@SlowPunk

read this dozens times, but they could put an R9 with 13/14CU an see some bench if it's true of increase few FPS (+10 means a lot specially if it can be OC or put it in higher TDP)

many individual are thinking like me, buy an Apple mini and install parallesls to play windows games with M1 10W TDP at GTX 1050 perfs!

in amazon i can buy it at 800€.

To complete the discussion, next year they will pass through 5nm, but TSMC will do also in 3D, so which reasoning shall do? not more than 8CU because will be DDR5 bottleneck? but with 3D you can have at least 16 CU...

I never repeat something that I read many times. At first I want proves that perfomances won't increase increasing CU.

Quote from: 8&8 on April 16, 2021, 13:00:01
they could leave the same 11 or increase a little bit up to 13CU vega+ to have good perfs like GTX 1050, this period is insane to research a dVGA even low end for our common mortalities.

Even cezanne get same perfs of 2400G OC! reduced CU to increase CPU perfs... but FPS of games remain the same. This is weird politic from AMD when every generation iGPU perfs were increasing up to 10%. 
4c/8t 11CU Zen = Zen3 8c/16t 8CU 4 years of nothing :o

never interested of NAVI41 8CU.

Increasing the CU count or moving forward from Vega won't matter, because the current gen is already bottlenecked by DDR4 memory bandwidth, so adding more compute won't change real world performance in games. The move to RDNA2 here is only possible due to Van Gogh moving to higher bandwidth DDR5.

I've always wondered why they didn't do a 4c/8t cpu + 16cu gpu last gen. If you look at, for example, the gtx 1080 game benchmarks with different cpus, you'll se a list like:
I7 6700
I3 6130
I5 6400
I5 6500k
I3 6100

Basically a completely random array. Still pulling 60fps on latest games and the like on my dual core i3 with 1060.

If they made a 2c/4t with vega 16 at speeds like the renoir chips they could pull 7 or 8w tdp, that would make a perfect low cost gaming device, and contrary to gaming nerds, it would game beautifully on a nice 1080p display, maybe a 12.3" convertible or something, it'd be vastly better than tigerlake for gaming.

Vega 6 (r5 4600u) cab run RDR2 in 720p and it looks mint and death stranding, which updates beautifully.

Want games to look class on low hardware? Max/high texture settings and vsync (vsync lowers fps so some idjits tell you to not do it, but a stable 30 is better than an unstable 50 any day)

Then just up the bits like shadows and lighting from low upwards till you reach a balance you like.
As for graphics memory, it's irrelevant, look at thw difference between 1050 2gb and 4gb on actual games, on a laptop with 16gb ram, negligible, because it shares memory, that's why my 3gb 1060 can run ultra texture packs. Don't trust me, try it (if you can).

I completed mgs v on a surface Pro 2 and loved it.

With ddr5 it will be easy to reach gtx1050 like performance. The Intel NUC M15 can do this whith lpddr4x. In paper the Xe max is superior, but it's not.

Maybe in 2023 we can reach the gtx1650 level performance.

they could leave the same 11 or increase a little bit up to 13CU vega+ to have good perfs like GTX 1050, this period is insane to research a dVGA even low end for our common mortalities.

Even cezanne get same perfs of 2400G OC! reduced CU to increase CPU perfs... but FPS of games remain the same. This is weird politic from AMD when every generation iGPU perfs were increasing up to 10%. 
4c/8t 11CU Zen = Zen3 8c/16t 8CU 4 years of nothing :o

never interested of NAVI41 8CU.