I could be nice with Mini ITX board with DC power power connector.

Speaking of AMD APU's. Is there a review of one of the Hades Canyon NUC's in your work pile? Or is Intel still being a moody teenage shut-in and not talking or sharing with anyone in Europe?

Perfect HTPCCPUs

Yogi:

Speaking of AMD APU's. Is there a review of one of the Hades Canyon NUC's in your work pile? Or is Intel still being a moody teenage shut-in and not talking or sharing with anyone in Europe?

For us, nothing has changed. Intel is not speaking with Nordic countries and some others.

This 35w APU could be used in some very interesting builds. I wonder if its overclockable

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

For us, nothing has changed. Intel is not speaking with Nordic countries and some others.

Intel with north and AMD sending 99% of the european CPU to France and Germany... It will take long time to replace my HTPC (and those Rizen would perfect fit passive cooler).

When they got room for model numbers, i don't understand why they do this. Instead of being: 2400G 2400GE 2200G 2200GE It could have been: 2400G 2300G(or GE) 2200G 2100G(or GE) It'd make more sense from a consumer point of view

Aura89:

When they got room for model numbers, i don't understand why they do this. Instead of being: 2400G 2400GE 2200G 2200GE It could have been: 2400G 2300G(or GE) 2200G 2100G(or GE) It'd make more sense from a consumer point of view

You propose that AMD should follow intel's naming. Intel loves to take one chip and put it in multiple series based on clock and power consumption, that's really counter intuitive. On other hand, 2200 and its variants are 4C/4T + 8Vega nCUs. 2400 and its variants are 4C/8T + 11Vega nCUs. Same applies to 2600, 2700, ... "G" stands for GFX/GPU. "E" maybe efficiency? Dunno, but name is OK as whole.

This is what I was waiting for, I will upgrade my HTPC as soon as I can buy one. I pretty much decided on the 2400GE. Still, I want more ITX motherboards available, and one with latest HDMI/DisplayPort version.

Fox2232:

You propose that AMD should follow intel's naming. Intel loves to take one chip and put it in multiple series based on clock and power consumption, that's really counter intuitive.

Nothing counter-intuitive about not confusing customers.

Fox2232:

"G" stands for GFX/GPU. "E" maybe efficiency? Dunno, but name is OK as whole.

the fact that you have to say "maybe" in that is exactly why people that are not us, are most definitely going to be confused. Someone who looks up a 2200g in performance and has been recommended it for their workload, will not be expecting to get the lower performance of the 2200ge, and will not know there is a difference. If you have ever worked retail, you'd definitely know this.

Aura89:

When they got room for model numbers, i don't understand why they do this. Instead of being: 2400G 2400GE 2200G 2200GE It could have been: 2400G 2300G(or GE) 2200G 2100G(or GE) It'd make more sense from a consumer point of view

Considering how these GE models are barely slower than the non-E counterparts, I think it'd be a little weird to have quad cores in so many performance tiers. Honestly, I don't really understand the point of these GE models anyway. The only thing that's especially different about them are the base clocks. Seeing as these CPUs all overclock to roughly the same amount anyway, I don't see why they couldn't have just made 1 single model with the GE base clocks but the G XFR speeds. XFR only kicks in when it can, so the TDP would technically remain 35W. Come to think of it... it'd be real nice if AMD and Intel would release base clock TDPs and boosted TDPs. Their whole naming scheme is wonky up once you get below 2600, especially if you compare to last year's products and account for this generation's mobile products (the 2700U for example is 4c/8t). Here's how I feel the product lineup should be: 2500(X?) - 6c/6t, no GPU, 3.4GHz base, 4.1GHz XFR. 2500G - 4c/8t, Vega 11, 3.2GHz base, 3.9GHz XFR. 2400(X?) - 4c/8t, no GPU, 3.4Ghz base, 4.1GHz XFR. 2400G - 4c/4t, Vega 8, 3.2GHz base, 3.8GHz XFR. 2300G - 2c/4t, Vega 5, 3.0GHz base, 3.7GHz XFR. Ideal for laptops, HD HTPCs, or passively cooled ITX builds. 2200U - 2c/4t, Vega 5, 2.8GHz base, 3.6GHz XFR. Only used in ultrabooks and tablets. 2100U - 1c/2t, Vega 2, 2.0GHz. Ideal for phones, robots, or IoT devices. So, I don't think a 2300(X), 2200(G or X), or 2100(G or X) should exist.

Aura89:

When they got room for model numbers, i don't understand why they do this. Instead of being: 2400G 2400GE 2200G 2200GE It could have been: 2400G 2300G(or GE) 2200G 2100G(or GE) It'd make more sense from a consumer point of view

not so because AMD Efficient have E at the end since quite a bit now... so it's a 2400G(with graphic) "E" same as intel with "S" ot "T" at the end...

rl66:

not so because AMD Efficient have E at the end since quite a bit now... so it's a 2400G(with graphic) "E" same as intel with "S" ot "T" at the end...

You must not ever work retail either. Again, WE, people who are likely to use these forums, will understand this. WE, are not the 99%.

Aura89:

Again, WE, people who are likely to use these forums, will understand this. WE, are not the 99%.

True, but we are also the vast majority of those who buy these CPUs in the first place. For everyone else who doesn't build a pre-made PC, most of them have no clue what it is they're looking for or what they have. I've known TWO old women with Crossfire-equipped gaming PCs, and all they do is read the news, email, and play solitaire. I knew a guy who wanted to upgrade to an i7 "because it's Intel" even though his old Pentium 4 was only starting to showing signs of struggling. I was given a fully functional laptop with an i5 in it because it didn't run like new anymore; this laptop was replaced by another one with an i3 in it. People don't know what they're looking for and they don't care. They just want something that works. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if the product names are intentionally designed the way they are to confuse people who "kind of care" into buying something more expensive. When some people see the 2200GE, they'll think "wow this is really toward the bottom of the lineup, I'm not sure if this will actually be an upgrade, so I'll get the 2400G" even though the 2400G could be overkill.

My only question is can those be cooled with passive low profile coolers and if yes, how well? Perhaps HH can test that once he gets his hands on those.

FrostNixon:

My only question is can those be cooled with passive low profile coolers and if yes, how well? Perhaps HH can test that once he gets his hands on those.

Possibly after delidding the cpu and replacing the thermal paste with a proper TIM.

FrostNixon:

My only question is can those be cooled with passive low profile coolers and if yes, how well? Perhaps HH can test that once he gets his hands on those.

To my understanding, the 35W is based on base clocks, not XFR speeds, so that's important to take into consideration. If you want to passively cool this in a low-profile enclosure, I wouldn't expect sustained boost clocks, and you'd likely get thermally throttled below base clocks if you tried gaming on it for an extended period. But, it could be worth lowering the stock voltages. Most processors offer a lot more voltage than they really need. This could significantly drop the heat output to the point where you could do hours of gaming without thermal throttling. I still wouldn't expect XFR speeds, though. But I agree, seeing someone test this with a low-profile passive heatsink would be interesting.

schmidtbag:

People don't know what they're looking for and they don't care.

I don't agree with that at all. People don't know what they are looking for because it's too confusing, once you start telling a customer, who comes in, what is better about one PC vs the other PC, etc. And you start explaining to them the differences between models of the CPU, they are fine, up until the same model of CPU, or GPU, or etc. has an added letter, which makes no sense to them since the letter means squat to them, but they do understand that the higher number within the same family of product should be a faster product, that's when they start getting upset with technology, and not wanting to learn anymore. It's not that they DON'T want to understand and learn, it's that product naming are plain and simply stupid, and that frustrates them to not care, ending with "You know what, this this is too complicated, just give me the one you think i should get" This idea that people "don't want to learn" so therefore naming doesn't have to be easy to learn and understand, is exactly the problem. People understand NUMBERS, they do not understand LETTERS, if a product performs LESS then another product, then its NUMBER should be LESS (within the same family). And i don't care if it's 2400 to 2300, or 2400 and 2450. GTX 1060 3GB vs GTX 1060 6GB is a perfect example of why people get pissed off with products in the same numbering not being the same performance. When you explain to a customer looking at two products with those two different models that the extra memory will help with games that use more then 3GB or in higher resolution monitors, they say "Alright, well i only game at 1080p, is that high?" Of which you tell them the 3GB will probably do fine for most games, but 6GB will be a little future proof. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! Now that they understand that information, you then have to tell them, that even if they don't use the additional storage, the 6GB model will perform better overall, because it is a faster model by a decent amount then the 3GB, and that extra speed has nothing to do with the extra storage, but the product itself. Then they get upset, because "Why the hell are there two difference GTX 1060s that perform completely different, aside from the memory? That doesn't make sense, how am i supposed to know that? Thanks for telling me, but this is just too confusing, i'll probably never understand it unless i decide to do extensive research. Which one do you think i should buy?" This would all not happen if: GTX 1060 3GB vs GTX 1065 6GB

Aura89:

People don't know what they are looking for because it's too confusing, once you start telling a customer, who comes in, what is better about one PC vs the other PC, etc. And you start explaining to them the differences between models of the CPU, they are fine, up until the same model of CPU, or GPU, or etc. has an added letter, which makes no sense to them since the letter means squat to them, but they do understand that the higher number within the same family of product should be a faster product, that's when they start getting upset with technology, and not wanting to learn anymore.

You tremendously overestimate the technical knowledge of the average person. The average person doesn't understand what a core is, what SMT/HT is, the purpose of a GPU, the difference between RAM and storage, and so on. They just think "moar GHz iz better" and "oh look, Intel, that's a name I heard of" and that's good enough to them. Many years ago, I've had people wave their finger at me saying "my music won't fit on 8GB!" (when pointing out the RAM specs) or "400W is going to rack up my electric bill!" (when looking at the PSU rating). Meanwhile, more often than not, people have pointed out to me that they have never heard of AMD, even if they were using a computer that had a sticker with those 3 letters. Considering the average person doesn't even know AMD exists, having them know the difference between the 2400G and 2400GE isn't an important issue (besides, the products are barely any different in the first place - such people wouldn't notice the difference).

It's not that they DON'T want to understand and learn, it's that product naming are plain and simply stupid, and that frustrates them to not care, ending with "You know what, this this is too complicated, just give me the one you think i should get"

I agree that they're open to learning, but having them understand what makes computer parts better or different than others is often too much for the average person to actually understand; the product name is the least of their worries. People don't know how many cores they need. They don't know what kind of GPU they need. They don't know how much RAM they need. Even if they have a general idea of what these things do and what their choices are, they still wouldn't make an informed decision, regardless of a more intuitive naming scheme.

People understand NUMBERS, they do not understand LETTERS, if a product performs LESS then another product, then its NUMBER should be LESS. And i don't care if it's 2400 to 2300, or 2400 and 2450.

I don't disagree with this.

Aura89:

People understand NUMBERS, they do not understand LETTERS, if a product performs LESS then another product, then its NUMBER should be LESS (within the same family). And i don't care if it's 2400 to 2300, or 2400 and 2450.

It's for that there is no more number to define a car but letter... On other hand it's very low TDP product, it's niche product and as the famous I7-4770T those GE will kick ass in this exercice (at least if i can get one 🙂 ... it won't be easy) btw: i have already the passive cooler compatible AM4