News AMD Ryzen 6000 RDNA 2 iGPU Smashes Iris Xe DG1, GeForce MX350 In New Benchmarks

srimasis

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2012
531
6
19,365
149
Encouraging, but rather weak compared to Apple's new M1X. The eventual Mac-mini version would make a fantastic mini game machine - just a pity there won't be any games to run on it.
Unfortunately AMD will never make a chip faster than M1 max because they don't need to. They will keep making the same old 8 core chips for gamers. And people who need a USD 3000+ laptop for productivity would rather go for a desktop with a threadripper than a laptop. Unless they are tied to the MAC os.
 
Reactions: artk2219 and prtskg

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,593
787
3,560
0
So the Intel iGPU and RDNA 2 perform pretty similarly in 2 tests. Intel wins one by 201% and AMD wins the last by 382%? That doesn't look like a very useful benchmark suite. You're not going to see real world gaming benchmark suites showing such wild swings.
 
Reactions: artk2219
Need to fix this statement.

"UserBenchmark isn't known for being a biased benchmark tool. "

That should either saying is known

or being a non biased benchmark tool.
Yes because CPU and GPU is the same thing.
Also they still give you the real CPU numbers right at the beginning so you can judge by yourself if you have any knowledge on the subject, they are just telling you their opinion on what to expect if you are a normal user that isn't heavily into productivity.
 
Reactions: artk2219

ChaosFenix

Commendable
Sep 20, 2019
8
4
1,515
0
The fact that this silicon performed as well as it did in any of these benchmarks is promising for the silicon. Both the MX350 and DG1 are dedicated graphics(albeit low-power) solutions being compared to an iGPU. The iGPU is being heavily throttled here by a single stick of RAM as well since memory bandwidth is shared with the CPU on integrated graphics. As for other caveats you have that the CPU clock may be throttled here and driver optimizations haven't been done. The only thing that may lower performance going forward is really down to power as we don't know if the test system was running at 10W or 65W. If it was on the low end then depending on they system you may see more performance but it this was run on the high end you may see this lower in an actual laptop.

Edit: As the author said we also don't know how many CUs were enabled for the run but if any of them were disabled we also may see more performance in the future.
 
Reactions: artk2219 and prtskg

hotaru251

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2014
780
207
19,440
40
They will keep making the same old 8 core chips for gamers.
until market has use for mroe cores....there IS no reason to push more.

8cores is basically all u need for non workstation/server (and they have those options in TR and epyc)


and lookign at the difference between zen1, zen, and zen3? those are nice improvements. (lot mroe than we've seen from intel's new gen chips up til 12th gen)


AMD will never make a chip faster than M1 max
in single core usage*

Ryzen still wrecks any apple silicon in multithread performance....oh and doesnt carry apple tax nor suffer from not being user serviced.
 
Encouraging, but rather weak compared to Apple's new M1X. The eventual Mac-mini version would make a fantastic mini game machine - just a pity there won't be any games to run on it.
The problem with ARM is game engines depend on x86 and if you would migrate them to arm FPS would be horrible. Games made for arm will be mostly mobile and shared arch, which means they wont be hard to run.
but I guess you could run fortnite mobile with 200fps here. Oh wait, you wont because apple hate epic games.


Ryzen still wrecks any apple silicon in multithread performance....oh and doesnt carry apple tax nor suffer from not being user serviced.
Yes in desktop, no in mobile workstation. With Video works on laptop, windows is the weakpoint of ryzen. If you run on battery, windows throttles so much, you won't get much done there, while apple would happily work.
zen 3d will even out to m1 cores in single threaded, and as zen4 seems to be doubling multithreaded performance, if it includes that 3d cache as well, then amd will leave everyone else in the dust.

Problem for apple is that arm chip is that Apple just used every single option they had. Even if its winning now, they have no growth options anymore, over incremental 20% each stepping each 2 years
 
Last edited:
Reactions: artk2219

renz496

Champion
The problem with ARM is game engines depend on x86 and if you would migrate them to arm FPS would be horrible.
this is a misconception. the FPS would be slow because of RAW performance on ARM CPU not because it was ARM vs x86. if the ARM core are being designed with high performance along side high power requirement in mind it should have no issue matching x86 performance.
 
this is a misconception. the FPS would be slow because of RAW performance on ARM CPU not because it was ARM vs x86. if the ARM core are being designed with high performance along side high power requirement in mind it should have no issue matching x86 performance.
RAW performance is an issue but ARM is also unable to run x86 natively, they have to run it through an emulator, or emulation layer, and that would reduce their FPS in x86 engines below their RAW power... by quite a lot.
 
Encouraging, but rather weak compared to Apple's new M1X. The eventual Mac-mini version would make a fantastic mini game machine - just a pity there won't be any games to run on it.
The Apple computers are not meant for gaming and I really wish people would stop talking about it because it’s not going to happen

The M1 is for the Mac pro which is aimed at professionals who do lots of video and audio work and possibly artwork
 

renz496

Champion
RAW performance is an issue but ARM is also unable to run x86 natively, they have to run it through an emulator, or emulation layer, and that would reduce their FPS in x86 engines below their RAW power... by quite a lot.
the game engine does not need to use emulation to emulate x86 in ARM. first of all intel will not allow thing like this to happen (they already make public statement about this). game that being port to nintendo switch for example that use ARM processor game developer will port the game natively to run on ARM. remember game console in the past are not x86 based. many of them are using IBM PowerPC CPU. in case of PS3 they were using IBM Cell. game developer actually used to develop games on different type of processor. during 7th gen they have Power PC on 360, Cell on PS3 and x86 on PC. and back then majority of game are being with console in mind first. so did the game develop on 7th gen console end up emulating x86? console transitioning to x86 making the port a bit easier but it doesn't mean everything must be done on x86 and everything else have to emulate x86 else they will not work. and if they have to emulate x86 to work then we will never see games being port to nintendo switch happen because intel does not allow x86 ISA to be emulated on other processor.
 
the game engine does not need to use emulation to emulate x86 in ARM. first of all intel will not allow thing like this to happen (they already make public statement about this). game that being port to nintendo switch for example that use ARM processor game developer will port the game natively to run on ARM. remember game console in the past are not x86 based. many of them are using IBM PowerPC CPU. in case of PS3 they were using IBM Cell. game developer actually used to develop games on different type of processor. during 7th gen they have Power PC on 360, Cell on PS3 and x86 on PC. and back then majority of game are being with console in mind first. so did the game develop on 7th gen console end up emulating x86? console transitioning to x86 making the port a bit easier but it doesn't mean everything must be done on x86 and everything else have to emulate x86 else they will not work. and if they have to emulate x86 to work then we will never see games being port to nintendo switch happen because intel does not allow x86 ISA to be emulated on other processor.
rdslw was talking about game engines that do use x86 though.
Sure if devs of the engine rewrite it for arm then it can run natively.
Nobody is coding one game anymore, everybody is using game engines to make any game they want without having to code the main properties of the game each time.

x86 emulation is a thing that already exists MS is doing it in windows for arm.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-x86-emulation
 

renz496

Champion
rdslw was talking about game engines that do use x86 though.
Sure if devs of the engine rewrite it for arm then it can run natively.
Nobody is coding one game anymore, everybody is using game engines to make any game they want without having to code the main properties of the game each time.

x86 emulation is a thing that already exists MS is doing it in windows for arm.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-x86-emulation
we know MS try to do that. but intel already giving their warning if anyone in the industry try to do that they will bring the issue to the court.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2017/06/16/intel-threatens-microsoft-and-qualcomm-over-x86-emulation/?sh=2336f9d54f43

it has been years since then and we did not see much progress on windows ARM device that can run x86 apps via emulation.
 

deesider

Reputable
Jun 15, 2017
226
74
4,690
13
The problem with ARM is game engines depend on x86 and if you would migrate them to arm FPS would be horrible. Games made for arm will be mostly mobile and shared arch, which means they wont be hard to run.
but I guess you could run fortnite mobile with 200fps here. Oh wait, you wont because apple hate epic games.
If Nvidia manages to successfully purchase ARM, there is a chance that the next generation of gaming consoles in 8 years time could be based on an ARM cpu and an Nvidia GPU - a super version of a Switch more or less. It's inevitable that mainstream software development for ARM will only increase, possibly to equivalent status as x86.
 

deesider

Reputable
Jun 15, 2017
226
74
4,690
13
The Apple computers are not meant for gaming and I really wish people would stop talking about it because it’s not going to happen

The M1 is for the Mac pro which is aimed at professionals who do lots of video and audio work and possibly artwork
Yeah we get that - but if only AMD would build an iGPU with the same raw capacity we wouldn't need to talk about it...
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,189
255
19,670
4
Yes because CPU and GPU is the same thing.
Also they still give you the real CPU numbers right at the beginning so you can judge by yourself if you have any knowledge on the subject, they are just telling you their opinion on what to expect if you are a normal user that isn't heavily into productivity.
I guess its good for me that I have enough experience to never use that site :)
 

AlistairAB

Distinguished
May 21, 2014
228
59
18,760
0
If Nvidia manages to successfully purchase ARM, there is a chance that the next generation of gaming consoles in 8 years time could be based on an ARM cpu and an Nvidia GPU - a super version of a Switch more or less. It's inevitable that mainstream software development for ARM will only increase, possibly to equivalent status as x86.
There's nothing wrong with ARM and it is easy to port to. Apple does it in real time on bootup with Rosetta 2 and Microsoft could do the same. Same performance. Gaming is not good on Apple machines because of lack of expandability (cannot add a GPU), high prices, and the GPU side issues (like no DirectX 12, only Metal, no Vulkan).

Apple has no CPU issues for gaming, they have GPU and price issues.
 
Yeah we get that - but if only AMD would build an iGPU with the same raw capacity we wouldn't need to talk about it...
And that's not going to happen because the market for people who want a high performance iGPU is tiny at best. Processors with iGPUs are more suitable for basically the non-gamers because its one less line item for them to worry about. I mean at work, I have a computer with an i7-6700T and nothing else. It serves me fine for what I need it to do. Even the "workhorse" computer they gave me has the Quadro equivalent of a GTX 680, which I ask why because I don't do any intense graphical work. IT could've saved a lot of money by asking for the GTX 650 equivalent in there (though I don't know what sort of dealings they make with the system builder)

There's nothing wrong with ARM and it is easy to port to. Apple does it in real time on bootup with Rosetta 2 and Microsoft could do the same. Same performance. Gaming is not good on Apple machines because of lack of expandability (cannot add a GPU), high prices, and the GPU side issues (like no DirectX 12, only Metal, no Vulkan).

Apple has no CPU issues for gaming, they have GPU and price issues.
Rosetta 2 doesn't "port" applications in real time. It emulates x86. And there is a performance hit for using it (https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/15/m1-chip-emulating-x86-benchmark/)
 

deesider

Reputable
Jun 15, 2017
226
74
4,690
13
And that's not going to happen because the market for people who want a high performance iGPU is tiny at best. Processors with iGPUs are more suitable for basically the non-gamers because its one less line item for them to worry about. I mean at work, I have a computer with an i7-6700T and nothing else. It serves me fine for what I need it to do. Even the "workhorse" computer they gave me has the Quadro equivalent of a GTX 680, which I ask why because I don't do any intense graphical work. IT could've saved a lot of money by asking for the GTX 650 equivalent in there (though I don't know what sort of dealings they make with the system builder)
From a desktop perspective I totally agree, but when considering laptops (which nowadays greatly outsell desktops) it seems that AMD is missing out on a lot of sales.

The majority of discreet GPUs in laptops over the last 10 years seem to be the MX250/MX350 type which are powerful enough but not too draining on the battery - and practically all Nvidia. Sales of these must be in the tens of millions at least, so certainly a decent market that could be taken over by a decent iGPU that would provide much better battery life.

The NUC style PC that uses a laptop CPU is also becoming more popular - I'm considering getting a Asus PN51 as a media / 2nd PC because it's so nifty and powerful. With a better GPU though it would be a console replacement (albeit an expensive one).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS