Friday, December 15th 2023
AMD Ryzen 8000G Socket AM5 Desktop APU Lineup Detailed
Here is our first look at the higher end of AMD's Ryzen 8000G series Socket AM5 desktop APU lineup. The company is planning to bring its 4 nm "Phoenix" and "Phoenix 2" monolithic silicon to the socketed desktop platform, to cover two distinct markets. Models based on the larger "Phoenix" silicon cater to the market that wants a sufficiently powerful CPU, but with a powerful iGPU that's fit for entry-level gaming, or graphics-intensive productivity tasks; whereas the smaller "Phoenix 2" silicon ties up the lower end of AMD's AM5 desktop processor stack, as it probably has a lower bill of materials than a "Raphael" multi-chip module.
The lineup is led by the Ryzen 7 8700G, a direct successor to the Ryzen 7 5700G "Cezanne." This chip gets the full 8-core/16-thread "Zen 4" CPU, along with its 16 MB shared L3 cache; and the full featured Radeon 780M iGPU with its 12 compute units worth 768 stream processors. The CPU features a maximum boost frequency of 4.20 GHz. This is followed by the Ryzen 5 8600G, which is based on the same "Phoenix" silicon as the 8700G, but with 6 out of 8 "Zen 4" cores enabled, and a maximum CPU boost frequency of 4.35 GHz, and the 16 MB L3 cache left untouched. It's likely that the Radeon 780M is unchanged from the 8700G.
Update 13:59 UTC: A CPU-Z screenshot of the Ryzen 7 8700G surfaced, which confirms that it features the maxed out Radeon 780M iGPU
Things get interesting with the Ryzen 5 8500G. This chip is rumored to be based on the smaller "Phoenix 2" silicon. While its CPU is 6-core/12-thread, two of these are "Zen 4," and can sustain higher boost frequencies of up to 3.35 GHz, while four of them are smaller "Zen 4c" cores that run at a lower maximum boost frequency. Both CPU core types feature an identical IPC, ISA, as well as SMT; and AMD's software based OS scheduler optimizations will simply mark the two "Zen 4" cores as UEFI CPPC "preferred cores," so they get priority in processing workloads. This chip gets the full 16 MB of L3 cache present on the silicon.
At the entry level is the Ryzen 3 8300G. This is a quad-core chip based on "Phoenix 2," in that two out of four "Zen 4c" cores are disabled, leaving it with two "Zen 4" cores, and two "Zen 4c." Just like the 8500G, the OS scheduler is made to prefer the two "Zen 4" cores. AMD has also reduced the L3 cache size to 8 MB. Both the 8500G and 8300G feature a physically smaller iGPU that's branded as the Radeon 740M. It only gets 4 compute units (256 stream processors). All four chips feature a TDP of 65 W, and a possible 90 W PPT, which should give them plenty of boost residency compared to their mobile-segment siblings.
In addition to these four chips, AMD is preparing the Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G, which is likely based on the "Phoenix" silicon, with 6 "Zen 4" CPU cores, 16 MB of L3 cache, and a Radeon 780M iGPU. This chip gets the full AMD PRO feature-set, and is designed for commercial desktops.
We still don't see any concrete evidence about AMD enabling the on-chip XDNA Ryzen AI NPU for at least the 8700G, 8600G, and PRO 8500G. "Phoenix" has it, while "Phoenix 2" physically lacks it.
Sources:
momomo_us (Twitter), momomo_us (Twitter)
The lineup is led by the Ryzen 7 8700G, a direct successor to the Ryzen 7 5700G "Cezanne." This chip gets the full 8-core/16-thread "Zen 4" CPU, along with its 16 MB shared L3 cache; and the full featured Radeon 780M iGPU with its 12 compute units worth 768 stream processors. The CPU features a maximum boost frequency of 4.20 GHz. This is followed by the Ryzen 5 8600G, which is based on the same "Phoenix" silicon as the 8700G, but with 6 out of 8 "Zen 4" cores enabled, and a maximum CPU boost frequency of 4.35 GHz, and the 16 MB L3 cache left untouched. It's likely that the Radeon 780M is unchanged from the 8700G.
Things get interesting with the Ryzen 5 8500G. This chip is rumored to be based on the smaller "Phoenix 2" silicon. While its CPU is 6-core/12-thread, two of these are "Zen 4," and can sustain higher boost frequencies of up to 3.35 GHz, while four of them are smaller "Zen 4c" cores that run at a lower maximum boost frequency. Both CPU core types feature an identical IPC, ISA, as well as SMT; and AMD's software based OS scheduler optimizations will simply mark the two "Zen 4" cores as UEFI CPPC "preferred cores," so they get priority in processing workloads. This chip gets the full 16 MB of L3 cache present on the silicon.
At the entry level is the Ryzen 3 8300G. This is a quad-core chip based on "Phoenix 2," in that two out of four "Zen 4c" cores are disabled, leaving it with two "Zen 4" cores, and two "Zen 4c." Just like the 8500G, the OS scheduler is made to prefer the two "Zen 4" cores. AMD has also reduced the L3 cache size to 8 MB. Both the 8500G and 8300G feature a physically smaller iGPU that's branded as the Radeon 740M. It only gets 4 compute units (256 stream processors). All four chips feature a TDP of 65 W, and a possible 90 W PPT, which should give them plenty of boost residency compared to their mobile-segment siblings.
In addition to these four chips, AMD is preparing the Ryzen 5 PRO 8500G, which is likely based on the "Phoenix" silicon, with 6 "Zen 4" CPU cores, 16 MB of L3 cache, and a Radeon 780M iGPU. This chip gets the full AMD PRO feature-set, and is designed for commercial desktops.
We still don't see any concrete evidence about AMD enabling the on-chip XDNA Ryzen AI NPU for at least the 8700G, 8600G, and PRO 8500G. "Phoenix" has it, while "Phoenix 2" physically lacks it.
69 Comments on AMD Ryzen 8000G Socket AM5 Desktop APU Lineup Detailed
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.
will be interesting to see, at the very least so there's that
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.
(Edited) Thank god, it was incorrect info.
I remember reading earlier in the year that all AMD chips would have iGPU as standard moving forward, is that no longer the case?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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,