minimum base models(8GB RAM on a "Pro" device?! Give me break Apple). When you start adding cores, RAM and storage, the price skyrockets.
Each to his own if the price is worth it, I don't judge. My friend who does a lot of video editing gets his money's worth, but for my uses cases(Windows, Linux, gaming, coding), that 800 Euro laptop will be more than enough, no need to spend way more on Apple for less functionality. Battery life on those Macs is tight tough. If you're on the road a lot, and don't need windows/linux stuff, I'd definitely get one.
Sure but at that level you usually get poor build quality and/or thick plasticky chasis and a horrible screen
So what am I compromising on compared to spending over 3x more on a Macbook? Is the Mac display, trackpad and build quality a bit better? Most likely. Is it over 3x better? Definitely not.
I’m not sure you can get something like that for $800?
> some people are stuck with the impression that all Windows laptops are stuck in 2006
No, you can can certainly get very nice Windows laptops for 30% less than equivalent mac or so. I was only doubting the price
How much MacBook with 3tb storage costs?
And in terms of specs, Apple is still not an incredible value for the money. The laptop I'm using now is a last-years model Thinkpad. I bought it refurbished, with a two year warranty included, for $250. It's got a 12 core (edit: 6 core, 12 threads) Ryzen 5000 series, and for less than $150 I've added 32 GB of RAM (total RAM 40 GB), and a 1 TB NVMe disk (the computer has slots for two). That's an absolutely crazy deal for $400, and the build quality on these Thinkpads is miles above cheap Dell Inspirons or whatever.
For most people, this is a much more reasonable choice than spending $1500 on a laptop. My last laptop (Dell XPS) lasted over 12 years; I think the "laptop dies in two years" stories are the exception, not the rule, and Apple's laptops are certainly not lemon-proof, in that regard.
AMD's mobile 5000 series topped out at 8 CPU cores and 8 GPU compute units. I'm not aware of any laptops that used AMD's desktop CPUs prior to the 7000 series; there may have been some boutique OEM doing that but almost certainly not Thinkpads.
If that's too expensive, an E14 Gen 5 has a previous-generation processor but can be had in a reasonable configuration (Ryzen 5, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) for around €700.
You can knock a fair chunk (€60) off of the price by getting them without Windows as well, which is a nice option when you're gonna install Linux anyway. But the prices I mentioned is before you even do that!
It would still have a garbage-tier (relative to mac) 1080p screen? Of course upgrade to OLED is only ~$250 which isn’t that bad
The E15 is way too plasticky for it to be a fair comparison also the screen is awful.
> But the prices I mentioned is before you even do that!
While it’s on sale sure. Otherwise the price is much, much higher https://www.lenovo.com/fr/fr/configurator/cto/index.html?bun...
Those prices in the French store look absolutely wild to me. In the Dutch store, the base model T14 Gen 4 AMD starts at 999, without any discounts visible!
She bought a gaming brand. There's no such a thing as a good gaming brand and the issue isn't with PCs but buying something targeted at people who don't even use laptops as /laptops/ so the build quality is horrendous (particularly on the hinges, it's common for gaming laptops to have failed hinges but the consumer target doesn't care because the PC never leaves their desk).
There's no issue with Lenovo ThinkPad or Dell Latitude. There's a wide range of PC manufacturers out there, many of which make classes of computers Apple will never make, like the Panasonic Toughbook which are water, dust and shock resistant to the point where you can use them as weapons to bash someone's head and the computer will still run fine.
By the way, if you're unlucky enough to get a lemon, Dell and Lenovo offer /on site/ warranty service on their business class hardware (another perk of buying latitude rather than consumer targeted garbage like inspiron). You don't have to ship your computer back or go to a specific store like with Apple. They come to fix it.
> And on top of that it runs completely silently
Most PC laptops are quite silent, you can't get silence from a device that was made to push dedicated GPUs to their limits like a gaming laptop.
As for Apple's legendary build quality, the last macbook I've owned before ditching the Apple ecosystem entirely was one that was affected by both the keyboard dust issue and the short display cable that bends too much whenever you open the monitor.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/12903/flexgate
https://support.apple.com/keyboard-service-program-for-mac-n...
Yeah, great build quality. I think it's the first time in my entire life I saw a keyboard fail so quickly and hard. And that display cable.. who designs things like this? It should have been obvious to anyone who designs computers that putting that much tension on the cable was going to make it rip. I can never rid myself of the suspicion Apple makes hardware designed to fail after warranty/Apple care period after this.
Which is not a lot.
> superior build quality
Is that really true? There are PC laptops with comparable or only slightly inferior build quality.
> And on top of that it runs completely silently.
That great. But it depends on your use case, thermal throttling can certainly be an issue. Also Intel/AMD have mostly caught up performance wise.
x86 machines only compete when you don’t consider power consumption (which really matters for laptops). It’s so bad that most top end x86 machines won’t even try to hit those peak numbers unless the machine is plugged in and then only for short periods of time.
My M1 beats most x86 machines even after it throttles and it’s over three years old now. My M3 Max machine blows away the x86 machines I run into and it does it while still having good battery life.
I doubt that. Last gen Intel/AMD cpus are pretty fast these days.
1. Most x86 machines aren't running the fastest CPUs. They are running U-series CPUs and usually aren't even running the best U-series CPUs. H-series laptops are relatively rare.
2. Even U-series machine have a peak power consumption north of 50 watts. H-series CPUs peak out at over 3x that (157w for Intel 13/14th gen HX CPUs). There's simply no way to disperse that much energy with the small heatsinks available (even in a gaming laptop).
3. Most of these machines downclock massively when not plugged in.
4. The laptop size required for an H-series CPU is massive.
Putting all of that together, an M1 machine is simply faster than most x86 laptops because they contain low-binned, U-series CPUs. For the small fraction that contain H-series CPUs, My M1 is still generally faster if both machines are being used as laptops rather than bad desktops. This performance delta gets even bigger if the workload sustains enough that the x86 machines begin to throttle because they can't sustain the insane peak power draw.
Once a competitor gets away with a specific controversial or tricky to explain move, the others can pass through the same hole. Apple dropping the headphone jack or glueing the batteries were the same kind of moves, it expanded to other makers because they got away with it.
Or we could look at Twitter charging ridiculous prices for the API and Reddit jumping through the same loop.
In the CPU I think it's more nuanced, but there's definitely a tradeoff that many makers wouldn't do on their own.
This isn't generally what you want as a customer though. Most current games will need something in the range of 8-16GB of VRAM, but will need that in addition to whatever you need in terms of main system memory. If you also want 16GB of system memory, you need 32GB in total but only benefit from 16GB being fast, and you might often want more than 16GB of system memory.
Apple is fine with this because then if you want a lot of RAM they can charge you an arm and two legs for that much of the fast stuff, and solder it all so you can't upgrade it. But what you really want is to solder a modest amount of the fast stuff to the CPU, put it in the CPU socket (so even it can still be upgraded by upgrading the CPU, and then the socket doesn't need all of those pins) and still have the same DDR slots as ever to add gobs of the cheap stuff to suit.
In other words, the CPU having access to huge amounts of memory bandwidth is not really costing the users much, after they've paid for the GPU and its memory system. The cost is really just the incremental cost of enlarging a GPU die by strapping some CPU cores on the side.
It may not be precisely most cost and performance optimized configuration for gaming, but on the other hand it provides huge benefits for anything that doesn't fit in a cheap GPU's VRAM (eg. LLMs).
It is by the time the OEMs are through with it, and once you're soldering it you have to buy it from them.
> The performance advantage is mostly from a wider memory bus, and a bit from being soldered.
Even the little bit from being soldered should go away when CAMMs enter the scene. But the wider memory bus is part of what makes it expensive. It's not just the input pins on the APU, it's routing all of those pins through the socket and the system board and the memory DIMMs. Which you can avoid by putting some amount of HBM on the APU package without losing the ability to add memory via the narrower bus in the traditional way.
> It may not be precisely most cost and performance optimized configuration for gaming, but on the other hand it provides huge benefits for anything that doesn't fit in a cheap GPU's VRAM (eg. LLMs).
LLMs are nearly the only thing that currently uses this, and there is nothing stopping a CPU option with a large amount of HBM on the package from existing and fitting into the socket on an ordinary system board for the people who want that.
But CPU makers also don't really want to make a thousand SKUs with every possible combination of cores and memory, so what they're probably going to do is have lower core count CPUs with smaller amounts of HBM and higher core count CPUs with more. In which case you can still buy the $100 APU with a modest amount of HBM and then add as much DDR as you want via the slots on the system board instead of having to buy $1000 worth of CPU cores you don't need, or replace a perfectly good CPU with a different one, just to increase the amount of memory for the majority of applications that aren't bounded by memory bandwidth.
It's also worth pointing out that while Apple is using LPDDR5 and getting more bandwidth out of it by just using more pins, that isn't that most GPUs use -- they use some version of GDDR, which is more expensive on a per-GB basis than DDR, because it has more bandwidth per pin.
So putting some "fast" memory on the APU package has the further advantage that you don't have to do what Apple did, you could actually put HBM or GDDR on the CPU package, and then the faster memory would be faster.
We need a new motherboard form factor that assumes no PCIe graphics card. I like my ITX box and put the power connector and button where the expansion slot would normally go because I used an APU. But we could do a lot better with the board size by assuming integrated graphics. A lower riser on the back would be nice too - maybe only 2 USB high.
> Nominal module dimensions listed in the standard point to "various" form factors for the modules, with the X-axis measuring 78 mm (3.07 inches) and the Y-axis 29.6–68 mm (1.17–2.68 inches).
From Artechnica. Whereas a regular DIMM is 5.5 inches long & narrow on the Y.
I don't see how it affects width much when we're only talking about 4 slots and 256 bits.
If the solution is to compensate for delays in a smarter way, then I would assume that solution could be applied to sockets too. Which goes back to asking what took them so long.
Right now, using DDR5 SODIMMs instead of LPDDR5 would throw away half of the benefits of doubling the bus width, so that's a non-starter. Using CAMM style modules may allow for full-speed operation, but those have almost zero adoption so far and I think it's too soon to tell how widespread they'll become.
Whatever option for connecting the DRAM, doubling the bus width doubles the amount of DRAM the OEMs must populate the system with, adding another cost on top of the more expensive SoC and MLB.
Wouldn't that be offset, at least on desktop processors, with more slots and memory channels?
What you could do is put some fast/wide DRAM on the CPU package. Then you could still upgrade the fast memory by upgrading the CPU, and the pins don't have to go through the socket. This should also be compatible with existing CPU sockets, and not incompatible with also having ordinary DDR in the existing memory slots. You basically get an L4 cache made out of HBM, which is available to the iGPU.
The fastest memory configs for a desktop currently are using one single-rank module per channel. Using one dual-rank module per channel doubles the capacity for typically a slight performance penalty.
People who want casual gaming buy consoles.
People who want gaming-level performance buy discreet GPUs.
AMD makes more money selling a CPU and GPU.
Taping out a new chip that combines existing GPU and CPU IP blocks is relatively straightforward, but taping out a large chip is extremely expensive.
AMD agpu (and Intel with iGPUs) do use unified memory. As well as the high end AMD (MI300A) and Nvidia (Grace+hopper) server+iGPU chips.
This REALLY helps GPUs performance which is very bandwidth intensive, but even normal workloads have cache misses. Part of the benefit isn't just more bandwidth, but that you can have 4,8, or 16 cache misses running in parallel which can help keep more of your cores doing useful work instead of waiting on memory. This doesn't decrease memory latency, but can help improve throughput when using multiple cores.
Sad that even a M3 pro (the midrange, 3rd fastest in the apple M series lineup) available in Apple laptops or mac minis has more bandwidth than every AMD Ryzen and every Intel i3/i4/i7/i9. Even Intel's fastest i9-14900KF using a maximum of 250 watts has 1/8th the memory bandwidth of the M2 Ultra, 1/4th the bandwidth of the M3 max, and 1/2th the bandwidth of the M2 Pro. Same (or less actually) then the MBA or base Mac mini.
In fact, pretty much all of the performance gain going from a 5700 XT to a 6700 XT is based on the latter's higher clock speed, as their specs are very similar otherwise (although a 6700 XT has 12 GB 192bit memory and a heap of cache, whereas the 5700 XT has 8GB 256bit memory that runs a small bit slower, and crucially, way less cache).
5xxxG are also known for missing official support, only PRO favors have it.
Since ECC is for robustness I'd really prefer when both AMD and ASUS/ASRock/Gigabyte/MSI/... mention ECC support in the specification. Last time I've checked, only ASUS did mention it for consumer AM5 mainboards. (Gigabyte did it for (at least) one simple but expensive server mainboard.) While for AM4 it wasn't such an issue for other manufacturers too.
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu... <- An Intel I5(and only the I5) beats AMD on this singular benchmark.
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
https://phoronix.com/benchmark/result/amd-ryzen-5-8500g-linu...
Yes, the 5700g and 5600g can score lower amount of peak power, but you need to compare the power used against a metric like time to calculate efficiency.
The $179 8500G is competing with the $449 Ryzen 7 7800X3D in efficiency. It's a blood bath.
Edit: the title now has been fixed
This Dell Precision 3541 with an i9-9880H and a 4GB VRAM Quadro P620 runs just fine with Ubuntu, but in Windows 11, as I said, the integrated GPU as well as the Quadro get the "shared GPU memory".
For me the 4GB of the Quadro, which Chrome and other apps are using, is more than enough. The iGPU barely gets used and the BIOS has reserved 128MB of dedicated memory for it.
Windows doesn't allow me to change how much memory is assigned to the "shared GPU memory", so 16GB of RAM is empty while the other 16GB are getting stressed to an extreme, so that the machine becomes unusable.
Now, since this 5800G has an integrated GPU, I wonder if it has the same problem with Windows 11.
Any Windows experts in here who know how to fix the issue (the registry fix with "DedicatedSegmentSize" has no effect)?
As I said, Ubuntu has zero issues with handing 28GB+ RAM to applications, so this is convincingly a Windows thing and not something related to the BIOS.
While searching for a solution there's another person having this issue with a Gigabyte Z97-D3H-CF mainboard. He has 32GB RAM and half of it goes to "Shared Video Memory". I downloaded the manual and the relevant section reads
`Intel Processor Graphics Memory Allocation: Allows you to set the onboard graphics memory size. Options are: 32M~1024M. (Default: 64M)`
So the mainboard has no option for 16GB "Shared Video Memory", yet Windows 10 is causing this problem to him [0].
For me the "Works in Ubuntu" is what makes me disbelieve the BIOS-settings claims.
[0] https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/change...
If the full amount of system memory isn't showing on Windows that's likely an unrelated issue you're experiencing (for example with UEFI/BIOS memory mapping mismatching whatever else) and it working on Linux implies that either Linux gets fed different memory layouts or it parses this broken case fine unlike Windows.
If applications aren't using all the memory, and it's also not showing up as cached, that's odd as Windows usually tends to target around 80% of physical memory usage (unless you're really not using that many apps or there's another driver issue going on). Different OSes account for memory usage differently, and there's rarely one single 'memory used' indicator in modern operating systems.
Full amount of system memory is seen by Windows. It just refuses to hand out more than 16GB of RAM to it so I assume (maybe wrongly) that this is related to the other 16GB which the GPUs get assigned to but have no use for.
The memory graph in the task manager (Performance) never goes above 50%.
I have an AMD Ryzen APU laptop also with 32GB of RAM and also with Windows 11 and yes just like in your case, it says in task manager GPU tab that 16GB are shared GPU memory, but like the name says, it's shared and not reserved, meaning the GPU can use up to 16GB of system RAM for textures and stuff but CPU apps are allowed to use nearly all the 32GB of RAM minus what you reserved exclusively for the GPU in BIOS and what the GPU is currently using on top of that.
And I know because I saw apps (not games) use nearly all my 32 gigs of ram.
And Ubuntu has no issues with it, while Windows crawls on its knees once that limit is reached.
Have you tried a fresh install of Windows 11 and not an upgrade from 10?
Ask on the Dell forums or subreddits. Maybe there's others out there with this issue.
array20gb = bytearray(20 * 1024**3)
This should allocate 20GB of RAM to that process, starting with unused unreserved RAM, and then it should take your shared video memory after the unused unreserved RAM is allocated. If you get an error, then you know that reserved video RAM can't be used by programs.
What could it then be what hinders the allocation of more than 50% under "normal operation". Initially it's fast, but over the course of a couple of hours if gets so low, that it takes around a minute to open a folder from the desktop via double-click while memory is at 50%. Temps are OK at that time and nothing is really getting used, like SSD is at 1-5%.
Do Quadro cards support some kind of “fat and slow” compatibility mode for software that demands giant memory size on a professional card to fit all the data there, and can wait to get the results? Maybe there's some switch you've toggled to enable “20 GB VRAM” mode?
Maybe that is the answer?
Like turn off Windows swap and use some application that will allocate around 24GB of RAM.
Windows always shows shared GPU memory as half the RAM, for example mine shows 64GB shared on my 128GB box, yet I have no problems loading up 90-100GB of VMs and running them full blast.
Now, the only thing that could be causing a problem here is if you're using any driver written by Dell themselves. They could very well be causing some kind of reservation bug that's not a direct windows issue itself.
I think this is the exact segment of customers this chip is aiming for. You can throw this chip in a new build without a dedicated GPU, and get a playable (30+ fps) experience in Cyberpunk 2077. It's an option for someone wanting to spend entry-level money on a gaming PC with the option to upgrade to a real GPU further down the line.
EDIT: Just realized this is the 8500g not the 8600g. The slower GPU and the fact that dedicated graphics would be limited to 4x PCI-E lanes make this a much less interesting as an entry-level gaming product.
I have a vague feeling I might have been happier with less cores but faster ones. A lot of games put all, or almost all, their load on one core only, particularly older games. A lot of old games have amazing modpacks for them nowadays and I often run into CPU bound slowdown and lagspikes in stuff like Stalker GAMMA, Rlcraft, Supreme commander forged alliance forever.
Overall I just dont know much about CPUs and just got one that was recommended by people at the time.
Would be a noticeable experience difference, especially in games.
Better performance at lower TDP and the integrated graphics are impressive. Even if you do end up with a discrete GPU, being able to do passthrough with a secondary can be quite useful.
As such, you're better off getting e.g. a 5700X or even some X3D chip, which are much faster. The 5000G processors are slower than their 5000X or 5000 counterparts, since they have less cache.
For the past 30 years the best CPU of a few years ago can have less performance than the low end of today, that is evolution.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intels-new-avx10-brings-av...
The lowest end Radeon 7600 still has 8MB of infinity cache.
Giving an APU 64MB of cache would be a mistake at current performamne levels, giving it 4MB might not be worth the time or silicon or the 4MB SRAM die floats away from the wind generated by the place and pick.
- libva-mesa-driver - mesa-vdpau - intel-media-driver - libva-intel-driver - libvdpau-va-gl
And hope _one_ of them works
But if you do have a poorly implemented filter, why not let your users know the rules instead of them finding out through obscurity?
Openness is better than obscurity, no? Isn't that the FOSS ethos?
I mean I have a crappy 7 year old CPU that I use for single threaded dev, and it works for 99% of cases. In the 1% of cases, I threw on multithreading and its fine.
Now my daily driver has a GPU and it unlocks new possibilities.
Its been over 10 years since I've really spent time thinking about a CPU.
Speaking as a 7800X3D owner, I don't think any CPU on the planet is sufficient for modded Rimworld yet.
I did not change mine for 6 years, but looking at some benchmarks, it looks like compilation times would not get more than a few percents faster per generation. I expect to get maybe 20% faster with a recent CPU in the same price range.
Until 2005 I was updating the CPU every 2-3 years, then every 5 years, and when I'll get the next one I plan to keep it 10 years easy.
This is the biggest difference I see today. In the previous generation it was a huge boost in everything just becauase the old CPU was really old. I also keep CPUs 5 years or more.
I compile C++ code with an AMD 2400G (zen1+) and parallel builds are way faster than single threaded. I also used the same box to add a bunch of parallel paths to the code (using OpenMP) which improved performance of the app by 3x-4x in some cases with little effort.
Compiling a full build is 30-60 seconds for me. If I turn on LTO it's several minutes and that's with parallel builds -j
I'm aiming to get a Zen4 or Zen5 with 8 cores one of these days. That should give about 4x speed boost. The new GPU has AV1 support too!
Not only that, but parallel builds on newer CPUs is way faster than parallel builds on 7 year old CPUs, even at lower clock speeds.
One would think its all GPU. But you'd be suprised how single-core-speed limited parts of certain tasks are.