If you have read our Ryzen 3100 and 3300X reviews, you will have noticed that one of my arguments was that these procs likely would have been better off if they'd had an IGP (integrated graphics proc... AMD Ryzen 7 4700G Renoir spotted, 8c/16t and Vega'ish Integrated GPU
Oh well, 8c/16t is totally overkill for iGPU. Might be good for some business applications where CPU power is much more required that GPU. But totally overkill for budget gaming. 4c/8t Zen2 + Vega in 1 package would be more attractive. Something like 4400G.
Very interesting AMD very interesting. But i agree with @sverek that 8c/16 is overkill because the IGPU might be too weak to keep up with the CPU and where a dedicated GPU is required or for those businesses who might need the CPU horsepower and just need the IGPU as a display adapter.
The IGP is there for when your dedicated GPU craps out. Also for troubleshooting. Finally AMD, including IGP in a proper CPU is a plus.
Well, Intel is finally offering its CPU without iGPU in it (10700kf). While its handy to have iGPU for backup and debugging, most diy consumers have older backup dGPU. Still, I love to have an option to pay less or more for iGPU instead of forced to have one.
AMD maybe want to "overkill" Intel at the budget gaming market, so Intel's iGPU becomes a flimsy reminder that they have graphics. Vega IGPU can kick some ass and AMD maybe want to claim that spot and expand upwards. Once SOHO and business realize the value AMD has to offer, maybe they shift gears towards the red camp. My 2 cents, not actual facts.
Not directly, at least. This has the tired old Vega (even if it has some cosmetic Navi stuff slapped on top of it). The consoles have Navi 2 arch, and much more of it. I doubt this iGPU will be significantly more powerful than what Intel will be offering in the very near future.
I don't get it.... AMD sells a CPU without iGPU, and people complain. AMD adds an iGPU, and people complain..... Intel has been offering CPU's without an iGPU.... They just aren't as common because they're usually released later in the product cycle and receive no media attention. I posted a complete list of Intel desktop i5/i7 CPU's without iGPU a few months ago. Even having extra graphics cards laying around, it's faster/easier to use an iGPU in instances of lost video signal. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a mobile part. I'd love to see AMD do this with more desktop processors.
So basically a 3700X with a powerful IF-linked iGPU die that can compete with low-mid-range dedicated GPUs ? Yeah, sounds like a fantastic option for many gamers !
no doubt, but Vega will do just fine for those simple display tasks. IGP is an added value. Given a choice I'll always take CPU with IGP. It makes life so much easier.
This is actually a very interesting CPU for me, I have two Proxmox servers where having an iGPU means easy access to the server using a monitor without having to run another PCIe device. But in the grand scheme such a use case is rare for sure, but having an iGPU has saved me a few times. If its just another part for AMD to show that it simply can then by all means give me more high core count cpus with a built in GPU.
1. Why 4700G ? Why not 4400G ? 2. Can't just someone downclock the 5700XT to oblivion and make the score be this low? 3. someone just regedit the CPU name for UB, is that hard even here? It's interesting that that guy just predicted the name of the next APU. 4. 8c/16t is overkill for APU, even if we talk that the iGPU is there if the dGPU craps out (yea cuz GPUs crap out... lmao) 5. Why "vega" 8? Are we downgrading the high end? This makes literally no sense. We know AMD fcked up with rdna, removing pcie4 support, now with zen 3 and chipset. This would be another mistake. What happend? they started soo good....
Although I feel it is overkill, I don't see the problem with it either. Having the option is always nice, especially since so many AM4 boards support an IGP. People here are too focused on gamers - there are plenty of workstations that don't do anything particularly GPU intensive other than maybe operate a couple of 1440p displays. What I think would be a particularly interesting benchmark is comparing how much performance the GPU loses when memory bandwidth is taxed by CPU-only tasks. So for example, find some game that only needs up to 8 threads, then run a CPU-intensive task that also only needs 8 threads. We don't want both the game and the CPU task to step on each other's threads since that could slow down the game regardless of memory usage. This test would prove 2 things: 1. If we need more than 2 channels of memory for 8c/16t (we already know that the IGP is starving for more bandwidth) 2. How much GPU performance is lost because of the CPU's memory bandwidth This sort of test isn't realistically possible on existing APUs, because it's hard to find something that can be taxing on both system and video memory with just 4 cores.
I don't have a problem with it either. I think that this a great thing for AMD to do. Not sure if you can have both the IGPU enabled with a dGPU like you can with Intel to do stuff with video rendering such as quicksync. But if you can this could be useful in someway. Not true at all. If you go back to the X58/X79/X99 and any X platform that follows there wasn't any IGPUs. Also if you look back to the 1st gen core i series CPUs there wasn't an IGPU in those either as far as mainstream went. Then Intel for a while offered IGPUs with their mainstream CPUs since SandyBridge. Now Intel is back to offering no IGPU to the mainstream since the 1st Generation core i series.
I wonder if this would have the monolithic design that the mobile APUs have. With lower latencies it could outperform the 3700X/3800X clock per clock. Also I've been saying for a while AMD is missing a lot of market share due to lack of iGPU. Guess what, not everyone plays games. There's plenty of uses for an 8 core cpu outside of gaming. That's why Intel has the i7 9700 and i9 9900. The people I know who have computers with those chips are NOT gamers. So why is it OK for Intel to put 8 cores and an iGPU on a chip but not AMD? HP tried selling an AMD pc with a 3700X and like a Radeon 550 in it at a price lower than a i7 9700 system. All the reviews were negative, because of the "mismatched gpu" which is nonsense. The gpu outperforms Intel graphics, and the system as a whole outperforms a 9700 system, and was cheaper,. But negative reviews. This type of nonsense is really holding AMD back. Also AMD really needs to stop calling them APUs, I've always hated that term. No one else uses it. They only used it because they used to be so far behind Intel that they needed a marketing gimmick to differentiate them, about their more powerful iGPU. But it just confuses people now.
@Mundosold People also hate on Intel's GPUs because they're not good at gaming. Personally, I think they're great. They're very efficient, they have a lot of video decoding capabilities, they're decent at driving 4K displays, and they don't demand too much memory bandwidth for the performance you get. But simply because they lack the 3D performance, they're always touted as crappy. That, and Intel still never recovered from the graphics they integrated into motherboards. THOSE were utter garbage GPUs, but we've long moved past them.
A lot of tasks do not require strong gpus but they do love cores it can be a good product it all depends the price premium the gpu will add 0+20 usd will be no brainer ...the intel f cpus cre not appealing because compared to the non f counterpart the difference is just 10 bucks when you are about to fork 300-500 just pay 10 more . Now if the price is 50 extra then is not a clear cut choice.
