Quote from: Prassel on Yesterday at 17:54:38Quote from: Now you understand on Yesterday at 17:18:29Strix Halo iGPU ... not enough bandwidth.
Uhm ... "Halo" is not the point. It wouldn't fit on a default socket anyways.
I'm talking about the smaller chips, like the socketed 8000G-series, which has up to 12 CUs for the iGPU.
And now the "successor" comes as the socketed 450G-series, which gets 8 CUs only... and even though the same small chip in laptops has 16 CUs (Radeon 890m).
Ok, let's calculate the maximum performance you could expect from your desktop PC: A normal/typical desktop PC has its RAM connected to 128-bit (2*64-bit per RAM channel, aka dual-channel) wide memory bus and the dual-channel RAM is typically running at 5600 to maaaybe 6400 MT/s:
Strix Halo (4060 Laptop level of performance): 256 GB/s = 256-bit * 8000 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
Typical dual-channel DDR5 desktop PC: 96 GB/s = 128-bit * 6000 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
256 GB/s / 96 GB/s -> Expect a maximum iGPU performance that is 2.67 times slower than a 4060 Laptop.
Let's compare -- 3dmark.com/search (Time Spy):
- 8700G (780M (12 CUs)): ~3300
- Radeon 880M iGPU (12 CUs): "Average score: 3473"
- 4060 (notebook): "Average score: 10506"
(the factory of roughly 3 lines up)
- And now desktop CPU iGPU perf: "Radeon Graphics" iGPU (Ryzen 7000 & 9000 series) (2 CUs): "Average score: 826"
While 3 times slower than a 4060 Laptop doesn't sound like fast, such an iGPU in a desktop CPU would still be roughly 4 times (3502/826) faster.
(names from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDNA_2#Integrated_graphics_processing_units_(iGPUs))
You are right, the memory bandwidth would allow for a (roughly) 4-time increase in performance vs the current 2CUs iGPU ones and putting such an iGPU into a 9000G series would make sense for those, where a 4-time perf increase is all they need.
AMD is prob not prioritizing a G-series CPU because even a, say, 3500 score in Time Spy isn't that much when compared vs e.g. a RX 6600 (non-XT) ("Average score: 8040") that can be bought (used) cheaply (and undervolted, power-scaled, too). Yes, such a dGPU PC is going to be less slim (or is harder to build slim (there are low profile GPUs, tho)), but is also 2.4 times faster (8040/3300). And the GPU can be upgraded vs in a CPU you'd have to change the whole CPU.
Or the sales of the 8000G series were bad.
Let's take a newer GPU architecture (thanks to TSMC's better node) that has a better perf/W than RDNA2 (and other features):
- RX 6600: 132W TDP and "Average score: 8040" = 60 points per Watt.
- RX 9060 XT: 150W TDP and Average score: 14601 = 97 points per Watt.
(the smallest non-OEM RDNA4 GPU is the RX 9060 XT and it's 150W TDP)
- RTX 4060: 115W TDP and "Average score: 10398" = 90 points per Watt.
Being able to simply upgrade the (low profile) GPU and not needing to buy a new CPU, is understandably
a very big thing.
Even if one would prefer AMD, it's NVIDIA that offers the lower TDP card (115W vs 150W).
I have a 16400 Time Spy score GPU, so I'm not in the iGPU CPU market, but I'd still find it nice if there were variants with more than 2 CUs, but only if this wouldn't pull AMD's other important resources much.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar