There's a good chance the 4xxx APU will compete with regular Ryzen 3xxx chips, they could even be better!

As AMD say it long time ago..
The Future is Fusion..

It will make common sense that the Dedicated Graphics Cards aka GPU will become obsolete.
As from 5nm+ the APU/iGPU will manage 2160p aka 4K games in medium settings, all at 25 watt maximum.

If history is anything to go by, the PRO chips will be rare to nonexistent in retail, but they will be found in many office-oriented prebuilts. Me, I'm looking forward to finally building my new HTPC. Bring on the 4400G!

There's a benchmark with the 4700u with it scoring 5182 which clearly beats the 4750g.
That doesn't make any sense. Do these benchmarks mean anything at all?

blazedThere's a benchmark with the 4700u with it scoring 5182 which clearly beats the 4750g.

That doesn't make any sense. Do these benchmarks mean anything at all?

Not when they are leaks with no control over testing conditions, no. You're comparing apples to ... possibly oranges, or orangutans, or whatever else it is, as there is no way of knowing. For benchmarks to be comparable, testing conditions need to be comparable. There's a reason you will find massive discrepancies in performance for configurations with the same CPU and GPU in the 3DMark results database - because other factors have a huge impact, and unless you know of them you can't account for them in the comparison.

edbeAs AMD say it long time ago..
The Future is Fusion..

It will make common sense that the Dedicated Graphics Cards aka GPU will become obsolete.
As from 5nm+ the APU/iGPU will manage 2160p aka 4K games in medium settings, all at 25 watt maximum.

I highly doubt it. If you see what specs are required for running 4k even at moderate settings (the likes of ≥ RX5700 or ≥ 2070) and their respective wattage, it becomes apparent that supplying that many watts for both the CPU and GPU is a no go, as it would be hard to impossible to cool down on a single package.

Running 4k even at lowest of settings is still 4x the resolution of 2k aka FullHD or 1080p, and we see that even with the current APUs (especially the AMD ones) the performance of the APU it self is not really limited by the number of CUs or even the core clock, but rather the memory bandwidth. Unleashing the bandwidth will unlock the bigger additional performance of the APU, as can be seen in the Intel Iris Pro APU.

In order to do so (unleash the bandwidth), you need some high speed memory such as HBM or its successors, but adding those is very cost prohibitive since they cost so much.
Even if you go through all the hassle of adding the HBM on die, making an APU with a big CU count as well as big clock frequency, you will still increase the TDP of the whole CPU a whole lot on account of increasing GPU performance of the APU, apart from the price needed for the HBM memory, as well as increased production costs as this CPU chip would be much larger than your conventional 4C/8T or 8C/16T CPU with very basic integrated GPU.

This debate was made a long time ago, and is nothing new. There are trade-offs when going APU route with beefing up the GPU part, so it's not that it comes without a cost or a drawback.

It's not surprising to see the likes of the 4800U etc being repurposed for desktop use.

I suspect there were supply constraints mitigated by rolling out the mobile parts before the desktop parts were even announced.

HugsNotDrugsIt's not surprising to see the likes of the 4800U etc being repurposed for desktop use.

I suspect there were supply constraints mitigated by rolling out the mobile parts before the desktop parts were even announced.

Desktop APUs have always launched significantly later than their mobile counterparts. The desktop market is tiny, the laptop market is huge, sotthe prioritization makes perfect sense.