The graphics are not exactly going to be "gaming grade" on any of these chips. 59% more performance per compute unit sounds great, but they cut the maximum number of compute units down from 11 to 8, countering much of those gains. So compared to their last generation of mobile APUs, it sounds like the graphics performance may only be improving by around 15-20% at the top-end. So, we're still talking about graphics hardware around the performance of a desktop GT 1030. Maybe you'll be able to manage playable performance in the latest demanding games at 720p with low settings, and will probably be able to push 1080p60 in some esports and older titles, but I wouldn't expect much more than that from them. These will mainly be best suited for those who want a 6 or 8-core processor and don't care about gaming, or for gaming laptops where they will be paired with dedicated graphics, allowing them to switch to the integrated when not gaming to save on power.IMO AMD needs to make a 4650U. Same 6/12 config but with the higher powered graphics of the 4800. Make it the ulimate mid range gaming chip.
If you want ultimate midrange gaming, go for fully optimizing it: 4 cores/8 threads is the sweet spot on price/performance RIGHT NOW. If you're going for a $400 "gaming" laptop, you're not future-proofing.IMO AMD needs to make a 4650U. Same 6/12 config but with the higher powered graphics of the 4800. Make it the ulimate mid range gaming chip.
AMD's chiplets for their desktop processors actually have 8 cores each, which is why two of them together allow AMD to go up to 16 cores on the AM4 platform.I wonder if they could squeeze 12 or 16 CUs on a processor since 4 cores would only use up one chiplet?
Err, we've had that for years. The 2400G iGPU is on par with the GT 1030.