Just scream hard enough at them in the comments and maybe they'll make a video on that. Clearly it works.
Have you tried triple or quad rank? I'd be interested in how that performs compared to regular dual rank. You may not be able to get much more then 3000MHz'ish out of it, but it should perform very well in practice. Nobody ever seems to test that.ill post results probably tomorrow. One thing i can say for sure is that Hardware Unboxed was spot on with the memory, dual rank is the way to go, everything that is 3200 or faster will perform too close to each other, not worth the money. Dual rank, or use 4 single rank sticks. I only had one dual rank 3200 kit, and for a short while today, after that i started using 2, 2x8 DDR4-3600 kits, that was the faster combination, faster than DDR4-4000 single rank. Oh, DDR4-4000 is the max you can use, after that it goes async and performance drops.
The thing is i dont have two fast 16GB sticks to test unfortunately, i cant just go and take wharever ram i want. So i only had 8GB sticks and they are all single rank these days, unless someone have a old kit laying around with 2R 8GB sticks, this is going to be the case for everyone running Cezanne, so, going 4 ranks means going to 32GB.Have you tried triple or quad rank? I'd be interested in how that performs compared to regular dual rank. You may not be able to get much more then 3000MHz'ish out of it, but it should perform very well in practice. Nobody ever seems to test that.
AMD CPU/APUs have always loved dual rank memory. So I'm not surprised it performs well on Cezanne. I'm running triple rank (16+8GB on each channel) on my 3600 at 3066MHz, it's a nice compromise between speed and the number of ranks.
The market doesn't really care about desktop APU performance. If you want graphics power, you put in a GPU.This really does support Shivas' point that Vega on Renoir/Cezanne was shrunk too much. It might be barely sufficient on mobile, with the usually more constrained ram configurations, but it's not doing the desktop APUs any favors at all. I hope that the next generation of APUs on mobile get far more generous configurations. Having significantly more bandwidth and interleaving of transfers on DDR5 should justify at least 8 CUs of RDNA2 (16 Vega equivalents).
Well . . . some downmarket consumers do. They don't bring as much cash to the table, so under the present circumstances where dice need to be sold at a premium, their needs will not be met first (or perhaps at all).The market doesn't really care about desktop APU performance. If you want graphics power, you put in a GPU.
What are you on about again?Looks like Computerbase reached to the same opinion as i, DDR4-4000(the max you can use) is faster, but not worth it with these IGPs. The same with the OC potential, its there, but it does very little...
But it is definatelly worth it to use faster than DDR4-3200(DDR4-3466 or 3600 is what i would recomend) AND OC at the same time, it is not a big jump but having both it helps a lot to keep some games over 30.
As for the other thing, lets not start that again, Computerbase is right to point out these APU are around 30% below the RX 460, just think about what could have been. Now AMD is going big again with RMB, no point in arguing this.
I feel like if they really want to commit to this path - gaming caliber APUs - we will know it when we see 32MB of IC on the package somehow.What are you on about again?
All I see is strong evidence that dual channel DDR4 is a roadblock to iGPU performance gains, barring an infinity cache solution.
Having used an RX460 at 1080p I can tell you that's not a very satisfying bar to clear, especially heading in 2022. Let alone heading into, what 2023, when we actually see N5 APUs?With stacking, that's not impossible. That being said, the improvement in ram efficiency in RDNA, combined with the higher bandwidth and greater utilization of it in DDR5, should make even a modestly expanded iGPU achieve similar performance to an RX560. At 1080p, that's not bad, and it won't even require an infinity cache setup.
One thing that is absolutely holding back the APUs is the L3 size. Doubling it again should make a big difference all-around, and with N5, that's not impossible.
Is it worth compromising the design of a laptop part to suit that tiny, low profit niche? I suspect not.Well . . . some downmarket consumers do. They don't bring as much cash to the table, so under the present circumstances where dice need to be sold at a premium, their needs will not be met first (or perhaps at all).
Low profit, probably, tiny niche, not really. The world is a much bigger place than the US or Europe and silicon shortages won't last forever.Is it worth compromising the design of a laptop part to suit that tiny, low profit niche? I suspect not.
How do you explain that the 5700G is faster than the 5600G in IGP then? Check Computerbase numbers, they used 2x8 DDR4-3200 what is the worst possible option for bandwidth, and the 5700G is still ahead. It does not means you are not going to gain FPS with faster ram or dual rank sticks, you do, but it is not as much as you may think, the 5700G has a lead, small, but still a lead, specially considering it should also gain more from faster ram.What are you on about again?
All I see is strong evidence that dual channel DDR4 is a roadblock to iGPU performance gains, barring an infinity cache solution.
Tiny disproportionate gains really is grasping at straws. The RX 560 is about 50-75% faster than this APU. Do you really see that performance easily achievable with DDR4? For any meaningful increase in APU graphics performance, there has to be a way to significantly increase effective memory access, either through increased raw memory bandwidth ( high speed DDR5, Quad channel memory) or through caching mechanisms, such as the recently introduced infinity cache ( probably best choice).How do you explain that the 5700G is faster than the 5600G in IGP then? Check Computerbase numbers, they used 2x8 DDR4-3200 what is the worst possible option for bandwidth, and the 5700G is still ahead. It does not means you are not going to gain FPS with faster ram or dual rank sticks, you do, but it is not as much as you may think, the 5700G has a lead, small, but still a lead, specially considering it should also gain more from faster ram.
I only said RX 460, but look at this, im going to put all data on a graph later, but this does not looks like ONLY memory bound to me:Tiny disproportionate gains really is grasping at straws. The RX 560 is about 50-75% faster than this APU. Do you really see that performance easily achievable with DDR4? For any meaningful increase in APU graphics performance, there has to be a way to significantly increase effective memory access, either through increased raw memory bandwidth ( high speed DDR5, Quad channel memory) or through caching mechanisms, such as the recently introduced infinity cache ( probably best choice).
Expecting large gains by doing more of the same is wishful thinking in my opinion.
Is it worth compromising the design of a laptop part to suit that tiny, low profit niche? I suspect not.
I'm inclined to agree with @maddie . Eventually AMD will find themselves with access to N7/N6 wafers and a shrinking family of products that need it. That day is not today, though.Low profit, probably, tiny niche, not really. The world is a much bigger place than the US or Europe and silicon shortages won't last forever.
5700G die is 180 mm2, not sure what need to be shrinked since they can get something like 320 functional dies out of a waffer, dunno the exact waffer cost but seems that it got below 8000$ when Vermeer was released.I'm inclined to agree with @maddie . Eventually AMD will find themselves with access to N7/N6 wafers and a shrinking family of products that need it. That day is not today, though.