4 ms·

If you're spending $300+ on a CPU, you're probably buying a GPU as well. And if you're not, and you just need something that's as good as onboard graphics you c

If you're spending $300+ on a CPU, you're probably buying a GPU as well. And if you're not, and you just need something that's as good as onboard graphics you can probably get a old card for $20-30 on CL.

free652 7y ago
There is no $30 card that can do DP 4k@60 and that's my dev machine. I ordered a Nvidia 1030 thats $80. I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. I am getting a 3600 to replace 1700x in my gaming build and replacing 2400g with 1700x and 1030 in my workstation build.
- vkaku 7y ago
  Watch out for 3600G then. I don't know if there's a concrete plan to launch it immediately, but it looks like the additional $20 on it may give you what you need. The Navi should do 4k@60. I realize that this proofs you from getting a PCIe 4.0 GPU of your choice much later, when you have the budget for it. Of course, don't expect it to give you ultra level graphics for that small die size and heat dissipation.
  - hajile 7y ago
    I'm somewhat skeptical about the 3600G. The 2400G is already a bit bandwidth starved. Dual 64-bit DDR4 channels simply can't keep up with the CPU plus a large GPU. Adding channels isn't possible without changing sockets. There doesn't appear to be enough room on package for an HBM stack like Intel did with Hades Canyon. Running your RAM at 4400MHz with that 0.5x Infinity Fabric multiplier could probably allow a bump from 11CU to 16CU (or 20CU at lower clockspeed). A decent bump and enough to eat the entire low-end GPU market, but not incredible. I'm left wanting a heterogeneous next-gen system using shared HBM for everything. Intel currently sells the i7-8809G. It contains a substrate, 4GB HBM2, 24CU Vega M (14nm), and quad-core (3.7-4.7GHz, 14nm) with a TDP of 95w for an MSRP $546. If the substrate and HBM cost $100, then that's MSRP $446 for quad core plus 24CU GPU. AMD currently sells the 2400G for $130 (launch MSRP for 3400G is $150). The 1300X (100MHz slower, but double the cache) costs $110 giving us around $20 for the 11CU GPU (the 2200G can be had for about $90 indicating the GPU price may actually be lower than that). Let's build a next-gen APU for both desktop and gaming laptops. HBM3 spec was finalized almost 3 years ago. Estimates for Vega put 2 HBM2 chips (8GB) at around $150 with a substrate adding another $25. We'll actually work within the constraints of HBM 2 at the moment. Just realize you should get 2x the RAM for around the same price (die shrinks and advances in 2.5D chip construction) along with lower voltages, higher speeds per pin, and potentially fewer stacks needed. We'll use HBM because it has enough bandwidth and uses simpler memory controllers while also cutting latency in HALF vs DDR [latency source](http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw-discs17/slides/stocksdale-pdsw-discs17.pdf http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw-discs17/slides/stocksdale-pdsw-disc...). We'll need 16GB of HBM2 at a cost of $300 (remember, that should become 32GB of HBM3 or lower costs closer to $150 for 16GB). If we cost $20 for 11CU, we'll assume $100 for 40CU (adding around a 25% markup for the larger chip though 36CU and 24CU lasered versions could greatly reduce that). That puts us up to $400. A 3600 6-core CPU is selling at $200. We'll add another $50 to the MSRP just because for a final price of $650. That is $100 more than the MSRP for the i7-8809G, but has a TON of advantages. It has 2 more CPU cores and almost 2x the GPU power (with access to more RAM if it needs). There's no need to spend another $100-200 for additional DDR4 plus the CPU performance will be better due to reduced latency. The lack of RAM on the motherboard and getting rid of all those traces should reduce motherboard cost and size. Finally, at 7nm, this should all fit inside a 95w TDP suitable for both desktops and gaming laptops (which usually have 35-45w CPUs plus 50w+ GPUs).
- Retric 7y ago
  GT 710 does 4K@60 for 43$ new from Newegg. I doubt that’s the cheapest option though.
  - free652 7y ago
    I don't believe a 710 can do 4k@60 via DP. 730 may be, but finding a card with DP under 50 is hard.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Nvidia says 710 can do both, 3840x2160 at 60Hz supported over HDMI. 3840x2160 at 60Hz supported over DisplayPort. https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-710/specifications https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-710... But it’s up to the manufacturers to decide what ports to include. PS: That said it does seem like there is a premium associated with DisplayPort, are you sure you are not also paying that premium when looking at Intel motherboards?
- msbarnett 7y ago
  > I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. This is no longer true, thankfully due to the influence of current gen consoles. Games like Assassin’s Creed: Origin tend to be heavily CPU limited with less than 8 fast cores. Core count is really starting to matter in gaming.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  > I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. That's largely false for modern engines.
josteink 7y ago
> If you're spending $300+ on a CPU, you're probably buying a GPU as well. I’m not a gamer. I don’t give a shit about any GPU performance I couldn’t have on intel integrated 10 years ago. I just need compute, and I hate to have to pay 50-100 usd extra for a completely overspecced GPU that will idle at 0.0000000001%.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  GPU is compute. The list of use-cases that require lots of CPU and negligible GPU performance are shrinking by the day. Video and photo editing are heavily GPU accelerated, as is 2D and 3D CAD/CAM. Scientific computing is increasingly reliant on GPU performance and even your browser is GPU accelerated. I suspect that an increasingly large proportion of developers will start demanding fast GPUs as the usefulness of low-precision computing expands. It just doesn't make sense for AMD to waste a lot of very expensive die area on a crappy GPU that most of their customers will never use, for the benefit of a very small minority of customers who resent paying extra for a cheap dGPU. The Zen 3 APUs should offer up to 8c/8t or 8c/16t with a fairly capable Vega GPU, which is a far more compelling value proposition for the vast majority of consumers.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- arvinsim 7y ago
  I used to think that way until I tried to run 4K@60hz on my previously owned 2015 13" MBP. Stuttering sucks. I went with the 15" with dGPU on my new MBP and the problem went away.
wil421 7y ago
My last two builds were an i7-7700k desktop and an i3-8100 FreeNAS (FreeBSD based) build. The i3 will become a Linux box for other purposes once cheap Xeon Es become available on eBay. The onboard graphics support is great. Now I can use my PCI slots for a 10gb SFP+ backbone and some other stuff.

free652 7y ago

There is no $30 card that can do DP 4k@60 and that's my dev machine. I ordered a Nvidia 1030 thats $80. I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. I am getting a 3600 to replace 1700x in my gaming build and replacing 2400g with 1700x and 1030 in my workstation build.

vkaku 7y ago
Watch out for 3600G then. I don't know if there's a concrete plan to launch it immediately, but it looks like the additional $20 on it may give you what you need. The Navi should do 4k@60. I realize that this proofs you from getting a PCIe 4.0 GPU of your choice much later, when you have the budget for it. Of course, don't expect it to give you ultra level graphics for that small die size and heat dissipation.
- hajile 7y ago
  I'm somewhat skeptical about the 3600G. The 2400G is already a bit bandwidth starved. Dual 64-bit DDR4 channels simply can't keep up with the CPU plus a large GPU. Adding channels isn't possible without changing sockets. There doesn't appear to be enough room on package for an HBM stack like Intel did with Hades Canyon. Running your RAM at 4400MHz with that 0.5x Infinity Fabric multiplier could probably allow a bump from 11CU to 16CU (or 20CU at lower clockspeed). A decent bump and enough to eat the entire low-end GPU market, but not incredible. I'm left wanting a heterogeneous next-gen system using shared HBM for everything. Intel currently sells the i7-8809G. It contains a substrate, 4GB HBM2, 24CU Vega M (14nm), and quad-core (3.7-4.7GHz, 14nm) with a TDP of 95w for an MSRP $546. If the substrate and HBM cost $100, then that's MSRP $446 for quad core plus 24CU GPU. AMD currently sells the 2400G for $130 (launch MSRP for 3400G is $150). The 1300X (100MHz slower, but double the cache) costs $110 giving us around $20 for the 11CU GPU (the 2200G can be had for about $90 indicating the GPU price may actually be lower than that). Let's build a next-gen APU for both desktop and gaming laptops. HBM3 spec was finalized almost 3 years ago. Estimates for Vega put 2 HBM2 chips (8GB) at around $150 with a substrate adding another $25. We'll actually work within the constraints of HBM 2 at the moment. Just realize you should get 2x the RAM for around the same price (die shrinks and advances in 2.5D chip construction) along with lower voltages, higher speeds per pin, and potentially fewer stacks needed. We'll use HBM because it has enough bandwidth and uses simpler memory controllers while also cutting latency in HALF vs DDR [latency source](http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw-discs17/slides/stocksdale-pdsw-discs17.pdf http://www.pdsw.org/pdsw-discs17/slides/stocksdale-pdsw-disc...). We'll need 16GB of HBM2 at a cost of $300 (remember, that should become 32GB of HBM3 or lower costs closer to $150 for 16GB). If we cost $20 for 11CU, we'll assume $100 for 40CU (adding around a 25% markup for the larger chip though 36CU and 24CU lasered versions could greatly reduce that). That puts us up to $400. A 3600 6-core CPU is selling at $200. We'll add another $50 to the MSRP just because for a final price of $650. That is $100 more than the MSRP for the i7-8809G, but has a TON of advantages. It has 2 more CPU cores and almost 2x the GPU power (with access to more RAM if it needs). There's no need to spend another $100-200 for additional DDR4 plus the CPU performance will be better due to reduced latency. The lack of RAM on the motherboard and getting rid of all those traces should reduce motherboard cost and size. Finally, at 7nm, this should all fit inside a 95w TDP suitable for both desktops and gaming laptops (which usually have 35-45w CPUs plus 50w+ GPUs).
Retric 7y ago
GT 710 does 4K@60 for 43$ new from Newegg. I doubt that’s the cheapest option though.
- free652 7y ago
  I don't believe a 710 can do 4k@60 via DP. 730 may be, but finding a card with DP under 50 is hard.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Nvidia says 710 can do both, 3840x2160 at 60Hz supported over HDMI. 3840x2160 at 60Hz supported over DisplayPort. https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-710/specifications https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-710... But it’s up to the manufacturers to decide what ports to include. PS: That said it does seem like there is a premium associated with DisplayPort, are you sure you are not also paying that premium when looking at Intel motherboards?
msbarnett 7y ago
> I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. This is no longer true, thankfully due to the influence of current gen consoles. Games like Assassin’s Creed: Origin tend to be heavily CPU limited with less than 8 fast cores. Core count is really starting to matter in gaming.
blattimwind 7y ago
> I doubt that any gamer need more than 4-6 cores, but single thread is very important. That's largely false for modern engines.

josteink 7y ago

> If you're spending $300+ on a CPU, you're probably buying a GPU as well. I’m not a gamer. I don’t give a shit about any GPU performance I couldn’t have on intel integrated 10 years ago. I just need compute, and I hate to have to pay 50-100 usd extra for a completely overspecced GPU that will idle at 0.0000000001%.

jdietrich 7y ago
GPU is compute. The list of use-cases that require lots of CPU and negligible GPU performance are shrinking by the day. Video and photo editing are heavily GPU accelerated, as is 2D and 3D CAD/CAM. Scientific computing is increasingly reliant on GPU performance and even your browser is GPU accelerated. I suspect that an increasingly large proportion of developers will start demanding fast GPUs as the usefulness of low-precision computing expands. It just doesn't make sense for AMD to waste a lot of very expensive die area on a crappy GPU that most of their customers will never use, for the benefit of a very small minority of customers who resent paying extra for a cheap dGPU. The Zen 3 APUs should offer up to 8c/8t or 8c/16t with a fairly capable Vega GPU, which is a far more compelling value proposition for the vast majority of consumers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
arvinsim 7y ago
I used to think that way until I tried to run 4K@60hz on my previously owned 2015 13" MBP. Stuttering sucks. I went with the 15" with dGPU on my new MBP and the problem went away.

wil421 7y ago

My last two builds were an i7-7700k desktop and an i3-8100 FreeNAS (FreeBSD based) build. The i3 will become a Linux box for other purposes once cheap Xeon Es become available on eBay. The onboard graphics support is great. Now I can use my PCI slots for a 10gb SFP+ backbone and some other stuff.