Monday, January 29th 2024
AMD Ryzen 7 8700G Loves Memory Overclocking, which Vastly Favors its iGPU Performance
Entry level discrete GPUs are in trouble, as the first reviews of the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G desktop APU show that its iGPU is capable of beating the discrete GeForce GTX 1650, which means it should also beat the Radeon RX 6500 XT that offers comparable performance. Based on the 4 nm "Hawk Point" monolithic silicon, the 8700G packs the powerful Radeon 780M iGPU based on the latest RDNA3 graphics architecture, with as many as 12 compute units, worth 768 stream processors, 48 TMUs, and an impressive 32 ROPs; and full support for the DirectX 12 Ultimate API requirements, including ray tracing. A review by a Chinese tech publication on BiliBili showed that it's possible for an overclocked 8700G to beat a discrete GTX 1650 in 3DMark TimeSpy.
It's important to note here that both the iGPU engine clock and the APU's memory frequency are increased. The reviewer set the iGPU engine clock to 3400 MHz, up from its 2900 MHz reference speed. It turns out that much like its predecessor, the 5700G "Cezanne," the new 8700G "Hawk Point" features a more advanced memory controller than its chiplet-based counterpart (in this case the Ryzen 7000 "Raphael"). The reviewer succeeded in a DDR5-8400 memory overclock. A combination of the two resulted in a 17% increase in the Time Spy score over stock speeds; which is how the chip manages to beat the discrete GTX 1650 (comparable performance to the RX 6500 XT at 1080p).
Sources:
BiliBili, HXL (Twitter)
It's important to note here that both the iGPU engine clock and the APU's memory frequency are increased. The reviewer set the iGPU engine clock to 3400 MHz, up from its 2900 MHz reference speed. It turns out that much like its predecessor, the 5700G "Cezanne," the new 8700G "Hawk Point" features a more advanced memory controller than its chiplet-based counterpart (in this case the Ryzen 7000 "Raphael"). The reviewer succeeded in a DDR5-8400 memory overclock. A combination of the two resulted in a 17% increase in the Time Spy score over stock speeds; which is how the chip manages to beat the discrete GTX 1650 (comparable performance to the RX 6500 XT at 1080p).
63 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 8700G Loves Memory Overclocking, which Vastly Favors its iGPU Performance
Anyway, DDR5-8400 + 8700G + whatever cooling necessary for such OC screams "you can buy an RX 6600, probably even an XT, for cheaper than that and get 3 times more FPS."
Perhaps the next gen handhelds could have this layout to remove the Memory bandwidth limit and we are then purely just looking at Raster/power limits.
HWUnboxed was saying go for a 7600x and something like a 6600xt for 100 dollars more that just the 8700g, but for some people that increase may be 10-20% of their total budget.
Steve just has a thing for shitting on the 6500XT (and for a good reason lmao).
Good article but review in the house, when*?
*can test 8500G too because dont appear reviews about this cpu and if can compare with ryzen 5 4600G/5600G will be great too, thanks
:)
For example here the cheapest non-XT RX6600 costs $260. And the APUs used to be within MSRP, maybe with slight $100-150 premium over MSRP, or over US/EU retail price+VAT included. Have it own "VGA shape PCB" and cooler, and it would end up gauged AF as well.
Otherwise, yeah, it's reasonable enough.How that is preventing them from adding cash vertically? They have cut cash because it used much planar area. I guess it's still possible, by shaving some vertical surface, and then add/clone the same L3 cash area straight on top.
And the most viable reason I can come up with, is not because they reduced the space already, but because it will require additional R&D, exclusively for Hawk Point/mobile parts. And they won't do that, because the only real reason why 8700G and X3D SKUs exist for desktop Ryzen, is due to excess of binned chips, that cannot be used for EPYC/Threadripper and laptops (in case of APU).It's still very close. So much close, that people do not care any more. They can sacrifice few settings in video options, in order to have compact enefficient system, which being cooled with just CPU cooler. And it doesn't require additional ATX 8pin cable.
Even if it can be OCed a bit for better results a the expense of higher power consumption, it still would consume less than dGPU any way.
Many would like to go this route. And as I've mentioned above, any dGPU in many parts of the world, still have ridiculous gouging tax. Even the anemic RX 6400 XT costs $173. Pair it with $255 7600X, or $242 13400F, and it's already horrible investement. I use local prices, because they are real "unrealistic" ones, and this is the only way to buy stuff.
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim these prices are what they supposed to be, or recommended by vendors, for their primary region of US. It shouldn't be this way. But alas, they are.
As an alternative budget gaming setup, a 5600 with B550 and some cheapo DDR4 RAM pair those with a used midrange GPU like the RX 6600 and enjoy your games with good graphics and frame rates.
A. You want your PC to be incredibly small.
B. Your electricity bills are ridiculously high and you want to save money in the long term somehow (kinda moot because dGPUs are configurable + you can limit your FPS to whatever value you like via in-game options or some external tool like Rivatuner).
C. You are a company owner and you want to make your PCs as simple as possible to maximise your business efficiency.
Other than that, APUs are not and have never been budget friendly. Similar gaming performance has always been achievable by purchasing a much cheaper CPU+dGPU system.
*As the 16 GB RAM buffer is enough for 1080p gaming at low settings, it's not enough when some RAM is shared to the iGPU. 32 GB are a necessity if you don't want your RAM to become a bottleneck in recent games.
Not to mention the 8700G's iGPU is RX 6400 to 6500 XT level of performance, meaning 720p30 Low-Med rather than 1080p60 High experience. RX 6600, on the other hand, is a proper 1080p60 GPU if you don't hunt max settings. RX 6600 XT (which is closer in terms of $$$) is even more of a proper gaming GPU. 12100F is fast enough to make use of such GPUs. Of course, it's not ideal, especially if you're a competitive gamer (i7-12700 + GTX 1650 Super it is then; might be more expensive but not by much) but if your only concern is money then 8700G makes negative sense.
P.S. I am talking purely gaming performance. Doubling i3-12100's core count is mighty useful in professional applications. And I am not sure if 8700G is pretty there but none expert so won't shoot claims.I checked what we have got.
Even for simple office tasks, there is a huge difference between 4 and 6+ cores these days.
Also wait until the DDR5-9000+++++++ RAM overclocks begin to show up on the APUs, contrary to the chiplets which cannot go beyond ~6000 (AM4 apus could easily hit 4800 on air)
Also, by the time RX 7800 XT level GPUs for $300 are available, Intel will have switched 5 sockets, while you might still be able to upgrade this to the latest gen on AM5 (or 1 gen back)
(2400G -> 5800X3D was a nice upgrade path)
FYI, the 12100F will bottleneck even a 7600 XT
Competitive gamers don't look at such CPUs. They buy i9s and Ryzen 9s.Not a problem. I upgrade my CPUs about once per 8 years and by that time anything becomes e-waste. I will buy a new PC regardless of what I bought today. Yes, it's nice that AMD support their platform for more extended periods of time but this only matters for those who are in a hurry. I take it slow and steady. I don't upgrade until my PC feels like ancient trash.
Anyway, even in Russia, an i5-12400F + 16 GB + RTX 3060 Ti build costs roughly the same as 8700G + 32 GB DDR5. Not much worse CPU speed, leagues ahead GPU speed.How? By having what, a 5 W less daily power consumption? Your power providers need a truckload of anti-greed pills if that's the case.
LMAO, Quebectricity is almost for free.