AMD Ryzen 8000G Socket AM5 Desktop APU Lineup Detailed

[LabRat 891]

8700G with 8c/16t and Desktop Polaris tier graphics integrated?

I'm impressed.

Considering that I'm still seeing 'budget gamers' buying off-mining Polaris,
This is potentially a fantastic value.

The 780M is still behind the RX 6400 as it has the same core count but with slower shared memory. It performs at about 70-80% of the 6400 in most tests. I've gamed with the 6400 and 70-80% of that from an iGPU is reasonable performance.

My 6500XT slightly edged out my old RX580 8GB in every test.
I'd have guessed a 6400 or RX470 would perform similarly to the 780M with optimal RAM.
The 780M is an RDNA rev. newer, after all.

 

[tabascosauz]

so their apus following the same naming scheme as cpus to reduce confusion lasted a whole whopping ONE generation.

im sure on desktop w/ a proper OC 'nd stuff you can make it match the 6400 rather easily

I'm not so sure there's some crazy performance left to be unlocked. For past APUs, an aggressive mem OC provided good uplift, but this time LPDDR5x also exists - 780M has already had the benefit of 6400-7500MT/s LPDDR5x in a lot of designs. The only real question is probably power scaling, since it's notably constrained in mobile designs.

Yes, LPDDR5x speeds do not translate 1:1 into perfect performance scaling, but for iGPU purposes it is still high bandwidth. As I've said before, the mem bandwidth is good to have but 780M is still a 768SP part, it doesn't just keep scaling forever.

 

[Selaya]

yeah im aware but 20%? doesnt sound (too) outlandish a gap to be bridged by some (proper) OC
will be interesting to see, at the very least so there's that

 

[Lew Zealand]

8700G with 8c/16t and Desktop Polaris tier graphics integrated?

I'm impressed.

Considering that I'm still seeing 'budget gamers' buying off-mining Polaris,
This is potentially a fantastic value.


My 6500XT slightly edged out my old RX580 8GB in every test.
I'd have guessed a 6400 or RX470 would perform similarly to the 780M with optimal RAM.
The 780M is an RDNA rev. newer, after all.

I do tend to forget the RDNA2 vs 3 difference but general tests don't put the 2 architectures very far apart when accounting for core count. However I've done some tests as I have a 6700 XT, 7700 XT and 6800 XT. Long story short:

DX11 - RDNA3 is a little slower than RDNA2. The 7700 XT is only a little faster than the 6700 XT with more cores (3456 vs 2560)
DX12 - RDNA3 is notably faster than RDNA2. The 7700 XT is only a little slower than the 6800 XT with fewer cores (3456 vs 4608)

I'll bet the 780M comes close to the 6400 in DX12 memory-insensitive games, falls behind in DX12 memory-sensitive games, falls far behind in DX11 (and maybe DX9?).

Sure there may be exceptions, but in that RGinHD video the 780M was equal to the 6400 in FH5 though I don't know if that's a memory-insensitive game or not.

 

[Arkz]

Bring on Zen 5!

 

[Launcestonian]

When I see the reviews & benchmarks, then I will form an opinion on these SKUs. But I will keep in mind early bios & driver maturity as the usual influencers on ultimate performance.

 

[Lionheart]

WTH is with the clock speeds? Those are gross AMD.

(Edited) Thank god, it was incorrect info.

 

[chrcoluk]

Massive CU drop off for the 2 lower SKU's, seems quite extreme.

I remember reading earlier in the year that all AMD chips would have iGPU as standard moving forward, is that no longer the case?

 

[mechtech]

Give me a nudge when they have a 32MB L3 cache and run at jedec 6400.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Give me a nudge when they have a 32MB L3 cache and run at jedec 6400.

What about LPDDR5T(X) 9600?

 

[mechtech]

What about LPDDR5T(X) 9600?

probably more for laptops.............and even then almost impossible to find

 

[Minus Infinity]

probably more for laptops.............and even then almost impossible to find

Ah of course, laptop only. Doh.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

I remember reading earlier in the year that all AMD chips would have iGPU as standard moving forward, is that no longer the case?

Across AM5 SKUs, the only non-iGPU CPU is a 7500F. 7600, 7600X, 7700 series etc do have a very slow and painful, yet working iGPU onboard. It's only good for the fact you can see what you're doing on your PC. Performance is basically non-existent (GTX 250 levels or perhaps a wee better than that).

Considering that I'm still seeing 'budget gamers' buying off-mining Polaris,
This is potentially a fantastic value.

Don't forget that budget gamers do not have several hundred bucks worth of budget to begin with. 8700G with a hint on achieving RX470+ levels of performance will cost at least a couple hundred dollars, most likely closer to $400. Add a one hundred dollar motherboard on top of that as well as fast DDR5 (once again about 100 USD best case scenario) + cooling which is not free since it's an 8C/16T fast CPU with respective heat output. $550 to $600 (as the least possible number) for a PC that BARELY matches gaming performance of a system with a 40 dollar GPU sounds hilarious at best.

Almost everybody without stupid strict limiations on their PC size will opt for a stock standard CPU+GPU combo, most likely Ryzen 7600/i5-13400 + RX 6600 which destroys these APUs in every single game.

 

[ymdhis]

Don't forget that budget gamers do not have several hundred bucks worth of budget to begin with. 8700G with a hint on achieving RX470+ levels of performance will cost at least a couple hundred dollars, most likely closer to $400. Add a one hundred dollar motherboard on top of that as well as fast DDR5 (once again about 100 USD best case scenario) + cooling which is not free since it's an 8C/16T fast CPU with respective heat output. $550 to $600 (as the least possible number) for a PC that BARELY matches gaming performance of a system with a 40 dollar GPU sounds hilarious at best.

Almost everybody without stupid strict limiations on their PC size will opt for a stock standard CPU+GPU combo, most likely Ryzen 7600/i5-13400 + RX 6600 which destroys these APUs in every single game.

No one is going to upgrade their AM4/AM5 build to a 8700G just for the iGPU.

But, if you are building a new PC from scratch (for ex. upgrading from a 10 year old PC), and you want something that can also game without doubling the price of the new setup, then the 8700G makes sense.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

then the 8700G makes sense.

ONLY if you are very limited in PC size. Ryzen 7600 + RX 6600 is about the same price. 6 cores of course are somewhat worse than 8 but ST performance must be better + RX 6600 games a lot better than any iGPU.

(for ex. upgrading from a 10 year old PC)

Oh by the way, did you know that a GTX 980 is turning 10 years in 2024 and it outperforms this iGPU?

 

[ymdhis]

ONLY if you are very limited in PC size. Ryzen 7600 + RX 6600 is about the same price. 6 cores of course are somewhat worse than 8 but ST performance must be better + RX 6600 games a lot better than any iGPU.


Oh by the way, did you know that a GTX 980 is turning 10 years in 2024 and it outperforms this iGPU?

What's your source on that price for the 8700G? I imagine most people would want the 8600G instead, since the iGPU will most likely be the same speed in practice due to bandwidth limits.

The GTX980 was a $550 part that used 165W on its own, plus you needed a CPU next to it. This is a CPU + GPU in 65W that isn't too far from the GTX 980.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

What about LPDDR5T(X) 9600?

Too expensive because will be bleeding edge when become in use. DDR5 6400 is something usual today.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

What's your source on that price for the 8700G?

This is called studying history. 5700G, for example, cost $360 with 5700X (which outperforms 5700G in everything by significant margin) standing $300 (both MSRP, not the actual prices as of today). It's extremely hard to imagine 8700G being any cheaper than 7700X so the bare minimum price I see is $330 for that CPU. $380 to $420 is on a more realistic side of things.

8600G is very much likely to get either a cut-down iGPU (8 CUs of 12 CUs in total) or a cut-down iGPU clock limit. As to pricing, nothing less than $270 is to be expected. In the 6-core CPU world, there is a thing called i5-12400F (not realistically a bottleneck if you game 1080p60 and have a lower tier GPU, a usual case for budget gamers) which is available for $150 BNIB or $110 used and doesn't need any specific cooling, box cooler is more than enough. DDR4 is also of roughly no expense. Lower tier H610 motherboards estimate 30 dollars cheaper than A620 ones. And you also are free to use 16 GB of RAM because you don't need to dedicate it to your iGPU, another couple dozen dollars saved. All that makes an i5-12400F + 16 GB + RX 6600, or even 7600 a cheaper or parry combo of a lot more gaming performance, up to 300% uplift on average and up to 500% uplift in the most VRAM bandwidth sensitive games.

Of course APUs consume less power and they don't need a specific PC case to be viable because your GPU doesn't need additional space. This is not a concern for most users who are on budget. They prefer $/perf over innovations and compactness.

The GTX980 was a $550 part that used 165W on its own, plus you needed a CPU next to it. This is a CPU + GPU in 65W

True but doesn't deny my point. Users of GTX 970 or higher level GPUs will prefer getting a "normal" CPU and pairing it with their current GPU over an APU that's usually slower in games and needs a lot of BIOS tuning and expensive RAM to achieve higher performance. APUs were a niche product and they are still a very niche product. I see them viable (at this level of iGPU performance) in laptops or extra tiny PCs, whereas for an average home user iGPUs should be on par with something not as antique as a 7 years old mid-range GPU (namely GTX 1060 3 GB) to be worth consideration as their main GPU and not a rainy day video output device.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

the bare minimum price I see is $330 for that CP

$320 without cooler and $300 for Ryzen 7 7700 non X with cooler. What you think that price of X or non X ZEN 4 CPU is related to 8700G?

 

[Denver]

ONLY if you are very limited in PC size. Ryzen 7600 + RX 6600 is about the same price. 6 cores of course are somewhat worse than 8 but ST performance must be better + RX 6600 games a lot better than any iGPU.


Oh by the way, did you know that a GTX 980 is turning 10 years in 2024 and it outperforms this iGPU?

Have the prices been leaked somewhere or is it all theory? Overall I agree that the AM5 platform is very expensive compared to AM4, especially outside the US. 5600G+MB+RAM costs around $200 on average. I assume a similar setup on the AM5 costs twice as much.

This takes away its attractiveness a little for those who want to build a low-cost PC, but not so much for those who want to build a second compact system to leave in the living room.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Overall I agree that the AM5 platform is very expensive compared to AM4

I never stated anything about AM4. I compared a Ryzen 7600 (AM5) with a Ryzen 8700G (also AM5 but way more expensive).

Have the prices been leaked somewhere or is it all theory?

De jure the latter, de facto the former. We all know AMD are none charity company, we all know they charge a premium for their G-SKUs. These have not a single reason to differ. Like, why? No one competes with AMD in this segment.

 

[chrcoluk]

Across AM5 SKUs, the only non-iGPU CPU is a 7500F. 7600, 7600X, 7700 series etc do have a very slow and painful, yet working iGPU onboard. It's only good for the fact you can see what you're doing on your PC. Performance is basically non-existent (GTX 250 levels or perhaps a wee better than that).


Don't forget that budget gamers do not have several hundred bucks worth of budget to begin with. 8700G with a hint on achieving RX470+ levels of performance will cost at least a couple hundred dollars, most likely closer to $400. Add a one hundred dollar motherboard on top of that as well as fast DDR5 (once again about 100 USD best case scenario) + cooling which is not free since it's an 8C/16T fast CPU with respective heat output. $550 to $600 (as the least possible number) for a PC that BARELY matches gaming performance of a system with a 40 dollar GPU sounds hilarious at best.

Almost everybody without stupid strict limiations on their PC size will opt for a stock standard CPU+GPU combo, most likely Ryzen 7600/i5-13400 + RX 6600 which destroys these APUs in every single game.

Thanks.

A slow but basic iGPU I expect still does the job in things like accelerating media and browsers. So thats great news, as it saves power draw as well as $$ not having to use a discrete GPU for a non gaming machine. So I guess the G sku's are basically just gaming grade iGPU's? Probably still ok if playing simple games like minecraft, uno, and very old games as there is retro gamers out there.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

So I guess the G sku's are basically just gaming grade iGPU's? Probably still ok if playing simple games like minecraft, uno, and very old games as there is retro gamers out there.

It's close to RX 470/6400 in terms of performance if we're talking 8700G. Slower but not by a heap. Meaning you can play 720p60 (1080p + FSR: Balanced) Cyberpunk on not so high settings with visible but not game breaking stutters.

This actually is really not bad for an iGPU but that doesn't convince. dGPUs are too cheap nowadays. You can buy a GPU for mere 250 dollars (RX 6650 XT or 7600, or a used 2080 for that matter) and get very much playable experience at 1080p and even decent framerates at 1440p without much of upscaling and lowering quality settings. To be a "shut up and take my money" thing these APUs need something more spicy than 12 CUs and something more impressive than dual channel DDR5. Now they're just enough for a niche user. A niche user that only chooses between different AMD generations since Intel produce none of that.

 

[kapone32]

It's close to RX 470/6400 in terms of performance if we're talking 8700G. Slower but not by a heap. Meaning you can play 720p60 (1080p + FSR: Balanced) Cyberpunk on not so high settings with visible but not game breaking stutters.

This actually is really not bad for an iGPU but that doesn't convince. dGPUs are too cheap nowadays. You can buy a GPU for mere 250 dollars (RX 6650 XT or 7600, or a used 2080 for that matter) and get very much playable experience at 1080p and even decent framerates at 1440p without much of upscaling and lowering quality settings. To be a "shut up and take my money" thing these APUs need something more spicy than 12 CUs and something more impressive than dual channel DDR5. Now they're just enough for a niche user. A niche user that only chooses between different AMD generations since Intel produce none of that.

These APUs are perfect for one of the best uses for an APU based system. The living room PC. If this is as much faster than the 5000G series APUs as claimed. They will be enjoyable in that scenario where you may not want the fans from a GPU spinning up or don't have a 500+ Watt PSU to use. We have A620 boards for under $100. There is even a product that Minisforun (BD770I) sells that shows the potential of this with the 7945HX installed on a Mini ITX board with 2 M2 slots.

These will also be great for emulation. If you are into retro or abandoned software, these APUs should make Linux based PS Games a breeze to run,

 

[AusWolf]

I'm very curious how the 12-CU iGPU performs! Also how the Zen 4c cores do. Maybe a (completely unnecessary) HTPC upgrade is imminent?