AMD Ryzen 3000U Series APUs Detailed, Geekbenched

[btarunr]

AMD is putting final touches on its Ryzen 3000U series APUs for ultra-portable notebooks and 2-in-1 devices. Thai PC enthusiast Tum Apisak shared links to Geekbench scores of at least three SKUs, the Ryzen 3 3200U, the Ryzen 3300U, and the Ryzen 5 3500U. The Ryzen 3 3200U combines a 2-core/4-thread CPU component, while the Ryzen 3 3300U packs a 4-core/4-thread CPU, and the Ryzen 5 3500U a better equipped 4-core/8-thread CPU. While the 3200U's CPU is clocked high at 2.60 GHz, the 3300U and 3500U are both clocked at 2.10 GHz. The iGPU specs are still under the wraps as Geekbench only tested the single- and multi-threaded CPU performance. The 3200U scores 3428 points single-threaded owing to its higher nominal clocks, and around 6500 points multi-threaded. The 3300U scores 9686 points in multi-threaded owing to its additional cores (sans SMT). The 3500U increases the multi-threaded score to over 11280 points multi-threaded, on account of being quad-core with SMT.

There's no clarity on the underlying micro-architecture. While the source mentions the codename of these chips as Picasso, the silicon still appears to be 14 nm "Raven Ridge." Over generation, AMD only appears to have pushed its current parts lower down the product stack. For example, the Ryzen 3 3300U appears to share the same CPU configuration (albeit with 5% higher clock-speeds) as the Ryzen 5 2500U from the current-generation. The Ryzen 5 3500U, on the other hand, appears to have essentially the same (again, marginally speed-bumped) CPU as the Ryzen 7 2700U. HP is ready with notebook and 2-in-1 products based on all three chips, although they're unlikely to launch before year-end. Perhaps CES could be a nice launchpad.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Imsochobo]

Looks like Zen+

 

[silentbogo]

Maybe even a banal rebrand.
I don't trust geekbench, especially when it comes to PCs and Laptops, but just for the hell of it I looked up some R5 2500U results from the same version of software.
While the result spread ranges from 5000 to 11000 pts multithreaded (probably depends on power plan and throttling), but the closest ones look just about right: 100MHz overclock and around 5-10% boost in performance comparing to the current 2500U.
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/11243509?baseline=11229675

P.S. What's even funnier about the late Geekbench, is that it's so optimized for Android that even the Linux version runs almost 20% faster than the Windows version of the benchmark. So much for fair benching...

 

[Imsochobo]

Maybe even a banal rebrand.
I don't trust geekbench, especially when it comes to PCs and Laptops, but just for the hell of it I looked up some R5 2500U results from the same version of software.
While the result spread ranges from 5000 to 11000 pts multithreaded (probably depends on power plan and throttling), but the closest ones look just about right: 100MHz overclock and around 5-10% boost in performance comparing to the current 2500U.
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/11243509?baseline=11229675

P.S. What's even funnier about the late Geekbench, is that it's so optimized for Android that even the Linux version runs almost 20% faster than the Windows version of the benchmark. So much for fair benching...

what about macos running geekbench
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1787

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4398685

 

[silentbogo]

what about macos running geekbench
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1787

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4398685

????
Those are two different CPUs: desktop R7 1700 on a Mac, and a mobile Raven Ridge.

 

[GoldenX]

what about macos running geekbench
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/1787

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4398685

So the kernel is finally good enough for some Hackintosh Ryzen.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

I just bought a HP x360 ENVY with Ryzen 5 2500U in it to take with me on the go and I'm very happy with it. Though I find it a bit strange that AMD will have '3000' series branded parts on 'old' 14nm tech (not even 12nm?). That said it is probably likely that the True Zen2 7nm APUs are a cycle later much as Raven Ridge is to Summit Ridge. So maybe they will be branded under the 4000 series + include some improvements over Zen2 but not quite full Zen2+ spec. (Same way Raven Ridge in terms of Cache Latency is somewhere between 1st and 2nd generation Ryzen).

 

[Nkd]

I am confident they are based on zen+ architecture. AMD does have to keep pumping chips out of GF for the time being until 7nm ramps and APUs always seem to be more refined and a gen behind. Maybe the did the magic with 14nm with squeezing little more performance under same power on 14nm but I wouldn't be surprised if these are 12nm just like Ryzen 2000 series. But definitely thinking these are Zen+

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Mobile Ryzen didn’t come out until 6 months after desktop Ryzen. These could just be a refresh of the existing Ryzen chips until a proper mobile Zen 2 refresh comes out later? They have a new GPU architecture to release as well, so a fully updated mobile Ryzen is probably still in the works.

 

[eidairaman1]

I just bought a HP x360 ENVY with Ryzen 5 2500U in it to take with me on the go and I'm very happy with it. Though I find it a bit strange that AMD will have '3000' series branded parts on 'old' 14nm tech (not even 12nm?). That said it is probably likely that the True Zen2 7nm APUs are a cycle later much as Raven Ridge is to Summit Ridge. So maybe they will be branded under the 4000 series + include some improvements over Zen2 but not quite full Zen2+ spec. (Same way Raven Ridge in terms of Cache Latency is somewhere between 1st and 2nd generation Ryzen).

Zen 2 is 3000, 2+ is 4000

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Zen 2 is 3000, 2+ is 4000

So far, APU Zen (Raven Ridge) is an outlier. They are 2000 series parts, but aren’t 12nm. They do have more in common architecturally to Zen+ though.

 

[eidairaman1]

So far, APU Zen (Raven Ridge) is an outlier. They are 2000 series parts, but aren’t 12nm. They do have more in common architecturally to Zen+ though.

U series are separate product stack

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

U series are separate product stack

True, but they follow the same path of being “Zen 1.5” as AMD describes it. They wouldn’t even say if the next mobile Zen might do the same thing.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1196...-apus-for-laptops-with-vega-and-updated-zen/5

 

[eidairaman1]

True, but they follow the same path of being “Zen 1.5” as AMD describes it. They wouldn’t even say if the next mobile Zen might do the same thing.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964/ryzen-mobile-is-launched-amd-apus-for-laptops-with-vega-and-updated-zen/5

One thing that I noticed about the mobile and desktop Market this is to exclude the high-end desktop Market

Just had say are only using these two digits **00 to differentiate their products instead of 00** (2350, 2330 etc).

So even though these are Zen+ they show that theyre 3rd gen when they are not.

Unless if it is the IDP portion of the APU that they are really focusing on

 

[Imsochobo]

????
Those are two different CPUs: desktop R7 1700 on a Mac, and a mobile Raven Ridge.

follow the thread, we were critizing the use of geekbench of anything really useful, not comparing to the cpu in article.

So the kernel is finally good enough for some Hackintosh Ryzen.

Been for ages!

So far, APU Zen (Raven Ridge) is an outlier. They are 2000 series parts, but aren’t 12nm. They do have more in common architecturally to Zen+ though.

Not really...
It has boost, 12cycle cache from 17 improvement and that's about it.
Zen+ have a lot more optimizations built in so it's how zen1 should have been, zen+ is ipc,12 cycle, boost and 12nm.
Yes, Raven is not zen1 pinnacle, and it's not zen+ but it's closer to zen1.

 

[GoldenX]

With really bad performance and compatibility.

 

[timta2]

So the kernel is finally good enough for some Hackintosh Ryzen.

As long as you don't mind using an old OS and dealing with the rest of the cons of using an AMD CPU. Intel is still king for Hackintoshing.

 

[TheGuruStud]

As long as you don't mind using an old OS and dealing with the rest of the cons of using an AMD CPU. Intel is still king for Hackintoshing.

I'm waiting for them to dump intel out of the blue. High end 3000s with GPU should do the trick. They must be rolling their eyes at intel's roadmap and floundering.

 

[silentbogo]

follow the thread, we were critizing the use of geekbench of anything really useful, not comparing to the cpu in article.

My bad. Instead of just displaying the result, Geekbench browser decided to compare everything I click on to my previously set baseline, so I thought you were comparing mac pro to 2500U...
But yeah, it's ridiculous.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I'm waiting for them to dump intel out of the blue. High end 3000s with GPU should do the trick. They must be rolling their eyes at intel's roadmap and floundering.

I don’t see it happening if it hasn’t happened by now. AMD has been making custom chips for consoles for years, so if Apple hasn’t made the move since Ryzen, it probably isn’t going to happen. By now, we’re more likely to see Apple making their own chips.

 

[RichF]

I don’t see it happening if it hasn’t happened by now. AMD has been making custom chips for consoles for years, so if Apple hasn’t made the move since Ryzen, it probably isn’t going to happen. By now, we’re more likely to see Apple making their own chips.

Apple is lazy when it comes to the Mac. For most of its history that has been true, too. No protected memory until OS X. Mac Plus for sale for many years, then recycled with the Classic. No modern OpenGL or serious gaming support (since the vaporware Halo announcement). No color until the Mac II. A rejection of coprocessors "as a philosophy" for much of the Mac's lifetime. Miserable backward compatibility (poor, including during the System 7 transition). Outdated Mac Pro and Mini. The idea was, of course, to sell less for more. This philosophy creates wealthy corporations usually not necessarily ideal products.

But, Windows 10 offers an inferior experience. For playing games I'd rather use 7 or 8.1. It's too bad the Linux world is so divided because both MS and Apple need pressure to improve their desktop experience. Both have gone off the deep end with the spy cloud model, as well as the creeping "mixed UI" syndrome (where different parts have different, conflicting, UI aesthetics). Window 10, especially, is one heck of a UI hodgepodge.

 

[sergionography]

I'm waiting for them to dump intel out of the blue. High end 3000s with GPU should do the trick. They must be rolling their eyes at intel's roadmap and floundering.

They will dump intel for sure, but they wont be using AMD though. All the leaks and design direction that apple has been taking indicates that they plan on eventually porting everything to arm so they can use their own in-house cpus. They have been scaling up their soc's very rapidly and catching up with intel on the lower power side. It is only a matter of time it seems. Now intel however does seem to be getting their act together again with their new management though, so perhaps its much harder for apple to scale up/catch up now. But only time will tell

 

[RichF]

They will dump intel for sure, but they wont be using AMD though. All the leaks and design direction that apple has been taking indicates that they plan on eventually porting everything to arm so they can use their own in-house cpus. They have been scaling up their soc's very rapidly and catching up with intel on the lower power side. It is only a matter of time it seems. Now intel however does seem to be getting their act together again with their new management though, so perhaps its much harder for apple to scale up/catch up now. But only time will tell

I'm sure their fantasy is to recreate the dummy terminal, which ARM processors would be powerful enough for even right now. That's the model big companies have been wanting to take computer users to for a long time, Microsoft included. What they want is for programs to be subscription based, "users'" data stored on their servers (for a fee), etc. Microsoft was talking about this years ago as being the dream. (EA humorously sold the dream in lie form with SimCity 5.)

The lack of suitable broadband, though, is still an impediment, although companies like Apple are making it increasingly difficult to manage operating systems and software without broadband. Apple, for instance, has made upgrading the operating system quite a nightmare, since it crammed OS updates into Software Store AppleID "no cost purchase but with a receipt model" downloads. Problems with Mavericks, for example, caused me to have to phone Apple for no less than four different people with four different machines, simply to get them to El Capitan. Apple, in every case, had to reset their Apple IDs. The download took an eternity on slow DSL, too. The entire system is very poor for the user. OS updates should be easy to get and to install, like they used to be.

Our data has become the product and computers are the conduits corporations use to get their hands on it. The old idea of the computer buyer purchasing machines to work for them has gone out the window. This is what happens when products move from being only affordable for the wealthy to becoming mass-market. Things always change so that it's harder for ordinary people to benefit and easier for their masters to benefit. There are many examples, as with how solar panel net metering suddenly began to disappear when panels became affordable enough for more ordinary people.

 

[sergionography]

I'm sure their fantasy is to recreate the dummy terminal, which ARM processors would be powerful enough for even right now. That's the model big companies have been wanting to take computer users to for a long time, Microsoft included. What they want is for programs to be subscription based, "users'" data stored on their servers (for a fee), etc. Microsoft was talking about this years ago as being the dream. (EA humorously sold the dream in lie form with SimCity 5.)

The lack of suitable broadband, though, is still an impediment, although companies like Apple are making it increasingly difficult to manage operating systems and software without broadband. Apple, for instance, has made upgrading the operating system quite a nightmare, since it crammed OS updates into Software Store AppleID "no cost purchase but with a receipt model" downloads. Problems with Mavericks, for example, caused me to have to phone Apple for no less than four different people with four different machines, simply to get them to El Capitan. Apple, in every case, had to reset their Apple IDs. The download took an eternity on slow DSL, too. The entire system is very poor for the user. OS updates should be easy to get and to install, like they used to be.

Our data has become the product and computers are the conduits corporations use to get their hands on it. The old idea of the computer buyer purchasing machines to work for them has gone out the window. This is what happens when products move from being only affordable for the wealthy to becoming mass-market. Things always change so that it's harder for ordinary people to benefit and easier for their masters to benefit. There are many examples, as with how solar panel net metering suddenly began to disappear when panels became affordable enough for more ordinary people.

Yes that's definitely their goal to move to cloud, but I wasn't exactly talking about that. They initially need to port MacOS to ARM along with the many mac applications etc. Its no easy task but apple can afford it. The move to cloud and subscription based approach comes later, although its more beneficial for microsoft who makes more money off of software than hardware. Apple want to sell you 3637383938 dollar gadgets that costs them less than 100dollars to make lol, so not relying on other companies for chips is a step forward for that, and moving for cloud afterwards means your 4648393837383 dollar dummy device that runs off cloud costs apple practically nothing lol.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Apple is lazy when it comes to the Mac. For most of its history that has been true, too. No protected memory until OS X. Mac Plus for sale for many years, then recycled with the Classic. No modern OpenGL or serious gaming support (since the vaporware Halo announcement). No color until the Mac II. A rejection of coprocessors "as a philosophy" for much of the Mac's lifetime. Miserable backward compatibility (poor, including during the System 7 transition). Outdated Mac Pro and Mini. The idea was, of course, to sell less for more. This philosophy creates wealthy corporations usually not necessarily ideal products.

But, Windows 10 offers an inferior experience. For playing games I'd rather use 7 or 8.1. It's too bad the Linux world is so divided because both MS and Apple need pressure to improve their desktop experience. Both have gone off the deep end with the spy cloud model, as well as the creeping "mixed UI" syndrome (where different parts have different, conflicting, UI aesthetics). Window 10, especially, is one heck of a UI hodgepodge.

Bungie was going to launch Halo for Mac and PC simultaneously, but then MS bought the studio in order to have a big first party title on its new console, the Xbox. That meant that Bungie had to completely overhaul the game to work on Xbox’s limited hardware, and they even dropped multiplayer because Live service wasn’t ready yet. When the game finally made it to Mac and Windows, it was a third party port. Hard to blame Apple for that one.

Ironically, I’ve purchased this game many times—I had the Xbox version, the Mac version, the PC version, the remastered version, and the MCC version.

Yes that's definitely their goal to move to cloud, but I wasn't exactly talking about that. They initially need to port MacOS to ARM along with the many mac applications etc. Its no easy task but apple can afford it. The move to cloud and subscription based approach comes later, although its more beneficial for microsoft who makes more money off of software than hardware. Apple want to sell you 3637383938 dollar gadgets that costs them less than 100dollars to make lol, so not relying on other companies for chips is a step forward for that, and moving for cloud afterwards means your 4648393837383 dollar dummy device that runs off cloud costs apple practically nothing lol.

I’m pretty sure ever since Apple started making their own chips, they’ve been testing MacOS on ARM. They did the same thing with x86 long before switching to Intel. As to why they would, why not? They make their own SOC, and it is indeed a way to save money and control more of their own destiny. If Intel falls short—which has happened recently, Apple has to work with whatever they get. Using their own SOCs means they get to further tune their OS to their own hardware, something they have always been pretty good at.