8 Core 16 thread APU from AMD (rumor)

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
barely passable graphics don't count.

All kinds of stuff run on those graphics -- to include video transcoding that AMD still hasn't caught up to.

An APU is still integrated and sharing resources with the host CPU, after all. It's not like people are pining for slightly faster slideshows on AMD 'APUs' :ROFLMAO:
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
619
This is not a rumor anymore since there is proof of this. It's just AMD didn't announce those APU yet. But we know now they are 8 c/16t on the CPU side. Not sure about the number of Vega CU but it's been speculated they are 15 now, or maybe more. All that + speed and maybe some Navi kind optimizations, or some more cache, those APU should be quite faster than 3000 series. There used to be speculation on having an APU using a mighty Navi GPU chiplet instead of the standard second CPU part, but we're not there yet.
 

auntjemima

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
11,148
This is not a rumor anymore since there is proof of this. It's just AMD didn't announce those APU yet. But we know now they are 8 c/16t on the CPU side. Not sure about the number of Vega CU but it's been speculated they are 15 now, or maybe more. All that + speed and maybe some Navi kind optimizations, or some more cache, those APU should be quite faster than 3000 series. There used to be speculation on having an APU using a mighty Navi GPU chiplet instead of the standard second CPU part, but we're not there yet.

So, in this post we have CU "speculation", "maybe some" NAVI optimizations and "some more" cache.

This is the average AMD poster. Just shooting in the dark and hoping for the light.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
So, in this post we have CU "speculation", "maybe some" NAVI optimizations and "some more" cache.

This is the average AMD poster. Just shooting in the dark and hoping for the light.

Well, AMD does have all the building blocks -- but I'd agree that it's about 50 / 50 if they manage to put the round peg in the round hole and the square peg in the square hole.


Give me an eight core (or hell six or even four) 15w CPU with competitive graphics to include VRR and get battery life within 10% of Ice Lake, and I'm on board. I'd rate that at 50 / 50.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,578
So, in this post we have CU "speculation", "maybe some" NAVI optimizations and "some more" cache.

This is the average AMD poster. Just shooting in the dark and hoping for the light.
Sort of like this average intel fisherman I guess.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
All kinds of stuff run on those graphics -- to include video transcoding that AMD still hasn't caught up to.

An APU is still integrated and sharing resources with the host CPU, after all. It's not like people are pining for slightly faster slideshows on AMD 'APUs' :ROFLMAO:

How much video transcoding do you do on your 15-60w hardware?

And what's this crap about slideshows? AMDs APUs blow away Intel's IGP solutions for gaming in the same price/power ranges. Hell, I still use an old 15w AM1 system for retro gaming/movies/web surfing. Even with the weak CPU its compatible with more games than my modern i3 laptop. Outside of the handful of games Intel optimizes their drivers for there's not a whole lot you can run.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
How much video transcoding do you do on your 15-60w hardware?

As much as I like?

And what's this crap about slideshows? AMDs APUs blow away Intel's IGP solutions for gaming in the same price/power ranges. Hell, I still use an old 15w AM1 system for retro gaming/movies/web surfing. Even with the weak CPU its compatible with more games than my modern i3 laptop. Outside of the handful of games Intel optimizes their drivers for there's not a whole lot you can run.

This new APU is going up against Ice Lake, which outperforms AMD Watt for Watt.

Though I've been gaming on Intel IGPs for a decade, while also gaming on various AMD and Nvidia GPUs.

The challenge is that integrated graphics is limited.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
All kinds of stuff run on those graphics -- to include video transcoding that AMD still hasn't caught up to.

An APU is still integrated and sharing resources with the host CPU, after all. It's not like people are pining for slightly faster slideshows on AMD 'APUs' :ROFLMAO:


Most people like myself on laptops use them plugged in at all times. I run two atates, gaming with unparked maxed out power settings and regular which is standard Intel power plans and 50% parking.

UHD620 vs Vega 9-11 is a bloodbath games like unturned on UHD620 Uber lowest settings barely passes 40-50FPS on a Vega 11 2700U notebook with the same 16GB 3000mhz RAM is running well into 120+ range.

If some Renoir rumours are to be believed then the iGPU is about or faster than the MX250 which is insane, coupled with Zen 2 uarch boosts these APU's are going to have serious horse power.

H is 35-45w so these are not 15w ultrabook models, the 4700U from what I heard is a 6/12 part
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Most people like myself on laptops use them plugged in at all times. I run two atates, gaming with unparked maxed out power settings and regular which is standard Intel power plans and 50% parking.

It's when you need > 5 hours unplugged that it really matters. Not necessarily something that applies to everyone, I do agree, but still quite important to many. Reality is, if you want a mobile gaming-capable laptop and you want something lightweight that can last for hours of work away from an outlet, you have two different laptops.

UHD620 vs Vega 9-11 is a bloodbath games like unturned on UHD620 Uber lowest settings barely passes 40-50FPS on a Vega 11 2700U notebook with the same 16GB 3000mhz RAM is running well into 120+ range.

Yup, I'm definitely not trying to pimp the UHD620 -- it's... effective, but far from performant for AAA-stuff. The bigger problem is that AMD doesn't yet have a competitive 15w part, which hopefully the possibilities mentioned in the OP will alleviate.

If some Renoir rumours are to be believed then the iGPU is about or faster than the MX250 which is insane, coupled with Zen 2 uarch boosts these APU's are going to have serious horse power.

Definitely like to see how it competes vs. Ice Lake.

H is 35-45w so these are not 15w ultrabook models, the 4700U from what I heard is a 6/12 part

No doubt, but the 15w parts have definitely been mentioned. For the higher-end APUs, I'm more interested in them on the desktop where Intel's newer graphics tech won't be seen for some time. NUC / HTPC size stuff with enough grunt all around for nearly any consumer workload.
 

wyqtor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
474
I hope AMD has enough bargaining power this time to pressure the OEMs into not gimping its products with things like single-channel memory or coolers adapted from Intel platforms instead of being designed for Ryzen from the ground up.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
I hope AMD has enough bargaining power this time to pressure the OEMs into not gimping its products with things like single-channel memory or coolers adapted from Intel platforms instead of being designed for Ryzen from the ground up.

Laptops are designed to a particular size and weight class, which then determines max battery and cooling capacity.

Fact is that aside from the valid single-channel complaint which also applies to Intel laptops, AMD has not produced competitive mobile parts since Intel was shipping 'mobile' Pentium IVs.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/m...aIRg0zNgsyTG2nDLvHFOtN0BwHaVniGSWGidr5CAZgGLE

The latest rumor from China indicates that Ryzen 9 4900H and Ryzen 7 4800H sport up to eight cores and 16 threads, making them the first APUs (Accelerated Processing Units) to do so. After seeing hard evidence of the Ryzen 7 4700U, we believe AMD is capable of delighting us with eight-core, 16-thread APUs.


Huge boost on the CPU side, though on the GPU side, it sounds like it's still Vega with maybe 2 more CU's max. Though IGP/APU designs are going to be limited by the memory bandwidth, in mainstream markets.

I would expect a significant price premium over the Ryzen 3000 parts lacking GPU, and a LONG wait before you can buy one to build a system with. These will be targeting laptops/OEMs where they are most needed.

I'd really like AMD to make some kind of serious NUC/Fanless PC push with it's 7nm APUs.
 

pillagenburn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
1,271
This is the laptop platform ill be upgrading to. The only game I really care to play is battlefield 4 anyway and it sounds like this thing will crush bf4.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
This is the laptop platform ill be upgrading to. The only game I really care to play is battlefield 4 anyway and it sounds like this thing will crush bf4.

That's unfortunately not likely. No doubt it will play BF4, but crush is about an order of magnitude more performance than you're getting here.

I regularly play BF4.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
That's unfortunately not likely. No doubt it will play BF4, but crush is about an order of magnitude more performance than you're getting here.

I regularly play BF4.


Battlefield 4 is playable of gtx 960 at 1440p maxed. I know, because I did it AMD's current APU is GT 1030 performance-level, so 1080p medium should be possible on a current-gen part. Next-gen should be ble to max-out 1080p.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Battlefield 4 is playable of gtx 960 at 1440p maxed. I know, because I did it AMD's current APU is GT 1030 performance-level, so 1080p medium should be possible on a current-gen part. Next-gen should be ble to max-out 1080p.

I'm using a GTX970, and on minimum settings getting 60-80FPS. Do you consider 20FPS to be playable?
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
940
I also have BF4.
GTX960 1440p maxed I don't think so. 1080p yes (but depends).
It also depends on if you're playing singleplayer vs 40+ player server
But this also depends on what FPS you consider playable (for FPS its 50-60+)

I'm using a GTX970, and on minimum settings getting 60-80FPS. Do you consider 20FPS to be playable?
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU16/1483
Shows a GTX960 holding and average of 50FPS on max settings... Drop it down a notch and you can get 60+ easily.
Buuuut this is on singleplayer, multiplayer is a little more demanding...
 

Sulphademus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
393
I'd like 4 or 6 Zen2 based CPU cores and 16 Navi based GPU CUs with 3200MHz RAM please.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
Uh oh! Here we goooooo...
3.5GB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
putin hands.gif
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Must be running in to the segmented slower memory

It's possible; settings occasionally get reset to default, and it's not the average performance that's the problem as much as the dips during action.

That's when you need to be able to hit something, and that's when it's a problem.
 
Top