Monday, March 3rd 2025

AMD "Medusa Point" Mobile APU Design Linked to RDNA 3.X, Instead of RDNA 4

by
T0@st
 Discuss (11 Comments)
The "Medusa" or "Medusa Point" codename started to appear online over the past couple of months. These mysterious AMD projects were linked to next-generation "Zen 6" Ryzen desktop and mobile processor families (respectively). Initially, insiders reckoned that Team Red had selected an RDNA 4-based graphics solution for integration their futuristic new-gen laptop APU design. Two days ago, Golden Pig Upgrade weighed in with a different theory—the veteran leaker believes that provisions have regressed on the "Medusa Point" iGPU front.

Previous reports have suggested that the "Medusa Point" processor's iGPU aspect will utilize up to 16 compute units (CU), based on a theorized count of eight workgroup processors (WGPs) from leaked imagery. The latest insider tip points to the utilization of a non-specific "RDNA 3.x" branch, instead of conjectured RDNA 4 graphics technology. Industry watchdogs hold the belief that AMD will be sticking with RDNA 3.5 for a while—as featured on their current-gen "Zen 5" mobile-oriented Strix Point, Strix Halo and Krackan Point chips. As pointed out by Notebookcheck, Team Red leadership disclosed that RDNA 4 is exclusive to discrete card families (for the time being). RDNA 3.5-equipped APUs have—so far—received a warm welcome; AMD engineers could be reserving development resources for a distant future project.
Sources: Golden Pig Upgrade (Weibo), Wccftech, Notebookcheck

Related News

Add your own comment

11 Comments on AMD "Medusa Point" Mobile APU Design Linked to RDNA 3.X, Instead of RDNA 4

#1
LabRat 891
To my knowledge, AMD already stated that RDNA 4 is for dGPUs and RDNA 3.5 will remain in APUs (implied) until UDNA releases.
Posted on Reply
#2
Nhonho
AMD will not be able to sell more or make more profit by offering outdated chips.
I really hope that Nvidia enters the home APU market, offering its latest technologies in its APUs so that AMD and Intel stop offering only old, high-power-consumption CPUs/APUs.
AMD only does this because the competition is weak at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#3
HisDivineOrder
Let's hope FSR4 is compatible with RDNA 3.5 then.
Posted on Reply
#4
Random_User
FFS, AMD, release the Strix Point on desktop, already! They've stated, that Strix Halo is impossible, but at least 8+4 Zen5 cores with 16 outdated RDNA3.5 CU should be enough, while they are busy with UDNA. The bus is a bit narrow. But on the other hand, there's no point in stuffing something else but RDNA3.5, if the next major milestone/step in GPU architecture is "near".
NhonhoAMD will not be able to sell more or make more profit by offering outdated chips.
I really hope that Nvidia enters the home APU market, offering its latest technologies in its APUs so that AMD and Intel stop offering only old, high-power-consumption CPUs/APUs.
AMD only does this because the competition is weak at the moment.
They will sell, and make profit. There're no doubts in it. But calling them "high-power-consumption"... is bit of stretch. You comparing different µarchitectures types. There's no doubt, Apple M-series chips are powerful and efficient enough. But there's also no doubts, that performance hit, while running x86-x64 software is pretty big.
So, nVidia might be as powerful, or even more powerful. This can happen. But ARM is ARM, and it's great, when it runs native applications. As soon as it ould run e.g. games, it will suffer heavy performance penalties,even with best transition layers..
Posted on Reply
#5
Daven
Everything that makes RDNA4 an RDNA4 probably wouldn’t fit in an SoC.
Random_UserThey've stated, that Strix Halo is impossible,
Strix Halo is already in desktops.
Posted on Reply
#6
igormp
DavenStrix Halo is already in desktops.
I believe they meant for an AM5-compatible device.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fouquin
People saying RDNA3.5 is outdated don't understand how divergent architectures work. RDNA3.5 is not RDNA3, it's also not RDNA4. It's a focused divergent architecture between the two that is concurrent with both generations. It puts a focus on power and density efficiency that neither of the bigger designs need to bother with to hit their targets.
Posted on Reply
#8
Daven
igormpI believe they meant for an AM5-compatible device.
I figured as much but the DIY socketable market is super tiny. I’m still not sure why it even exists today. Ninety-nine percent of computer users have laptops or SFFs. Large, upgradeable behemoths are just for us RGB blinged out computer nerds and maybe some workstation geeks.
Posted on Reply
#9
Marcus L
DavenI figured as much but the DIY socketable market is super tiny. I’m still not sure why it even exists today. Ninety-nine percent of computer users have laptops or SFFs. Large, upgradeable behemoths are just for us RGB blinged out computer nerds and maybe some workstation geeks.
DIY PC market is still millions, likely tens or more millions of units sold every year, it's not like there's just a few thousand of us still buying seperate components and building our own PC's not to mention smaller pre-builds buy components like this as well and again there are many thousands of companies out there who operate like this, we have heard for 20 years how PC gaming is dying yada yada yada but it has never materialised, instead people have different devices for different use cases, I have a smartphone, tablets, consoles and PC's. The same argument is thrown around by those claiming that AMD will exit the GPU market as they are 10% market share (supposedly) yet they ship many more millions GPU/APU's for consoles and mini PC's, handhelds etc they are not in a bad position, however compared to Nvidia which has a market cap and worth many more times then it would seem so to the experts on here and r/etc who are obviously better at running multi-billion $ corporations than those in charge
Posted on Reply
#10
Daven
Marcus LDIY PC market is still millions, likely tens or more millions of units sold every year, it's not like there's just a few thousand of us still buying seperate components and building our own PC's not to mention smaller pre-builds buy components like this as well and again there are many thousands of companies out there who operate like this, we have heard for 20 years how PC gaming is dying yada yada yada but it has never materialised, instead people have different devices for different use cases, I have a smartphone, tablets, consoles and PC's. The same argument is thrown around by those claiming that AMD will exit the GPU market as they are 10% market share (supposedly) yet they ship many more millions GPU/APU's for consoles and mini PC's, handhelds etc they are not in a bad position, however compared to Nvidia which has a market cap and worth many more times then it would seem so to the experts on here and r/etc who are obviously better at running multi-billion $ corporations than those in charge
That’s not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not Strix Halo needs to be socketable. I say no because the socketable market is super small. Next time I’ll leave out the existence part.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheinsanegamerN
DavenThat’s not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not Strix Halo needs to be socketable. I say no because the socketable market is super small. Next time I’ll leave out the existence part.
DavenI figured as much but the DIY socketable market is super tiny. I’m still not sure why it even exists today. Ninety-nine percent of computer users have laptops or SFFs. Large, upgradeable behemoths are just for us RGB blinged out computer nerds and maybe some workstation geeks.
So you're going to leave out the existence part, but not the comment about DIY being "super small" which Marcus refuted? I'm not sure you know which argument you're going with here.

If you're not sure why its exists because its "super small", perhaps consider it ISNT actually that small and you're lacking in worldview. We wouldnt have half a dozen companies building dGPUs and motherboards and multiple dozen companies making cases if the DIY market was that small. AMD and intel wouldnt bother making so many DIY chips if nobody bought them. Think about it.

"DIY isnt a big market" falls under the same category as "PC gaming isnt a big market", categorically incorrect. PC gaming is a multi billion dollar industry and a significant percentage of that is DIY. Sure, it's not as big as "cheap consumer laptop junk" but that doesnt mean it's "tiny" or not deserving of product.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 3rd, 2025 19:33 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts