AMD Ryzen 5 8500G

[kapone32]

Gabe hinted that the base-model steam-deck is being sold at a loss. He said it was "a particularly painful price point but believed the base model to be a net profit in the end".

So yeah, the Steam deck is cheap the way a PS5 or XBSX is cheap - you are buying a loss-leader that's expected to recuperate that loss because it locks you to an ecosystem (in this case, the Steam storefront).

Sure, you can sideload stuff onto it via the Arch Linux desktop but you still need to use Proton for most games, and doing that requires a game to be in your Steam library unless you are very savvy Linux user and know how to execute a side-loaded game via Proton, and then faff with all of the button-mapping and other wonderful hardware/input/device-mapping stuff that Steam just does for you automagically. Realistically, it's a possibility but almost nobody is going to buy a steam Deck to sideload everything onto it when a lot of the SD's appeal is in the seamless integration of the default UI with the Steam store.

Here is my take on that. It does not matter if Valve are losing on the Deck. What it does is influence the Distributor network to price anything in that class to a similar price but the Deck alone is not the only handheld that is selling well in the channel so the success has brought these APUs right into focus.

As far as other software Steam is basically entrenched and Games are not even expensive if you know what you are doing. This is $13.99 US and all of them are Steam Games. In fact about 95% of Games you get from Humble, Green Man Gaming and Fanatical are Steam Games. I for myself have about 700 Games on Steam and as a subscriber to Humble Choice get good Games to play every month. Does anyone want a key for Starship Troopers as I already own that? RTS are one of my favourite genres to play.

When you look at that paying double to get the Ally so that you can play Game pass or GOG or Epic is a moot point if you already have a Gaming PC. The Steam Deck is objectively a great product for the community as it allows you to get up from your PC though or be 8-10 again and play those Tandy Games when you should be sleeping under the sheets.

 

[Chrispy_]

Zen-c is easier to estimate - it simply has lower frequency ceiling.

Which isn't even really an issue, because any existing 7000-series CPU cannot reach max boost with an all-core load anyway - it runs into power limits even if it's a "170W" model with a 230W PPT. The 7900X that we buy lots of here in the office tend to lose about 400MHz when running multi-threaded workloads vs single-core ones.

In any mixed-core product like this 8500G, the power limit is going to hinder clocks in all-core loads anyway, so having slower Zen4C cores for all-core loads isn't as much of an issue as it seems on paper.

Where Zen4C will hurt is if AMD release any products that are Zen4C cores ONLY. At that point, single-threaded performance is going to be ~10% lower than any solution with regular, full-fat Zen4 cores.

 

[kapone32]

Won't boot either. It's a dual ccd chip with cache on top, good luck.

You cant beat those monolithic mobile chips amd makes on efficiency. They are godly.

You make Dual CCD seem so unwanted when those chips are the fastest Desktop CPUs. Please don't bring in the failing CPUs that I won't mention.

 

[Chrispy_]

Go check battery life on the 7945hx 3d laptops and youll understand. You realize they are just a 7950x 3d right? They can't be used to or below 20 watts. The monolithic chips like this one can.

The IOD chip takes 15-20W all by itself at the lowest infinity fabric speeds it'll run at. A 20W power limit means that the CPU cores get 0 Watts!

 

[kapone32]

Which isn't even really an issue, because any existing 7000-series CPU cannot reach max boost with an all-core load anyway - it runs into power limits even if it's a "170W" model with a 230W PPT. The 7900X that we buy lots of here in the office tend to lose about 400MHz when running multi-threaded workloads vs single-core ones.

In any mixed-core product like this 8500G, the power limit is going to hinder clocks in all-core loads anyway, so having slower Zen4C cores for all-core loads isn't as much of an issue as it seems on paper.

Where Zen4C will hurt is if AMD release any products that are Zen4C cores ONLY. At that point, single-threaded performance is going to be ~10% lower than any solution with regular, full-fat Zen4 cores.

All of my non X3D cores clock up to 5.6 Ghz. Yes there is one that does 5.65 but the 7000 chips are fine at maintaining clocks, as long as you have proper cooling.

The IOD chip takes 15-20W all by itself at the lowest infinity fabric speeds it'll run at. A 20W power limit means that the CPU cores get 0 Watts!

Don't forget the IGPU

 

[JustBenching]

The IOD chip takes 15-20W all by itself at the lowest infinity fabric speeds it'll run at. A 20W power limit means that the CPU cores get 0 Watts!

I know man, but he doesn't get it. He thinks you can limit a 7950x 3d to 20w, lol

You make Dual CCD seem so unwanted when those chips are the fastest Desktop CPUs. Please don't bring in the failing CPUs that I won't mention.

Was talking about efficiency man. As you can clearly see from the review you can't get as low as monolithic chips with multiple ccds.

 

[chrcoluk]

I knew I was going to cringe hard as soon as I read this:

View attachment 356319

These limitations on an $160 processor are completely unacceptable. A x4 link for graphics? Really? I don't care that it was designed for laptops first, has this company learned nothing from Navi 24!? This thing is hopeless even in the mobile segment. Pretty much all alternatives to it are better, even its predecessors. Cezanne (5600H/5800H) was effectively a 5600G/5700G processor targeting 45W, that's a mobile processor proper. And iGPU aside, it should still outperform this processor, especially in conjunction with a dedicated GPU since it supports a x8 link. Losing to a 3 years old earlier generation architecture! Come on... this is not worthy of the Ryzen 5 branding, or even the Ryzen 3 branding. It's an Athlon. And pardon my French, at $160, this thing is just dogshit, especially considering that PCI Express bandwidth is pretty much required these days

The Core i5-12600K or even the 13400F is graphics are not required are both a far superior purchase at this price range - and if looking to buy within AM5, just don't go below the 7600. Just don't, AMD clearly intends that you don't, it's the only justification for such a poor product.

If I didn't stress enough by the amount of $160s in my post: my harsh view of this product is strictly based on its obnoxiously high price

The 4x dGPU limitation feels even more stupid than cards like the 4060ti being released with a 8x limitation. What were AMD thinking by limiting this chip so heavily.

 

[kapone32]

The 4x dGPU limitation feels even more stupid than cards like the 4060ti being released with a 8x limitation. What were AMD thinking by limiting this chip so heavily.

That this chip will not be used with DGPUs.

 

[JustBenching]

The IOD chip takes 15-20W all by itself at the lowest infinity fabric speeds it'll run at. A 20W power limit means that the CPU cores get 0 Watts!

Just tested it out of curiosity,sadly i dont have a zen 4 monolithic so zen 3 will have to do. I was able to drop power draw to 9w and the thing still kept gaming just fine. 49w is the power draw of both dGPU + CPU, 40w is the power draw of the GPU, so the difference between them is the 6900hs. Whoever is brave enough (@ARF) - try to do that on a 7945hx 3d

Spoiler

 

[Dr. Dro]

I read through all the messages in this review. It seems you have a real disdain for AMD products. I see you are comparing this to a 3600. You did not take inflation or the fact that when the 3600 launched that it was not $80. Yes you can get it for that price today but you are looking at a chip that is how many generations old and with no IGPU. Then you made the mistake of calling this an Athlon. We can see from the review that the IGPU is not that strong but I bet you it will support 120Hz on those Smart Tvs that this will be used for. It also makes sense for one of those retro drives on Amazon that comes with it's own version of Linux that runs all of those old consoles.

What you are also not appreciating is that this is way cheaper than a 8600G (Noticed that was not in the IGPU numbers) and almost half the cost of the 8700G.

The biggest elephant of course is you making it seem that investing in 1700 is a good idea. As it stands right now (I know you did not believe it) those chips seem to have a myriad of problems and do not support socket longevity the way this chip does. Like I could get this for my Daughter and 3 years from now upgrade the CPU to whatever I choose.

Just because AMD gives us a budget chip for AM5 does not mean that it is the end all that you are making it seem to be.

I'm not comparing it to the 3600. But it's an option that makes more sense than dropping $160 on this.

You're wrong. My disdain is targeted at overpriced trash and people who defend a company's actions with religious fervor. You might not remember but you once told me in a thread that you bought AMD products because your religion's moral judgment wasn't compatible with Intel or Nvidia's values.

Looks like that includes supporting them in their moments of greed. Like this thing that costs twice what it should...

 

[JustBenching]

I'm not comparing it to the 3600. But it's an option that makes more sense than dropping $160 on this.

You're wrong. My disdain is targeted at overpriced trash and people who defend a company's actions with religious fervor. You might not remember but you once told me in a thread that you bought AMD products because your religion's moral judgment wasn't compatible with Intel or Nvidia's values.

Looks like that includes supporting them in their moments of greed. Like this thing that costs twice what it should...

It offers the same MT performance as the 5600x, it's faster in ST and pretty much identical in gaming. Only that this piece of marvel achieves all those with half or sometimes less power. The only downside is that the iGPU could have been a bit more beefy. Now would I pay 160$ for this? Not with this iGPU, but I don't consider it extremely overpriced (compared to the rest of amds stack, i'm completely neglecting intel cpus).

 

[Dr. Dro]

The 4x dGPU limitation feels even more stupid than cards like the 4060ti being released with a 8x limitation. What were AMD thinking by limiting this chip so heavily.

I understand the x8 thing - it makes sense to reduce complexity and save a little money on a design that doesn't need it, the RX 7600 and I believe 6600 XT did it as well. But limiting a host controller to x4 on an $160 processor? Who in their right mind...

It offers the same MT performance as the 5600x, it's faster in ST and pretty much identical in gaming. Only that this piece of marvel achieves all those with half or sometimes less power. The only downside is that the iGPU could have been a bit more beefy. Now would I pay 160$ for this? Not with this iGPU, but I don't consider it extremely overpriced (compared to the rest of amds stack, i'm completely neglecting intel cpus).

I would agree if this was on a Socket AM1-like platform and not a full blown AM5, perhaps at $40 less. Even by going A620 I find it extremely hard to justify... platform costs are way too high. And A620 might limit its PCIe bandwidth further if the motherboard only supports a Gen 3 link.

 

[JustBenching]

I would agree if this was on a Socket AM1-like platform and not a full blown AM5, perhaps at $40 less. Even by going A620 I find it extremely hard to justify... platform costs are way too high. And A620 might limit its PCIe bandwidth further if the motherboard only supports a Gen 3 link.

~90$ for the cheapest gen 4 a620. Yeah, it's a lot. But it's not really intended for desktop usage, maybe some fringe super small case that is never going to see a dGPU regardless. But the potential for laptops / tablets / handhelds is huge. If they can cram 12 of more of those little c cores on a monolithic

I just love those amd mobile parts, i've bought 4 laptops just to try them all. 5600h, 6900hs, 5800u

 

[Chrispy_]

All of my non X3D cores clock up to 5.6 Ghz

At the same time?

For the 7900X (obviously lower-binned silicon) the 24-thread workload typically results in 5.1-5.2GHz. Yes, any given core can probably hit at least 5.5GHz, but if you're going to use more than about 6 of them at once, clockspeeds drop because there's simply not enough power budget to feed all cores at max boost clocks.

perhaps with max PBO+ overclock on a motherboard with beefy VRMs and a suitable cooler all cores will run at max boost clock but I was (obviously?) talking stock TDP performance here since the discussion is about a retail Zen4C release aimed at the energy-efficiency and at the low-cost end of the market where A-series boards that don't even support PBO+.

To keep the conversation around Zen4C on topic, you simply don't need all the cores in a CPU to be capable of max clocks because when all cores are loaded the clock speeds drop to keep any given SKU within its rated power envelope (TDP*1.35 for AMD).

 

[Dr. Dro]

~90$ for the cheapest gen 4 a620. Yeah, it's a lot. But it's not really intended for desktop usage, maybe some fringe super small case that is never going to see a dGPU regardless. But the potential for laptops / tablets / handhelds is huge. If they can cram 12 of more of those little c cores on a monolithic

I just love those amd mobile parts, i've bought 4 laptops just to try them all. 5600h, 6900hs, 5800u

Don't get me wrong, I like their mobile processors a lot too - and I do see the technical side of interest in seeing how these "c" cores are performing on a desktop (and it seems they pass the test), but at the same time a value-oriented product is made or broken by its price. If it didn't have that PCIe bandwidth limitation, I'd actually not mind $120 or so for this.

 

[Lew Zealand]

At $160 list with a shortage of PCIe lanes, the balance is off with this processor for an individual to build a PC from. This is a system integrator processor only and not for gaming. Instead it's for the Dells and Lenovos to make office PCs with and it will excel at that with the appropriate negotiated volume discount and slapped in their budget-basement configurations.

It's DOA for home use but I love that @W1zzard tested one here because I would be forever curious about its capabilities.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm not comparing it to the 3600. But it's an option that makes more sense than dropping $160 on this.
<snip>
Like this thing that costs twice what it should...

This is $160 MSRP!

Street pricing will be whatever the market will bear, and almost nothing stays at MSRP for long in the PC market.

Also don't forget that the R5 3600 was $200 without an IGP in 2019, which is $245 in today's money, so $160 vs $245 today - and you're getting a faster CPU with a passable IGP thrown in. There were no retail APUs based on zen2 (Renoir only made it to laptops) but the cheapest 6-core APU after that was the 5600G at $259 and this 8500G is measurably faster than that for barely half the price.

Take that $259 5600G and the price fell away pretty quickly. The MSRP disintegrated after 6 months. At 12 months it was $110 cheaper, and by 15 months it was stable at half the original MSRP:


Using the 5600G as an example, we can hope to see the 8500G at $99 during Black Friday sales, or maybe in the new year - perhaps even a $200 bundle with an A620 board "at a Microcenter near you" before then?

 

[THU31]

I'd rather see an 8+16 model, or even 16+16 small cores only. That would be an interesting use of Zen 4c. But I guess they'd rather sell Threadripper to those who want high core counts.

 

[kapone32]

At the same time?

For the 7900X (obviously lower-binned silicon) the 24-thread workload typically results in 5.1-5.2GHz. Yes, any given core can probably hit at least 5.5GHz, but if you're going to use more than about 6 of them at once, clockspeeds drop because there's simply not enough power budget to feed all cores at max boost clocks.

perhaps with max PBO+ overclock on a motherboard with beefy VRMs and a suitable cooler all cores will run at max boost clock but I was (obviously?) talking stock TDP performance here since the discussion is about a retail Zen4C release aimed at the energy-efficiency and at the low-cost end of the market where A-series boards that don't even support PBO+.

To keep the conversation around Zen4C on topic, you simply don't need all the cores in a CPU to be capable of max clocks because when all cores are loaded the clock speeds drop to keep any given SKU within its rated power envelope (TDP*1.35 for AMD).

Yes at the same time. Since I have a X3D chip temp is not an issue and allows for sustained clocks. Of course it is also in a Full tower 7000D Airflow so that there is no compromise.

 

[HD64G]

A CPU made for notebooks or mini-PCs and a very good for those uses. Its street price will come down as it did for all CPUs in a few months.

 

[Chrispy_]

Yes at the same time. Since I have a X3D chip temp is not an issue and allows for sustained clocks. Of course it is also in a Full tower 7000D Airflow so that there is no compromise.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing then, and you have a golden sample or crazy amount of power going through your socket if that's true. W1zzard's review sample couldn't even hit 5GHz all core using default power limits.

If you mean that your 8 core CCD (binned for frequency, btw) can hit 5.6GHz with a much larger 230W power budget that a true single-CCD part like the Ryzen 7, then yes - but that's not what anyone here is discussing, nor is it relevant to the point you're originally replying to, especially given that AMD doesn't make any single-CCD product with a 230W PPT anyway.

Using the additional power budget of the 7950X3D to reach those all-core speeds is exactly the point I'm making - that power budget is the limiting factor in all-core workloads. The fact you can get 5.6GHz all core with twice the power per CCD compared to a regular Ryzen 7 is supporting evidence that only power budget is pulling down the clock speeds of Zen4, which is exactly the supporting argument for why I said there's no real downside to putting Zen4C into a desktop CPU; At stock TDP, and even more so at the 65W TDP of this 8500G, the power budget means that it'll never be able to run 6 full-fat zen cores at peak boost clocks anyway.

Zen4C is never going to appear in a role where peak frequency is the end goal - it's about physical core density where lots of cores are limited by die area and power density in a single socket.

 

[AusWolf]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing then, and you have a golden sample or crazy amount of power going through your socket if that's true. W1zzard's review sample couldn't even hit 5GHz all core using default power limits.

Does any X3D even do 5 GHz all-core? My 7800 tops out at 4.8 well under the temperature limit. 5 GHz is a single-core number.

 

[Chrispy_]

Does any X3D even do 5 GHz all-core? My 7800 tops out at 4.8 well under the temperature limit. 5 GHz is a single-core number.

No, but he's not talking about all-core, I don't think.

He's talking about disabling an entire CCD in the BIOS and running an "8-core" part with a 16-core power budget, which is a "half-core" load rather than an all-core load. If a 230W Ryzen 7 existed, it might be relevant to that discussion at least, but I'm not sure how it's relevant here other than to prove that power budget is the limiting factor in CPUs unless you have access to higher-end boards that make no sense for AMD lowest-cost, cut-down die.

 

[AusWolf]

No, but he's not talking about all-core, I don't think.
He's talking about disabling an entire CCD in the BIOS and running an "8-core" part with a 16-core power budget.

Ah! I don't think that's gonna work. The 7800 consumes about 80-90 W all-core depending on RAM speed and SoC voltage, with a power limit of 162 W while still maintaining 4.8 GHz only. If you disable a CCD on a dual CCD unit, I suspect you'll see the same clocks as before, just with a way lower power consumption.

 

[Chrispy_]

Ah! I don't think that's gonna work. The 7800 consumes about 80-90 W all-core depending on RAM speed and SoC voltage, with a power limit of 162 W while still maintaining 4.8 GHz only. If you disable a CCD on a dual CCD unit, I suspect you'll see the same clocks as before, just with a way lower power consumption.

I could test that theory on this 5900X but I don't wanna reboot right now and it's irrelevant information either way

Kapone's making sense if I'm understanding him correctly, and I don't doubt what he's saying - he's just not on quite the same page as the rest of us in this particular line of discussion/hypothesising.