Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming X review
Gears of War 5: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC II Ultra review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER Gaming X review
MSI B350M Gaming Pro review
Posted by: on: 03/15/2018 09:56 AM [
20 comment(s) ]
We review the MSI B350M Gaming Pro, with the release of Vega based desktop APUs (Raven Ridge) from AMD, it is interesting to peek at the low-cost b350 chipset based motherboard, in this review, we pair the €77,- MSI motherboard with a Ryzen 5 2400G and take it out for a spin.
Read article
Advertisement
spajdrik
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Posted on: 03/15/2018 11:23 AM
Overclocking the iGPU seems to give quite a big performance boost (~10-15%). Also, it's going to be interesting to see what 4/8GB of memory can do for the performance.
Has anyone tried running it in tandem with a big Vega? Would be interesting to see if they can work together.
I don't think we can expect more then 2GB allocated for VRAM, tha'ts max in all bioses from what i know.
If you want to run this with Vega, you can't use Adrenalin driver, it needs to be driver for RX Vega 8/11.
Already waiting for over one month for Adrenalin driver.
Overclocking the iGPU seems to give quite a big performance boost (~10-15%). Also, it's going to be interesting to see what 4/8GB of memory can do for the performance.
Has anyone tried running it in tandem with a big Vega? Would be interesting to see if they can work together.
I don't think we can expect more then 2GB allocated for VRAM, tha'ts max in all bioses from what i know.
If you want to run this with Vega, you can't use Adrenalin driver, it needs to be driver for RX Vega 8/11.
Already waiting for over one month for Adrenalin driver.
Vananovion
Member
Posts: 78
Member
Posts: 78
Posted on: 03/15/2018 02:11 PM
I don't think we can expect more then 2GB allocated for VRAM, tha'ts max in all bioses from what i know.
If you want to run this with Vega, you can't use Adrenalin driver, it needs to be driver for RX Vega 8/11.
Already waiting for over one month for Adrenalin driver.
I was referring to this remark in the conclusion - "Upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB."
Hilbert wouldn't lie to us right?
Bummer about the drivers though.
I don't think we can expect more then 2GB allocated for VRAM, tha'ts max in all bioses from what i know.
If you want to run this with Vega, you can't use Adrenalin driver, it needs to be driver for RX Vega 8/11.
Already waiting for over one month for Adrenalin driver.
I was referring to this remark in the conclusion - "Upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB."
Hilbert wouldn't lie to us right?
Bummer about the drivers though.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35875
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35875
Posted on: 03/15/2018 02:28 PM
I was referring to this remark in the conclusion - "Upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB."
Hilbert wouldn't lie to us right?
Bummer about the drivers though.
At the time of the 2000G reviews this was communicated by AMD:
UMA Size, the BIOS will default to 1GB Frame buffer / UMA Size.
i. MSI BIOS: go to Settings / Advanced / Integrated Graphics Config and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Force” and “UMA Frame Buffer Size” to 2GB
ii. Gigabyte BIOS: Go to Chipset and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Forces”, UMA Mode to UMA Specified and UMA Frame buffer size to 2GB
iii. upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB
I was referring to this remark in the conclusion - "Upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB."
Hilbert wouldn't lie to us right?
Bummer about the drivers though.
At the time of the 2000G reviews this was communicated by AMD:
UMA Size, the BIOS will default to 1GB Frame buffer / UMA Size.
i. MSI BIOS: go to Settings / Advanced / Integrated Graphics Config and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Force” and “UMA Frame Buffer Size” to 2GB
ii. Gigabyte BIOS: Go to Chipset and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Forces”, UMA Mode to UMA Specified and UMA Frame buffer size to 2GB
iii. upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB
Warrax
Senior Member
Posts: 128
Senior Member
Posts: 128
Posted on: 03/15/2018 04:10 PM
The iGPU performance is really impressive, good job AMD!
The iGPU performance is really impressive, good job AMD!
Vananovion
Member
Posts: 78
Member
Posts: 78
Posted on: 03/15/2018 04:30 PM
Thanks boss, good to know it's official.
Thanks boss, good to know it's official.
spajdrik
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Posted on: 03/15/2018 04:41 PM
At the time of the 2000G reviews this was communicated by AMD:
UMA Size, the BIOS will default to 1GB Frame buffer / UMA Size.
i. MSI BIOS: go to Settings / Advanced / Integrated Graphics Config and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Force” and “UMA Frame Buffer Size” to 2GB
ii. Gigabyte BIOS: Go to Chipset and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Forces”, UMA Mode to UMA Specified and UMA Frame buffer size to 2GB
iii. upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB
That's good news, thanks Hilbert.
At the time of the 2000G reviews this was communicated by AMD:
UMA Size, the BIOS will default to 1GB Frame buffer / UMA Size.
i. MSI BIOS: go to Settings / Advanced / Integrated Graphics Config and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Force” and “UMA Frame Buffer Size” to 2GB
ii. Gigabyte BIOS: Go to Chipset and set “Integrated Graphics” to “Forces”, UMA Mode to UMA Specified and UMA Frame buffer size to 2GB
iii. upcoming BIOS versions will support even larger options such as 4GB and 8GB
That's good news, thanks Hilbert.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2216
Senior Member
Posts: 2216
Posted on: 03/15/2018 05:06 PM
Nice to see a review on this motherboard. I've had one for about 10 months now, BIOS needed work but after updating it stabilized and has got a bit better with each update since. Fingers crossed it continues that way
Nice to see a review on this motherboard. I've had one for about 10 months now, BIOS needed work but after updating it stabilized and has got a bit better with each update since. Fingers crossed it continues that way
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Posted on: 03/15/2018 09:56 PM
I said 2018 would be the year APU's could potentially run games @1080p 60 fps. Not quite there yet but we still have 9months of 2018 left. I'm guessing the next iGPU version will handle it just fine.
I said 2018 would be the year APU's could potentially run games @1080p 60 fps. Not quite there yet but we still have 9months of 2018 left. I'm guessing the next iGPU version will handle it just fine.
Dimitrios1983
Senior Member
Posts: 213
Senior Member
Posts: 213
Posted on: 03/15/2018 11:26 PM
The way the market is going I may just stop buying video cards and pop in a APU every few years and game at Medium/High settings.
The way the market is going I may just stop buying video cards and pop in a APU every few years and game at Medium/High settings.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Posted on: 03/16/2018 02:09 AM
I turn all my game settings to low usually anyway for online games. I see a lot of pros doing it even though they have 10,000 $ machines.
Once APU's have doubled up on GPU performance and they allow more ram/faster ram then i see no reason for a dedicated GPU. You'd probably cut energy bills in half as well for a bonus. I can imagine a sweet 8 core APU with twice the GPU power of the 2400G and 8gb of DDR4/5 3200+ for a buffer.
I turn all my game settings to low usually anyway for online games. I see a lot of pros doing it even though they have 10,000 $ machines.
Once APU's have doubled up on GPU performance and they allow more ram/faster ram then i see no reason for a dedicated GPU. You'd probably cut energy bills in half as well for a bonus. I can imagine a sweet 8 core APU with twice the GPU power of the 2400G and 8gb of DDR4/5 3200+ for a buffer.
AcidSnow
Senior Member
Posts: 404
Senior Member
Posts: 404
Posted on: 03/16/2018 04:13 AM
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
storm83
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Posted on: 03/16/2018 11:49 AM
looking at the performance put out by the current set of APU's, i think i will start saving up for the next gen.
i have mostly stopped buying AAA titles anyway, and have gone the route of casual indy and emulation - and i suspect that with the next gen, the gpu part will be more than capable for my needs...
ITX box, here i come!
looking at the performance put out by the current set of APU's, i think i will start saving up for the next gen.
i have mostly stopped buying AAA titles anyway, and have gone the route of casual indy and emulation - and i suspect that with the next gen, the gpu part will be more than capable for my needs...
ITX box, here i come!
Vananovion
Member
Posts: 78
Member
Posts: 78
Posted on: 03/16/2018 01:13 PM
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
This is false. If you check for example JayzTwoCents review, it is clear that changing the memory allocated to the iGPU has a huge performance impact - performance almost doubles after changing the default 512MB to 2GB.
Also, I don't think it is bad for the system given that the most common memory size is currently 8GB. Dedicating 2 or 4GB out of 8GB to iGPU won't have any performance impact on your system (unless you're doing something memory intensive, in which case - why did you get an APU?). This may have been a problem back in the day, where 128-256MB RAM was the norm, but not today.
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
This is false. If you check for example JayzTwoCents review, it is clear that changing the memory allocated to the iGPU has a huge performance impact - performance almost doubles after changing the default 512MB to 2GB.
Also, I don't think it is bad for the system given that the most common memory size is currently 8GB. Dedicating 2 or 4GB out of 8GB to iGPU won't have any performance impact on your system (unless you're doing something memory intensive, in which case - why did you get an APU?). This may have been a problem back in the day, where 128-256MB RAM was the norm, but not today.
mamaduxo
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Posted on: 03/16/2018 01:47 PM
This is false. If you check for example JayzTwoCents review, it is clear that changing the memory allocated to the iGPU has a huge performance impact - performance almost doubles after changing the default 512MB to 2GB.
Also, I don't think it is bad for the system given that the most common memory size is currently 8GB. Dedicating 2 or 4GB out of 8GB to iGPU won't have any performance impact on your system (unless you're doing something memory intensive, in which case - why did you get an APU?). This may have been a problem back in the day, where 128-256MB RAM was the norm, but not today.
A few games read the ammount of VRAM avaiable, but dedicating 512MB or 2GB in bios is the same as igpu can acess all the memory. Also that test by Jay was a mess, and there are some tests that show you shoudn't allocate 2GB if you only have 8GB total ram.
This is false. If you check for example JayzTwoCents review, it is clear that changing the memory allocated to the iGPU has a huge performance impact - performance almost doubles after changing the default 512MB to 2GB.
Also, I don't think it is bad for the system given that the most common memory size is currently 8GB. Dedicating 2 or 4GB out of 8GB to iGPU won't have any performance impact on your system (unless you're doing something memory intensive, in which case - why did you get an APU?). This may have been a problem back in the day, where 128-256MB RAM was the norm, but not today.
A few games read the ammount of VRAM avaiable, but dedicating 512MB or 2GB in bios is the same as igpu can acess all the memory. Also that test by Jay was a mess, and there are some tests that show you shoudn't allocate 2GB if you only have 8GB total ram.
spajdrik
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Senior Member
Posts: 1954
Posted on: 03/16/2018 02:51 PM
Some games don't even start when setting just 64MB, for example Guild Wars 2
For benchmark, World of Tanks enCore also does not start.
Some games don't even start when setting just 64MB, for example Guild Wars 2
For benchmark, World of Tanks enCore also does not start.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Posted on: 03/16/2018 08:16 PM
I think 16gb will be needed for best results, 8gb for system, 8gb for gfx. I believe the method of using DDR4/5 for a Buffer will improve by a lot.
8gb of ram is getting Very close to not being enough now. 12gb/16gb is the sweet spot i believe at this moment. Especially if you intend to use an APU and a large buffer.
This method is pretty new(2gb+ buffer) so i think it'll take a year or two but by 2020 i expect an 8core APU with double Vega 11 performance all on 7nm. 100w total. Will easily reach 60fps on 99% of games @1080p. Zen 2 is going to be my next upgrade 100%.
I think 16gb will be needed for best results, 8gb for system, 8gb for gfx. I believe the method of using DDR4/5 for a Buffer will improve by a lot.
8gb of ram is getting Very close to not being enough now. 12gb/16gb is the sweet spot i believe at this moment. Especially if you intend to use an APU and a large buffer.
This method is pretty new(2gb+ buffer) so i think it'll take a year or two but by 2020 i expect an 8core APU with double Vega 11 performance all on 7nm. 100w total. Will easily reach 60fps on 99% of games @1080p. Zen 2 is going to be my next upgrade 100%.
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 997
Senior Member
Posts: 997
Posted on: 03/17/2018 05:41 PM
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
Some games do indeed *require* more than 2GBs VRAM these days, and the list is growing--albeit it's a small list. Also you'll need more than 2GB even at 1080P for high-quality Image Quality gaming (FSAA+ eye candy). For image-quality features, especially resolution, the amount of VRAM makes a *big* difference in performance...
I guess you haven't seen what happens to the frame-rate in a game when local VRAM is exceeded--performance drops like a stone. Pretty big nVidia scandal about that IIRC, for the 980/970--as the marketed amount of VRAM was not actually addressable. That said, most likely for this market 2GB's will be all that's needed. (My RX-480 stock has 8GBs VRAM.) Still, 16GBs ought to be plenty for most people, even if they should opt for an 8GB "frame buffer".
The memory allocation part does NOT improve performance at all... Allocating 2GB, or 256KB makes no performance difference of the graphics APU. What it does do is set a limit on memory available to the rest of the system.
TLDR: There is no performance benefit achieved by giving 2GB to the APU in the BIOS. Doing this actually restricts memory to the rest of the PC, and is bad.
Some games do indeed *require* more than 2GBs VRAM these days, and the list is growing--albeit it's a small list. Also you'll need more than 2GB even at 1080P for high-quality Image Quality gaming (FSAA+ eye candy). For image-quality features, especially resolution, the amount of VRAM makes a *big* difference in performance...
I guess you haven't seen what happens to the frame-rate in a game when local VRAM is exceeded--performance drops like a stone. Pretty big nVidia scandal about that IIRC, for the 980/970--as the marketed amount of VRAM was not actually addressable. That said, most likely for this market 2GB's will be all that's needed. (My RX-480 stock has 8GBs VRAM.) Still, 16GBs ought to be plenty for most people, even if they should opt for an 8GB "frame buffer".
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1852
Senior Member
Posts: 1852
Posted on: 03/17/2018 08:14 PM
FYI, my board (ASRock AB350 Pro4) already shows larger options:
It doesn't seem to affect the actual allocation though - still only shows 2 GB max, so support might not be entire there yet.
FYI, my board (ASRock AB350 Pro4) already shows larger options:
It doesn't seem to affect the actual allocation though - still only shows 2 GB max, so support might not be entire there yet.
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2733
Senior Member
Posts: 2733
Posted on: 03/18/2018 07:09 PM
Man these APUS are damn good for what they are.
My friend has this board, R5 1600, 16GB DDR4 2400 Gskill, and a Fury X.
Its does very good at 144hz gaming. Most games he pushes 100fps @ 1080p.
If I didnt already have a 1500x, and be getting a R5 2600 next month, Id get a the quad core APU for a 4k HTPC with super cheap 8GB DDR4 2133
Man these APUS are damn good for what they are.
My friend has this board, R5 1600, 16GB DDR4 2400 Gskill, and a Fury X.
Its does very good at 144hz gaming. Most games he pushes 100fps @ 1080p.
If I didnt already have a 1500x, and be getting a R5 2600 next month, Id get a the quad core APU for a 4k HTPC with super cheap 8GB DDR4 2133
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 78
Overclocking the iGPU seems to give quite a big performance boost (~10-15%). Also, it's going to be interesting to see what 4/8GB of memory can do for the performance.
Has anyone tried running it in tandem with a big Vega? Would be interesting to see if they can work together.