› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

AMD Raven Ridge kills the low end discrete GPU.

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,507
in Hardware
A Ryzen 5 2400G for $170 has an integrated GPU with performance that is basically equivalent to a Radeon RX 550 or a GeForce GT 1030.  On the CPU side, it's basically a higher clocked version of a Ryzen 5 1500X that costs $160.  (Yes, I'm aware of the cache differences, but that could favor either option.)  That makes it a good enough deal to be an interesting option even if you don't care about the GPU.

Thus, if you want a faster GPU than the integrated GPU in the Ryzen 5 2400G, you'd have to step up to either a Radeon RX 560 or a GeForce GTX 1050.  The cheapest new versions of those at New Egg are $140 and $150, respectively.  Add in the cost of a comparable CPU and you're looking at $300+ as the next step up over a $170 APU.

And if that's too expensive, there's also the Ryzen 3 2200 for $100, which is basically equivalent to a higher clocked version of a Ryzen 3 1300X that costs $125.  You lose some GPU performance by going with the next bin down, but it's still the fastest integrated GPU available by a considerable margin other than the higher bin of it.

Let's not forget the advantage that the cryptocurrency miners will ignore the new APUs.  Probably.  They rely on DDR4 system memory, so they won't have the high memory bandwidth needed for Ethereum mining.

Raven Ridge isn't going to kill off high end discrete GPUs, of course.  That will have to wait a while.  But is an integrated GPU viable for a budget gaming desktop?  Now it is--and now, for the first time, you get a good CPU with a good integrated GPU.
[Deleted User]GdemamiAsm0deus

Comments

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    Until the miners start buying these too....

    (the running joke)

    I wonder how does this compare to the coming Intel/Vega APUs? i7-8809G and i5-8305G, for instance, which are due out "soon".
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,507
    The miners are mostly buying GPUs for the high memory bandwidth, not for the computational power.  Raven Ridge uses ordinary DDR4, the same as Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, and the original Ryzen, so it doesn't really have an advantage over them for mining.

    As compared to Kaby Lake-G, this will probably be comparable to slightly slower on the CPU side, massively slower on the GPU side, and massively cheaper.  What makes Raven Ridge interesting in a desktop is not that the CPU and GPU performance are great, but that getting both for $170 is massively cheaper than is otherwise available.  At $300, Raven Ridge would be ridiculous for desktops.  Kaby Lake-G is expected to cost a lot more than that.
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    It's not the first time AMD has made low-end discrete GPUs useless. What I would like to see is AMD making anything under $200 useless which they have the capability of doing.
    Gdemami
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,507
    Cleffy said:
    It's not the first time AMD has made low-end discrete GPUs useless. What I would like to see is AMD making anything under $200 useless which they have the capability of doing.
    The miners are working on ensuring that all GPUs that are faster than integrated graphics cost over $200.

    More seriously, in order to build a bigger integrated GPU without it being a ridiculous part, they'd need to get it a lot more memory bandwidth than you can get from a pair of channels of DDR4.  They could put HBM2 on package, but that adds quite a bit of cost.  If they charge $400 for an APU that is equivalent to a $200 GPU and a $150 CPU, that could be nifty for a gaming laptop, but isn't terribly interesting for a desktop.
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    I agree with the AM4 platform, it would not be possible even with a die shrink. But with a SoC it would. AMD already has working examples in the XBox and Play station. However, transferring that over to PC environment will prove difficult.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Cleffy said:
    It's not the first time AMD has made low-end discrete GPUs useless. What I would like to see is AMD making anything under $200 useless which they have the capability of doing.
    Which is were Intel comes in. They don't have the distraction of making discrete graphics cards.

    It is only a matter of time however.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Quizzical said:
    A Ryzen 5 2400G for $170 has an integrated GPU with performance that is basically equivalent to a Radeon RX 550 or a GeForce GT 1030.  On the CPU side, it's basically a higher clocked version of a Ryzen 5 1500X that costs $160.  (Yes, I'm aware of the cache differences, but that could favor either option.)  That makes it a good enough deal to be an interesting option even if you don't care about the GPU.

    Thus, if you want a faster GPU than the integrated GPU in the Ryzen 5 2400G, you'd have to step up to either a Radeon RX 560 or a GeForce GTX 1050.  The cheapest new versions of those at New Egg are $140 and $150, respectively.  Add in the cost of a comparable CPU and you're looking at $300+ as the next step up over a $170 APU.

    And if that's too expensive, there's also the Ryzen 3 2200 for $100, which is basically equivalent to a higher clocked version of a Ryzen 3 1300X that costs $125.  You lose some GPU performance by going with the next bin down, but it's still the fastest integrated GPU available by a considerable margin other than the higher bin of it.

    Let's not forget the advantage that the cryptocurrency miners will ignore the new APUs.  Probably.  They rely on DDR4 system memory, so they won't have the high memory bandwidth needed for Ethereum mining.

    Raven Ridge isn't going to kill off high end discrete GPUs, of course.  That will have to wait a while.  But is an integrated GPU viable for a budget gaming desktop?  Now it is--and now, for the first time, you get a good CPU with a good integrated GPU.
    The only problem with these chips, just like the Intel integrate graphics you have to use system memory which is a lot slower than your DDR5 you see on separate graphics cards.

    I also have to question whether a GT 1030 equates to a RX550.  I think it is more like a RX 550 is between the 1050 and the 1030.  The RX 560 is also faster than the GT 1050. 
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,992
    edited February 2018
    Ozmodan said:

    I also have to question whether a GT 1030 equates to a RX550.  I think it is more like a RX 550 is between the 1050 and the 1030.  The RX 560 is also faster than the GT 1050. 
    RX 560 and GTX 1050 are about equally fast, they trade places depending on which game you'd measure them with.
     
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Vrika said:
    Ozmodan said:

    I also have to question whether a GT 1030 equates to a RX550.  I think it is more like a RX 550 is between the 1050 and the 1030.  The RX 560 is also faster than the GT 1050. 
    RX 560 and GTX 1050 are about equally fast, they trade places depending on which game you'd measure them with.

    I have to disagree, the RX 560 is almost as good as the GT 1060 3gb model.  Definitely clocks better than the 1050!

    Gdemami
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    edited February 2018
    The GTX 1060 3GB is more around the RX 580 4GB model. Depending on the test suite, it might be between the RX570 and RX580 4GB. But in general more towards the RX580 4GB on average. The RX 500 series was more a respin of the RX 400 series.
Sign In or Register to comment.