3 ms·

Am I the only one disappointed in AMD for still not releasing a proper PC gaming APU and instead they keep trickling down these lukewarm parts to us like it's t

Am I the only one disappointed in AMD for still not releasing a proper PC gaming APU and instead they keep trickling down these lukewarm parts to us like it's the best thing since slice bread when they already have the monster X86 Ryzen-RDNA APU from the PS5 and Xbox released 3 years ago, which slap these new PC APUs into oblivion at gaming. So why can't they just strip the proprietary Sony/Microsoft IP from the silicone and release a PC version of those APUs? They're still just bog standard Ryzen-RDNA parts with more graphic CUs and higher TDP than what they sell for the PC, and the PC motherboards can take higher TDPs of the PS5/Xbox APUs anyway. So what gives AMD? Why you playing us like that?

Sparkyte 3y ago
It's more complicated it isn't that they can't. Desktop memory is still behind GPU memory in bandwidth. So making a GPU greater than a certain footprint looses efficiency. However you could probably achieve low-midrange dGPU performance.
- mirsadm 3y ago
  Apple seems to be doing a pretty good job, AMD can figure it out.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    Apple's SoCs aren't running against consumer DDR5 slapped into slots on a motherboard
  - smileybarry 3y ago
    That's the point, though. Apple are doing a pretty good job because they're using unified memory on the same chip. When AMD gets the same opportunity -- e.g.: PS4/PS5 and XBO/XSX APUs, Steam Deck APU, Z1 Extreme, etc. -- they get good results because they control the memory layout, capacity, and speeds. (And end up deploying VRAM as chip RAM, essentially)
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      What exactly is “good results”?
      - smileybarry 3y ago
        The fact that the PS5 and Xbox Series X have a great GPU, despite being an APU, merely because they can package the RAM along with the chip and not rely on slot-in DDR5? Look up the benchmarks and compare to dGPUs.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        Dedicated desktop GPUs are significantly more powerful than PS5 and XSX chips - even GPUs released in the same year. Nvidia’s Ampere series released in 2020. You might not see the huge difference in performance because games are optimized around consoles. But in terms of raw specs/tflops, dedicated GPUs are much more powerful. That said, PS5 and XSX take the cake in cost/perf. But that’s only because they are subsidized.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
aurareturn 3y ago
Because PS5/XSX SoCs are way too power hungry for laptops and too impractical for desktops. They’re designed to be cheap to produce for a console which means they use fewer transistors and run in high clock speed leading to higher power and cooling requirements than laptops can handle. Discrete Nvidia GPUs blows it out of the water on desktop. So do standalone desktop CPUs. Furthermore, they use unified GDDR RAM which has high bandwidth but also high latency. The CPU would not be competitive. This is unlike Apple Silicon which takes the more expensive route by using LPDDR5 with many channels. I think what you want is an efficient SoC with a very large GPU. Basically an M3 Max. But Apple is way ahead of AMD at making mobile SoCs. It would also cost $3000+ starting - which brings us back to the territorial of Nvidia GPUs having more value if you’re a gamer. With that said, I think chip makers were woken up by Apple or caught with their pants down. I do think we will see bigger GPUs in SoCs on laptops and desktops. Nvidia is rumored to be making an Apple Silicon Competitor. Qualcomm is with their Nuvia based chips. AMD and Intel are putting bigger and bigger GPUs into their SoCs.
Stevvo 3y ago
>So why can't they just strip the proprietary Sony/Microsoft IP from the silicone and release a PC version of those APUs? They could, but it would run like shit. DDR4 is way too low bandwidth for video memory. Zen2 was a pretty slow architecture to begin with; the ancient 14nm Intel CPUs are faster.
- daveguy 3y ago
  For those keeping score: consoles are getting behind AMD's current tech -- a generation behind on the memory (DDR4 vs 5), 10 nm behind on the CPU fab (14nm vs 4nm), and two generations behind on the zen architecture (Zen 2 vs Zen 4). I guess that means we are due for a new console generation in the next year or two? Which will probably be based on this faster, better 8000G series (or the next one).
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    PS5 and Xbox Series X use GDDR6. PS5 has 512MB of DDR4 that it uses as an SSD cache, but everything else is done using GDDR6. Both are fabbed on 7nm processes, and later revision PS5s use a 6nm process. They are just entering their 4th year. We won't see a new console gen for probably 3+ years. They've barely started getting non-cross gen games in any decent number. We might see a PS5 Pro, but it won't be a huge leap.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    PS5 and XSX are significantly faster than this chip in GPU performance. Not even close. This 8000 series is using 780M which is a rebrand of 680M released a while ago.
  - Narishma 3y ago
    Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
throwawaytruck 3y ago
I believe they never release good APUs because they would cut into the market for video cards... So the best APU has to be inferior to a mediocre GPU combo.
ranger207 3y ago
I don't know that there's much of a market for a desktop APU. People who don't care about graphics can use the CPUs with built-in graphics; most people who do care about graphics are likely going to prefer a dedicated card, possibly from Nvidia anyway. There just aren't a lot of people looking for a non-upgradable desktop
sosodev 3y ago
The 8700G should be roughly as powerful as an Xbox Series S. These modern APUs have come a long way. I suspect they don't bother making them much more powerful because the cost/performance ratio can't compete with the standard CPU+GPU combos.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
These are pretty beastly APUs, imo. To go further, iGPUs need much more ram throughput than they have now. 128-bit ram is not enough! I'd love love love to see an m1 style on-package ram, but I don't think it's likely (in the next couple years). What is happening though - if things go ok - is Strix Halo. This announcement today is a desktop Hawk Point (same specs but higher power than existing mobile Hawk Point: 8c Z4, 16MB L3, 12 CU 780m GPU). Next APU due end of year or early next year is Strix Point, on Zen5+??. The real excitement though: there's supposed to be a "big" Strix Point called Strix Halo coming out a bit after that is alleged to boast a double wide 256b DDR5 memory interface. That doubled-up memory bandwidth should provide the headroom to go from good to great! I really hope we get some ridiculous gaming decks with Strix Halo. Just turn off half the chip when on battery, but plug it on, put it on an actively cooled dock, and bamo, monster beast system. Hey, a nerd can dream, right?

Sparkyte 3y ago

It's more complicated it isn't that they can't. Desktop memory is still behind GPU memory in bandwidth. So making a GPU greater than a certain footprint looses efficiency. However you could probably achieve low-midrange dGPU performance.

mirsadm 3y ago
Apple seems to be doing a pretty good job, AMD can figure it out.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  Apple's SoCs aren't running against consumer DDR5 slapped into slots on a motherboard
- smileybarry 3y ago
  That's the point, though. Apple are doing a pretty good job because they're using unified memory on the same chip. When AMD gets the same opportunity -- e.g.: PS4/PS5 and XBO/XSX APUs, Steam Deck APU, Z1 Extreme, etc. -- they get good results because they control the memory layout, capacity, and speeds. (And end up deploying VRAM as chip RAM, essentially)
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    What exactly is “good results”?
    - smileybarry 3y ago
      The fact that the PS5 and Xbox Series X have a great GPU, despite being an APU, merely because they can package the RAM along with the chip and not rely on slot-in DDR5? Look up the benchmarks and compare to dGPUs.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        Dedicated desktop GPUs are significantly more powerful than PS5 and XSX chips - even GPUs released in the same year. Nvidia’s Ampere series released in 2020. You might not see the huge difference in performance because games are optimized around consoles. But in terms of raw specs/tflops, dedicated GPUs are much more powerful. That said, PS5 and XSX take the cake in cost/perf. But that’s only because they are subsidized.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

aurareturn 3y ago

Because PS5/XSX SoCs are way too power hungry for laptops and too impractical for desktops. They’re designed to be cheap to produce for a console which means they use fewer transistors and run in high clock speed leading to higher power and cooling requirements than laptops can handle. Discrete Nvidia GPUs blows it out of the water on desktop. So do standalone desktop CPUs. Furthermore, they use unified GDDR RAM which has high bandwidth but also high latency. The CPU would not be competitive. This is unlike Apple Silicon which takes the more expensive route by using LPDDR5 with many channels. I think what you want is an efficient SoC with a very large GPU. Basically an M3 Max. But Apple is way ahead of AMD at making mobile SoCs. It would also cost $3000+ starting - which brings us back to the territorial of Nvidia GPUs having more value if you’re a gamer. With that said, I think chip makers were woken up by Apple or caught with their pants down. I do think we will see bigger GPUs in SoCs on laptops and desktops. Nvidia is rumored to be making an Apple Silicon Competitor. Qualcomm is with their Nuvia based chips. AMD and Intel are putting bigger and bigger GPUs into their SoCs.

Stevvo 3y ago

>So why can't they just strip the proprietary Sony/Microsoft IP from the silicone and release a PC version of those APUs? They could, but it would run like shit. DDR4 is way too low bandwidth for video memory. Zen2 was a pretty slow architecture to begin with; the ancient 14nm Intel CPUs are faster.

daveguy 3y ago
For those keeping score: consoles are getting behind AMD's current tech -- a generation behind on the memory (DDR4 vs 5), 10 nm behind on the CPU fab (14nm vs 4nm), and two generations behind on the zen architecture (Zen 2 vs Zen 4). I guess that means we are due for a new console generation in the next year or two? Which will probably be based on this faster, better 8000G series (or the next one).
- goosedragons 3y ago
  PS5 and Xbox Series X use GDDR6. PS5 has 512MB of DDR4 that it uses as an SSD cache, but everything else is done using GDDR6. Both are fabbed on 7nm processes, and later revision PS5s use a 6nm process. They are just entering their 4th year. We won't see a new console gen for probably 3+ years. They've barely started getting non-cross gen games in any decent number. We might see a PS5 Pro, but it won't be a huge leap.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  PS5 and XSX are significantly faster than this chip in GPU performance. Not even close. This 8000 series is using 780M which is a rebrand of 680M released a while ago.
- Narishma 3y ago
  Pretty much everything you said is wrong.

throwawaytruck 3y ago

I believe they never release good APUs because they would cut into the market for video cards... So the best APU has to be inferior to a mediocre GPU combo.

ranger207 3y ago

I don't know that there's much of a market for a desktop APU. People who don't care about graphics can use the CPUs with built-in graphics; most people who do care about graphics are likely going to prefer a dedicated card, possibly from Nvidia anyway. There just aren't a lot of people looking for a non-upgradable desktop

sosodev 3y ago

The 8700G should be roughly as powerful as an Xbox Series S. These modern APUs have come a long way. I suspect they don't bother making them much more powerful because the cost/performance ratio can't compete with the standard CPU+GPU combos.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

These are pretty beastly APUs, imo. To go further, iGPUs need much more ram throughput than they have now. 128-bit ram is not enough! I'd love love love to see an m1 style on-package ram, but I don't think it's likely (in the next couple years). What is happening though - if things go ok - is Strix Halo. This announcement today is a desktop Hawk Point (same specs but higher power than existing mobile Hawk Point: 8c Z4, 16MB L3, 12 CU 780m GPU). Next APU due end of year or early next year is Strix Point, on Zen5+??. The real excitement though: there's supposed to be a "big" Strix Point called Strix Halo coming out a bit after that is alleged to boast a double wide 256b DDR5 memory interface. That doubled-up memory bandwidth should provide the headroom to go from good to great! I really hope we get some ridiculous gaming decks with Strix Halo. Just turn off half the chip when on battery, but plug it on, put it on an actively cooled dock, and bamo, monster beast system. Hey, a nerd can dream, right?