AMD could launch three new Zen 3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs alongside the Ryzen 7 5800X3D

[Nobu]

It's not really the same game from a gfx perspective as the 2011 launch version. The DX11 update in the "SE" version did increase system load by way of adding a lot more shader effects and higher resolution textures.

Also worth noting that in some ways, even very very old high-end dGPUs can still outspec modern APUs in terms of things like memory bandwidth and fillrate, which can create interesting comparisons with old games where the far superior shader performance of the APU is less of a boon.

And in a thin laptop, you're pushing the envelop already. I'd say it's quite impressive even for such an old game.

 

[Axman]

Isn't that not that impressive ?

It's really a 2016 game since the SE update, and even though its requirements on paper exceed the integrated graphics, it doesn't care, and runs it pretty OK. Try that on any other non AMD integrated graphics. Really. I'll be surprised if most will even let you start the game.

10 Vega cores running at 1,300 MHz and a single gig of shared, single-channel DDR4, and it's OK. Pretty good, even, as long as you don't hammer it with a ton of shadows.

Ryzen 6000 has 12 RDNA2 cores running at 2,200 MHz. There's a reason they're calling it 680M graphics. It's shaping up to be an RX 580-ish part that's running on a die that, depending on the binning, will use as little as 15 watts. I hope they get the memory stuff sorted, because I really expect that to be the bottleneck.

It's never been a cooler time to be excited about the entry level and mid-range hardware.

 

[LukeTbk]

It's really a 2016 game since the SE update, and even though its requirements on paper exceed the integrated graphics, it doesn't care, and runs it pretty OK. Try that on any other non AMD integrated graphics. Really. I'll be surprised if most will even let you start the game.

I am talking in general for the IGPU I was not expecting reaching 35-40 fps at low/mid at 720p on a such a game to be the benchmark of what was impressive in that field (and show maybe that outside adding more and more watt and money on the performance it did not improve that fast in the last 10 year's), not for it relative to is competition:

The M1 does worst it seem under emulation

Skyrim: Special Edition - M1 Apple Silicon - Windows 10 ARM - MacBook Air 2020
Resolution: 1280x800
Settings: Low
Framerate: 30 FPS

I would imagine a 12xxxK could run it if we go on the desktop side and integrated graphics in general, it was running on i3-7100U Intel HD620 graphics, according to this:


50-60 fps at 1080p high setting on the UHD 770.

Maybe I am just too used to seem 5600G and other desktop IGpu numbers.

 

[Axman]

I am talking in general for the IGPU I was not expecting reaching 35-40 fps at low/mid at 720p on a such a game to be the benchmark of what was impressive in that field

It's a taste of what's in stock for APUs moving forward. AMD has kind of sat on their laurels for iGPU performance this generation, and while it's a little better, good enough for casual games and older games, we're going to see some impressive gains.

To my original point, these parts are relevant, even if they're a bit late, since the graphics are handy and the CPU side of things isn't really cut down by much in terms of frequencies to allow for the added graphics, although maybe we're assuming too much that they have graphics in the first place. I do hope they support PCIe 4.0, though. The current low-end APUs don't.

If they don't have integrated graphic and only 3.0, then, what's the point, really?