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.