Seems like a great APU. I really look forward to business laptops (Dell XPS 13 for example) with one of those. I think intel 4c/8t versions have to go.

6.4GB of DDR3? That looks pretty strange and suspicious.

I hate AMD APU naming. Just make it Ryzen 9000 series already

Kaarme:

6.4GB of DDR3? That looks pretty strange and suspicious.

Not quite so. Normally an APU would reserve 2 GB of RAM from the total amount. So, maybe a glitch for a 8 GB system rendered that result. But I may be wrong.

sverek:

I hate AMD APU naming. Just make it Ryzen 9000 series already

It really annoys me how Ryzen gens got out of sync with CPU names so quickly: Ryzen 1 => 1700X Ryzen + => 2700X Ryzen 2 => 3700X

buhehe:

It really annoys me how Ryzen gens got out of sync with CPU names so quickly: Ryzen 1 => 1700X Ryzen + => 2700X Ryzen 2 => 3700X

They should have just named ryzen+ zen 2 and be done with that.

buhehe:

It really annoys me how Ryzen gens got out of sync with CPU names so quickly: Ryzen 1 => 1700X Ryzen + => 2700X Ryzen 2 => 3700X

Bothers me to think why didn't they do with 1750X for Zen+, maybe to avoid stupid people mixing the two.

FrostNixon:

They should have just named ryzen+ zen 2 and be done with that.

I wasn't a new arch, so it had no business being Zen 2. People would be mad there were small gains if they did that and everyone would shout AMD would never beat intel.

buhehe:

It really annoys me how Ryzen gens got out of sync with CPU names so quickly: Ryzen 1 => 1700X Ryzen + => 2700X Ryzen 2 => 3700X

Zen 1 => 1XXXX / 2X00G Zen + => 2x00X / 3XX0G Zen 2 => 3x00X / 4XXXG Zen 3 => 4XXXX / 5XXXG From Zen 1 being 1xxxX (which is logic), we got to Zen3 being 5xxxG. Very derrutant even for classic users, they will think that 4000G series is as good as Zen2 4000X series 🙁 AyyMD

Still waiting for APU's to hit above 1000 shaders with a 2GHz GPU clockspeed...... Bring it AMD...

Amd graphics group reduced to an apu. Intel and amd will fight who have shitiest igpu while nvidia is making titans.

D1stRU3T0R:

Zen 1 => 1XXXX / 2X00G Zen + => 2x00X / 3XX0G Zen 2 => 3x00X / 4XXXG Zen 3 => 4XXXX / 5XXXG From Zen 1 being 1xxxX (which is logic), we got to Zen3 being 5xxxG. Very derrutant even for classic users, they will think that 4000G series is as good as Zen2 4000X series 🙁 AyyMD

I think this has been covered and explained many times. for people that do not care to look at product numbers and technology behind it, the zen 2 4xxxG is probably as good as zen 3 4xxxX, 15% difference or what it will be for the average user may means nothing. While not having to buy a videocard to run your PC may mean something.

asturur:

I think this has been covered and explained many times. for people that do not care to look at product numbers and technology behind it, the zen 2 4xxxG is probably as good as zen 3 4xxxX, 15% difference or what it will be for the average user may means nothing. While not having to buy a videocard to run your PC may mean something.

?

sverek:

I hate AMD APU naming. Just make it Ryzen 9000 series already

9001 at a minimum......

anticupidon:

Not quite so. Normally an APU would reserve 2 GB of RAM from the total amount. So, maybe a glitch for a 8 GB system rendered that result. But I may be wrong.

That would explain the amount, yes, but what is DDR3, three, doing there? Even the first Ryzen was already a DDR4 CPU.

Kaarme:

That would explain the amount, yes, but what is DDR3, three, doing there? Even the first Ryzen was already a DDR4 CPU.

Yeah something is up. I'm dismissing this as fake.

It says DDR3 but the memory throughput is around 22Gbps for which u need a freq of more or less 2800Mhz, was ddr3 even capable of that? I agree with the silly naming for apus... otoh regular customers don't really know the "zen" part so there's only 1 number to look at for them.

cryohellinc:

Seems like a great APU. I really look forward to business laptops (Dell XPS 13 for example) with one of those. I think intel 4c/8t versions have to go.

Why? 4c/8t is plenty good enough for the average business use. Adding more cores would just make it more power hungry with little to no day-to-day improvement.

Silva:

Bothers me to think why didn't they do with 1750X for Zen+, maybe to avoid stupid people mixing the two. I wasn't a new arch, so it had no business being Zen 2. People would be mad there were small gains if they did that and everyone would shout AMD would never beat intel.

I would argue Zen+ was improved enough to be considered a 2nd-gen product. There was more of an architectural improvement going from Zen to Zen+ than Intel has had going from Skylake to Comet Lake, if you ignore AVX 512 anyway (which I don't think Comet Lake even has). Zen2 was a major improvement though, and it sounds like Zen3 is too.

schmidtbag:

Why? 4c/8t is plenty good enough for the average business use. Adding more cores would just make it more power hungry with little to no day-to-day improvement.

Sure, however, in my case I'd love a tiny bit more performance in that size format. 8c/8t would be great already - 8c/16t would be ideal. Point is Zen is consuming less power, so theoretically, 8c/8t should be on par with Intels 4c/8t (correct me if I'm wrong there). Or perhaps some hybrid mode where on battery it turns off parts of the CPU.

TieSKey:

It says DDR3 but the memory throughput is around 22Gbps for which u need a freq of more or less 2800Mhz, was ddr3 even capable of that? I agree with the silly naming for apus... otoh regular customers don't really know the "zen" part so there's only 1 number to look at for them.

DDR3 record was 4620(cl14), and yes, 2800MHz could be achivable very easly on latest RAM modules

cryohellinc:

Sure, however, in my case I'd love a tiny bit more performance in that size format. 8c/8t would be great already - 8c/16t would be ideal. Point is Zen is consuming less power, so theoretically, 8c/8t should be on par with Intels 4c/8t (correct me if I'm wrong there). Or perhaps some hybrid mode where on battery it turns off parts of the CPU.

When it comes to mobile on x86, logical threads are a better option than physical cores, since they consume less power (this is especially true for Intel's method of SMT since that uses less silicon). They might not offer the total performance of a full core, but on a laptop, performance-per-watt is more important. A Zen2 core is definitely more efficient than one of Intel's, but it's not that much more efficient. Intel's cores are actually still pretty efficient, they just bludgeon that efficiency by giving all of their chips absurdly high clock speeds in order to stay competitive, which ironically in a laptop, puts them far behind. Anyway, for me personally, if i'm going to use a laptop, I care about portability over processing power, and that means having battery life that I don't have to worry about. Battery technology is barely improving. Although it's great that we can even put 8c/16t in a normal-sized laptop with a normal battery life, I'd rather have the same amount of processing power that has always kept up with my workload but at a lower wattage. Today, I have an ARM-based laptop because that's powerful enough to handle everything I need it to while being efficient enough to last almost the entire day on a single charge, and, doesn't need active cooling.