AMD Ryzen 5 8500G

[Scircura]

[12V idle power is] pretty much 0 W on most processors

Aris@HWBusters measures ~50W for dual-CCD Ryzens.

His chart ranks systems quite differently from TPU, or ComputerBase, or Guru3D. And totally contradicts less systematic but more optimized benchmarks like this 7W idle 12400-based PC. What should I conclude from this? That idle power depends less on the CPU, and more on power state settings of the motherboard and operating system?

 

[Vincero]

The thing about AV1 decode isn't necessarily that CPUs can't handle it in software; a lot of them can do it pretty well, but the power consumption is pretty ugly compared to something with proper hardware acceleration for it.

e.g. https://www.xtof.info/AV1-decoding-energy-usage.html

I just checked on an old i7-3770 and package power went up by about 3-4W, for a normal 1080p stream for a YouTube video playback on a system with no GPU decode of the AV1 codec.
This accounted for about 8% CPU usage - obviously this doesn't take in to account any power conversion efficiency, etc., and is reliant on Intel/software reporting (but I would suspect it's fairly representative).

For a 10+ year old CPU, that's pretty acceptable power and CPU usage.
Obviously transcode/encode would be another matter, and at that point the VCN part of the 8000G series iGPU would come in to it's own.

 

[Daven]

Given the power consumption and price, this CPU should be compared to a Core i3 14100T. Its just incredibly hard to find 35W Intel desktop chips.

 

[Kapone33]

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

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.

 

[Zareek]

The efficiency is impressive. I wonder why that idle power consumption is so high. It must be the chipset/motherboard, and I'm sure using a 1200W power supply doesn't help any of the idle power results.

 

[Daven]

The efficiency is impressive. I wonder why that idle power consumption is so high. It must be the chipset/motherboard, and I'm sure using a 1200W power supply doesn't help any of the idle power results.

The idle results are from the entire computer. The other power results are just for the CPU.

 

[Zareek]

The idle results are from the entire computer. The other power results are just for the CPU.

Yeah, I get that, but other less efficient chips beat it at idle. If it isn't the CPU, it's the platform.

 

[Selaya]

[ ... ]
145 is actually a step in the right direction, but I still wouldn't be happy until it's 99.99€.
[ ... ]

charging more than $50 for this makes it an insult of a turd; seems like marketing took a reasonable price and added another zero to it :clueless:, at $16 this would've been great, and given the castrated mini-die that price point wouldn't have been that outlandish either

 

[Kapone33]

charging more than $50 for this makes it an insult of a turd; seems like marketing took a reasonable price and added another zero to it :clueless:, at $16 this would've been great, and given the castrated mini-die that price point wouldn't have been that outlandish either

In a World where Handhelds do not exist you have some merit to your argument. It looks like the days of $99 APUs is gone. The success and cost of the Steam Deck is only $60 more than a 8700G. Unfortunately things like the Ally, Legion Go and whatever else is coming down the pipe has put the demand on these chips to the 3300X level. This makes buying an APU a much more involved thought process than the days of $300 for the entire system. This is the exact same chip as the Z1 but with power limits adjusted for desktop use.

 

[Vayra86]

Lightly said. What is this?

Essentially this really is showing AMD has a much more impressive little core compared to Intel's E cores. I think thats the impressive part. The product that is a 8500G however is not so impressive. But the possibilities here are great.

 

[londiste]

Essentially this really is showing AMD has a much more impressive little core compared to Intel's E cores.

Why?

 

[Vayra86]

Why?

Multicore power is low but the core is the same thing. This simplicity is going to show benefits. Intels E cores are there to get reasonable tdps. AMDs are just efficient all the way with the same feature set

 

[Lew Zealand]

The rest of the system contributes a large and unpredictable amount of power draw, for example the 4090 FE alone consumes 29 W on idle with two monitors, measured on the 12 V line. That's probably 33-35 W at the wall socket.

I still miss Hexus.net and their CPU reviews, they often achieved very low idle consumption. This part must have been part of the reason I chose an i5-6600K + Z170. I get 40-45 W when idle, that's with IGPU, it's not what Hexus promised but still very nice.

I spend some time with this and test on most of my PCs. As mentioned later in this topic, it's likely dependent on motherboards and power state settings. An example:

AsRock B360m Pro4, i5-8400 or i7-9700f, 2x8GB DDR4-2666 CL13 with:
GTX 1080 - 33W idle (at wall, Kill-a-watt)
RX 5600 XT or 6600 XT - 25W idle

No the GTX doesn't idle at higher power than the RXes, instead the CPU in that setup idles at 11W reported (tuned, 14-15W OOB) with the GTX and ~2W with the RXes. The AMD Video driver is apparently enabling Intel CPUs to idle properly while the default install with Nvidia driver doesn't in this case.

In either case, it's still a very low total system idle but oddly one is just that little bit better. Best total idle I've tested from an AMD system with Ryzen 5600 and 6600 XT is about 31W idle with AsRock B450M Pro4, either Nvidia or AMD GPUs. I have an R5 5500 (monolithic CPU, no IO die) but haven't tested it for power yet, could be lower?

I assume that using Max Performance mode and X or Z series chipsets adds to the higher idle power draw but I don't need that. Low power B-series is great for me.

 

[Chrispy_]

In a World where Handhelds do not exist you have some merit to your argument. It looks like the days of $99 APUs is gone. The success and cost of the Steam Deck is only $60 more than a 8700G. Unfortunately things like the Ally, Legion Go and whatever else is coming down the pipe has put the demand on these chips to the 3300X level. This makes buying an APU a much more involved thought process than the days of $300 for the entire system. This is the exact same chip as the Z1 but with power limits adjusted for desktop use.

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.

 

[londiste]

Multicore power is low but the core is the same thing. This simplicity is going to show benefits.

Intel's interesting approach with different ISAs is over since Alder Lake. And approaches to heterogeneous cores taken by AMD and Intel are somewhat different.

Software and scheduling side of things has improved a lot over the last few years. Both Intel and AMD have been actively working on that. The differences are larger between them but AMD actually started this even earlier with preferred cores, then Intel brought in the really different cores and the same logic will now apply to and benefit Zen-c cores.

Zen-c core is about 65% the size of a Zen core while the E-core cluster with 4 cores is 120% the size of a P-core.
The real sizes on die are different but compared to the full-blown core (Zen or P-core respectively) they can have 1.5 Zen-c cores or 3 E-cores.

Zen-c is easier to estimate - it simply has lower frequency ceiling. In this review - a simple 25% lower clock which should result in pretty much the same performance difference.
E-cores are trickier - about the same frequency difference with 25% lower clocks but also lower single-core performance and no SMT. On the other hand, there are twice as many.
I am sure someone will do a bunch of tests around that but I do not see the result all that clear-cut.

 

[ARF]

Essentially this really is showing AMD has a much more impressive little core compared to Intel's E cores.

That "little" core is the same as the old "big" core, with the difference that it actually uses a denser 5nm libraries on a slightly modified TSMC N5+ process..
One is optimised for clocks (less dense), the other is optimised to save die area (denser, but clocks lower).

If you ask me, the original Zen 4 core should have been the denser one, but instead of offering miserable 8-core CCD, they should have opted for either 12 or 16 Zen 4C cores..

 

[JustBenching]

Underwhelming

LOL, did you see the power draw numbers? These are primarily mobile chips (for laptops) and the fact that they can perform like that under 20w is a miracle. Try it with any desktop chip, it won't even boot at 20 watts.

Impressive efficiency, impressive iGPU performance (5700G level)! All that for $160, not bad.

But that PCI-e x4 connection? Tsk-tsk!

Igpu is kinda meh but the efficiency is great. Basically reminds me of the 6900hs on my laptop, but even faster.

 

[ARF]

LOL, did you see the power draw numbers? These are primarily mobile chips (for laptops) and the fact that they can perform like that under 20w is a miracle. Try it with any desktop chip, it won't even boot at 20 watts.

That's because AMD overvolts and overclocks the chips out of their sweet-spot curve, and make them look ridiculous out of the boxes.
Simply undervolt and underclock any Ryzen, you will see the same results

 

[JustBenching]

That's because AMD overvolts and overclocks the chips out of their sweet-spot curve, and make them look ridiculous out of the boxes.
Simply undervolt and underclock any Ryzen, you will see the same results

No you won't. Try it. Put a 20w power limit on a 7700x or a 7950x. You probably won't get past the bios screen.

 

[ARF]

No you won't. Try it. Put a 20w power limit on a 7700x or a 7950x. You probably won't get past the bios screen.

Take Ryzen 9 7945HX3D and try with it..

 

[JustBenching]

Take Ryzen 9 7945HX3D and try with it..

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.

 

[Vayra86]

Take Ryzen 9 7945HX3D and try with it..

X3D ah nice goalpost movement once again little troll

 

[JustBenching]

Intels E cores are there to get reasonable tdps.

No. Performance per die space and nothing else.

 

[ARF]

X3D ah nice goalpost movement once again little troll

Oh, the big troll with his nonsense. What do you want?

Won't boot either.

Prove it. If it doesn't boot, you will need to rewrite the BIOS. There are no physical limitations, it works at idle at much lower TDP than 20-watts.
WTH is this nonsense and trolling. It is like the trollfest forum.

 

[JustBenching]

Prove it. If it doesn't boot, you will need to rewrite the BIOS. There are no physical limitations, it works at idle at much lower TDP than 20-watts.
WTH is this nonsense and trolling. It is like the trollfest forum.

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.