Friday, December 14th 2018
AMD Ryzen 3000U Series APUs Detailed, Geekbenched
AMD is putting final touches on its Ryzen 3000U series APUs for ultra-portable notebooks and 2-in-1 devices. Thai PC enthusiast Tum Apisak shared links to Geekbench scores of at least three SKUs, the Ryzen 3 3200U, the Ryzen 3300U, and the Ryzen 5 3500U. The Ryzen 3 3200U combines a 2-core/4-thread CPU component, while the Ryzen 3 3300U packs a 4-core/4-thread CPU, and the Ryzen 5 3500U a better equipped 4-core/8-thread CPU. While the 3200U's CPU is clocked high at 2.60 GHz, the 3300U and 3500U are both clocked at 2.10 GHz. The iGPU specs are still under the wraps as Geekbench only tested the single- and multi-threaded CPU performance. The 3200U scores 3428 points single-threaded owing to its higher nominal clocks, and around 6500 points multi-threaded. The 3300U scores 9686 points in multi-threaded owing to its additional cores (sans SMT). The 3500U increases the multi-threaded score to over 11280 points multi-threaded, on account of being quad-core with SMT.
There's no clarity on the underlying micro-architecture. While the source mentions the codename of these chips as Picasso, the silicon still appears to be 14 nm "Raven Ridge." Over generation, AMD only appears to have pushed its current parts lower down the product stack. For example, the Ryzen 3 3300U appears to share the same CPU configuration (albeit with 5% higher clock-speeds) as the Ryzen 5 2500U from the current-generation. The Ryzen 5 3500U, on the other hand, appears to have essentially the same (again, marginally speed-bumped) CPU as the Ryzen 7 2700U. HP is ready with notebook and 2-in-1 products based on all three chips, although they're unlikely to launch before year-end. Perhaps CES could be a nice launchpad.
Source:
Tum Apisak (Reddit)
There's no clarity on the underlying micro-architecture. While the source mentions the codename of these chips as Picasso, the silicon still appears to be 14 nm "Raven Ridge." Over generation, AMD only appears to have pushed its current parts lower down the product stack. For example, the Ryzen 3 3300U appears to share the same CPU configuration (albeit with 5% higher clock-speeds) as the Ryzen 5 2500U from the current-generation. The Ryzen 5 3500U, on the other hand, appears to have essentially the same (again, marginally speed-bumped) CPU as the Ryzen 7 2700U. HP is ready with notebook and 2-in-1 products based on all three chips, although they're unlikely to launch before year-end. Perhaps CES could be a nice launchpad.
26 Comments on AMD Ryzen 3000U Series APUs Detailed, Geekbenched
I don't trust geekbench, especially when it comes to PCs and Laptops, but just for the hell of it I looked up some R5 2500U results from the same version of software.
While the result spread ranges from 5000 to 11000 pts multithreaded (probably depends on power plan and throttling), but the closest ones look just about right: 100MHz overclock and around 5-10% boost in performance comparing to the current 2500U.
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/11243509?baseline=11229675
P.S. What's even funnier about the late Geekbench, is that it's so optimized for Android that even the Linux version runs almost 20% faster than the Windows version of the benchmark. So much for fair benching... :banghead:
browser.geekbench.com/processors/1787
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4398685
Those are two different CPUs: desktop R7 1700 on a Mac, and a mobile Raven Ridge.
www.anandtech.com/show/11964/ryzen-mobile-is-launched-amd-apus-for-laptops-with-vega-and-updated-zen/5
Just had say are only using these two digits **00 to differentiate their products instead of 00** (2350, 2330 etc).
So even though these are Zen+ they show that theyre 3rd gen when they are not.
Unless if it is the IDP portion of the APU that they are really focusing on
It has boost, 12cycle cache from 17 improvement and that's about it.
Zen+ have a lot more optimizations built in so it's how zen1 should have been, zen+ is ipc,12 cycle, boost and 12nm.
Yes, Raven is not zen1 pinnacle, and it's not zen+ but it's closer to zen1.
But yeah, it's ridiculous.
But, Windows 10 offers an inferior experience. For playing games I'd rather use 7 or 8.1. It's too bad the Linux world is so divided because both MS and Apple need pressure to improve their desktop experience. Both have gone off the deep end with the spy cloud model, as well as the creeping "mixed UI" syndrome (where different parts have different, conflicting, UI aesthetics). Window 10, especially, is one heck of a UI hodgepodge.
The lack of suitable broadband, though, is still an impediment, although companies like Apple are making it increasingly difficult to manage operating systems and software without broadband. Apple, for instance, has made upgrading the operating system quite a nightmare, since it crammed OS updates into Software Store AppleID "no cost purchase but with a receipt model" downloads. Problems with Mavericks, for example, caused me to have to phone Apple for no less than four different people with four different machines, simply to get them to El Capitan. Apple, in every case, had to reset their Apple IDs. The download took an eternity on slow DSL, too. The entire system is very poor for the user. OS updates should be easy to get and to install, like they used to be.
Our data has become the product and computers are the conduits corporations use to get their hands on it. The old idea of the computer buyer purchasing machines to work for them has gone out the window. This is what happens when products move from being only affordable for the wealthy to becoming mass-market. Things always change so that it's harder for ordinary people to benefit and easier for their masters to benefit. There are many examples, as with how solar panel net metering suddenly began to disappear when panels became affordable enough for more ordinary people.
Ironically, I’ve purchased this game many times—I had the Xbox version, the Mac version, the PC version, the remastered version, and the MCC version.I’m pretty sure ever since Apple started making their own chips, they’ve been testing MacOS on ARM. They did the same thing with x86 long before switching to Intel. As to why they would, why not? They make their own SOC, and it is indeed a way to save money and control more of their own destiny. If Intel falls short—which has happened recently, Apple has to work with whatever they get. Using their own SOCs means they get to further tune their OS to their own hardware, something they have always been pretty good at.
With the kind of money Apple has now it could open its own AAA studio. But, it hasn't and it's very likely it won't.
Just keeping OpenGL up to date on OS X wouldn't have been much to ask but it couldn't even be bothered to do that. Where is Vulkan? Apple could have put its might behind that standard to help to break DirectX dominance. But, no.