Friday, March 22nd 2024
AMD Roadmaps Next-gen Ryzen "Strix Point" CPUs at AI PC Summit
Dr. Lisa Su introduced AMD's "next-gen AMD Ryzen" processor series during a recent presentation at the Beijing AI PC Innovation Summit—this announcement confirms that Team Red's RDNA 3+ (AKA 3.5) graphics technology is destined to arrive (on board) with the launch of "Strix Point" processors. Product roadmaps remain unchanged—when compared to slides from last December—AMD still anticipates a 2024 launch window. China has been introduced to current-gen "Hawk Point" Ryzen 8040 mobile and 8000G (AM5) desktop processors—key AMD personnel presented a variety of products, including region-specific budget options.
David Wang, SVP of GPU Technology and Engineering R&D, covered the RDNA 3+ and XDNA 2 architectures (very briefly) during his on-stage appearance—he dedicated most of his attention to current-gen "Hawk Point" processors. The Strix Point integrated solution—a GFX1150 target—has been linked to "RDNA 3.5" for a while, a lot of this information was gleaned from publicly visible AMD patch notices. The latest Team Red software engineering activities indicate that Zen 5 CPU enablement is nearing a possible finish line.
Sources:
Tom's Hardware, Wccftech, Guru3D, BenchLife
David Wang, SVP of GPU Technology and Engineering R&D, covered the RDNA 3+ and XDNA 2 architectures (very briefly) during his on-stage appearance—he dedicated most of his attention to current-gen "Hawk Point" processors. The Strix Point integrated solution—a GFX1150 target—has been linked to "RDNA 3.5" for a while, a lot of this information was gleaned from publicly visible AMD patch notices. The latest Team Red software engineering activities indicate that Zen 5 CPU enablement is nearing a possible finish line.
23 Comments on AMD Roadmaps Next-gen Ryzen "Strix Point" CPUs at AI PC Summit
This means that AMD will have an extremely difficult year, and the graphics cards problems won't be fixed.
Awful ray-tracing performance, extremely high power consumption, very low Counter - Strike 2 performance, to name a few. :banghead:
This an APU, and APU's have always been lagging behind graphics cards when it comes to graphics generation. I for one never expected the next APU to be RDNA 4, especially since rumors said something else for almost a year now.
Strix iGPU will be way more powerful if for no other reason than having up tpo 12 CU's vs 8 CU's currently and then there's Sarlak to come. RDNA nodes in iGPU have always lagged a long way behind desktop releases. Strix's successor is to get RDNA4.
I believe this next gen of powerful APUs will be one of the first serious threats Nvidia has faced in recent years and it'll be at their "entry level" (in performance, but not price) offerings.
Strix will have 16CUs and Strix Halo should receive up to 40CUs.What is this pile of nonsense about?
This has no implications on AMD's RDNA4.
- 780M APU gets 30 fps with 8 core CPU, 12 GPU compute units and for ~$700 in any decent mini-PC or laptop under ~$1,000
- M3 Max gets 80 fps with 16 core CPU and 40 GPU cores, on 3nm node and minimum 48GB RAM, if not more, for, wait for it..., from $4,000
So, 2.66 times more performance with 3.33 times more GPU cores in this game, 4-5 times more expensive. Amazing? What can I say.
- M3 Pro gets 39 fps with 11 core CPU and 14 GPU cores. That is more comparable. 30% more performance with 17% more GPU and 37% more CPU
- don't forget that 780M is almost one year older iGPU.
In 'High', the difference is much smaller: 87 fps vs 44 fps, but still this is 40 cores vs 12 compute units.
You found an elephant to compare with a mouse.
Just imagine what Strix Halo APU could achieve next year with 16 CPU cores and 40 GPU compute units. We can come back to this discussion next year.
I'm showing how wrong you are, and you try to flip it, telling me I'm making a bad comparison? :D
Last post you said AMD will do better in games, despite they're not even close to Apple right now. How did you come to that conclusion? Didn't your user name tell you anything?
(Price is a big concern, sure, but you were specifically talking about game performance.)
Now you're trying to backtrack by talking about cost instead. Or do you think future AMD laptops will have Apple price tags, making the comparison fair? :confused:No.
You started it:You deserve all the credit for that comparison!
Let's face it, there's nothing that says AMD's APU's will beat Apples chips, simply becuse they're not in the same price segment. You might as well throw in a few Nvidia GPU's in the mix..What a cool expression!
There will be two segments:
1. Strix Point for mainstream, with up to 12 cores and 16 graphics CUs - to compete with M3 vanilla and Pro SKUs, as well as Arrow Lake CPUs
2. Strix Halo for enthusiasts, with up to 16 cores and 40 graphics CUs - to compete with M3 Max SKUs; Intel does not have this segment now.
Pretty simple.
Apple chips perform better at the moment simply because they have new products released a few months ago.
Intel, AMD, Apple and Qualcomm have their own timeline for releasing products and it will be very competitive towards the end of the year.
Qualcomm CPU preliminary benchmarks already show those chips are very competitive against Apple M3 CPUs.Sure, but at least give us more meaningful comparison from similar market segment and not with halo M3 Max that costs $4,000. Nonsense.
It's like shooting from bazooka into insects.
Still, you are sure that AMD will be faster, that's not a given to me.Stop making up prices, M2 Max starts at $2000, and $3200 for M3 Max. Graphics performance is about the same.
I was just showing what AMD is up against, I'm not saying that customers are seriously choosing between Hawk Point and M3 Max. That's all in your mind.
Better check Apple store instead of telling me that I make up prices.
The SKU you mentioned in the benchmark is $4,000, with minimal amount of memory and storage, it should be said.
That's 2200 USD.
If you are providing M2 prices, then have decency to provide comparable M2 benchmarks in wide array of games, rather than cherry-picking one title.
I've posted one benchmark, the one I found at the moment. You're clutching at straws here, the only thing you're bringing is weird attitude lol.
You started this comparison, but you won't accept the consequences of it, i.e two future computers with the best integrated graphics from AMD and Apple will never cost the same, not even close, so in terms of cost the comparison will be unfair, tho not as much as right now.
Again, I only wanted to show what AMD is up against in terms of performance, I never said they can't match it or beat it. Cost will always be different, and I think you know that about Apple.
Happy Easter!