• Happy holidays, folks! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Tom's Hardware community!

Review Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G Review: Renoir Ushers in a New Era for 7nm Desktop APUs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Gurg said:
Curious as to which discrete GPU the iGPU is the equivalent.
Click to expand...
It's a bit weird, because the memory bandwidth is lower but all system RAM can be treated as shared VRAM, so you can sometimes run higher settings with less performance problems on in integrated Vega 8 GPU than on a dedicated GPU. But in general, Vega 8 for Renoir is roughly equal to an RX 560, which is basically equal to a GTX 1050.

In a lot of cases, the 1050 is still 25% faster, though. For example, Far Cry 5 1080p normal settings, I got 43 fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1080p Medium I got 39 fps, and Strange Brigade 1080p medium I got 72 fps. That means the GTX 1050 beat the integrated 4750G's Vega 8 Graphics, even when the latter was overclocked. And the GTX 1050 is a pretty slow GPU by today's standards -- the GTX 1650 Super is over twice as fast as the GTX 1050.
 
JarredWaltonGPU said:
It's a bit weird, because the memory bandwidth is lower but all system RAM can be treated as shared VRAM, so you can sometimes run higher settings with less performance problems on in integrated Vega 8 GPU than on a dedicated GPU. But in general, Vega 8 for Renoir is roughly equal to an RX 560, which is basically equal to a GTX 1050.

In a lot of cases, the 1050 is still 25% faster, though. For example, Far Cry 5 1080p normal settings, I got 43 fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1080p Medium I got 39 fps, and Strange Brigade 1080p medium I got 72 fps. That means the GTX 1050 beat the integrated 4750G's Vega 8 Graphics, even when the latter was overclocked. And the GTX 1050 is a pretty slow GPU by today's standards -- the GTX 1650 Super is over twice as fast as the GTX 1050.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. It seems like a CPU/iGPU for a $1,000 laptop without a discrete GPU.
 
4000 Series APUs: Look at me... I'm the GPU now.
 
nofanneeded said:
At least intel offers 16 lanes with their CPU . This chips only offers 8 lanes Gen3 .. useless.
Click to expand...

I would say 'limiting' rather than useless. Especially seeing as these APUs are intended for an OEM market that in all likelihood won't be pairing them with anything more than a mid-range GPU (that's what the Ryzen 3000 series is for).

Who's to say that more lanes won't be exposed if/when AMD release these for the DIY user base?

Of course, this is just pure speculation from me. Already got my 3600 so I'm all set either way 👍

Edit: So there actually are 16 lanes (which I missed in the review) so above posts turn out to be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Looks awesome for a lot of working scenarios, including medium to high end SFF business PC.

Way better than the last A8 and A10 that the goverment area where I work bought last time (few years ago).
I would love to have a PC with this chips instead of those old APUs.

This will make a great upgrade for many departments (APP development, CAD, Stata, etc.) that need a lot of CPU horse power for a decent price.

Problem with intel business SFF PC is that they are always more expensive and we, as the goverment of a really poor country, never have a huge budget to work with.
 
"The eight-core 16-thread Ryzen 3 3300X comes with the same number of cores and threads as the 4750G, but its healthier dollop of 16MB of L3 cache outweighs the 4750G's 8MB, and that pays off when gaming with a discrete graphics card."

Not sure if you guys realize (judging by this statement im guessing not), but the 3300x is not 8/16... It's a 4/8 part. Also, your count down to create an account is broken, it counts down "1 second" every 10 actual seconds, so I had to sit and wait 100 seconds, not the end of the world, but you guys seem.to have some issues with #'s. I've actually been intermittently reading Tom's for 15ish years, never felt the need to comment, but this is a blatant error by anyone who had a clue. Not just the # is wrong, but then to state the same # of cores and threads means they really have no clue and didn't just make a typing error.
 
ready4droid said:
"The eight-core 16-thread Ryzen 3 3300X comes with the same number of cores and threads as the 4750G, but its healthier dollop of 16MB of L3 cache outweighs the 4750G's 8MB, and that pays off when gaming with a discrete graphics card."

Not sure if you guys realize (judging by this statement im guessing not), but the 3300x is not 8/16... It's a 4/8 part. Also, your count down to create an account is broken, it counts down "1 second" every 10 actual seconds, so I had to sit and wait 100 seconds, not the end of the world, but you guys seem.to have some issues with #'s. I've actually been intermittently reading Tom's for 15ish years, never felt the need to comment, but this is a blatant error by anyone who had a clue. Not just the # is wrong, but then to state the same # of cores and threads means they really have no clue and didn't just make a typing error.
Click to expand...
It's an error, but the context is all there. Trust me: it's super easy to make minor writing errors in the midst of a 5000 word or whatever article. You write "eight-core, 16-thread" many places, and then even though you know the 3300X is half that, your fingers just type out the same old thing. The whole point of that paragraph is that half the L3 cache does make a difference, to the point where the very inexpensive Ryzen 3 3300X actually beats some of the higher core/thread count Ryzen chips in gaming performance. Not in all games, but in some games at least the single unified L3 with a single CCX cuts latency and helps performance.

Anyway, we've corrected the error. Thanks for pointing it out, and I've flogged Paul for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulAlcorn
JarredWaltonGPU said:
It's an error, but the context is all there. Trust me: it's super easy to make minor writing errors in the midst of a 5000 word or whatever article. You write "eight-core, 16-thread" many places, and then even though you know the 3300X is half that, your fingers just type out the same old thing. The whole point of that paragraph is that half the L3 cache does make a difference, to the point where the very inexpensive Ryzen 3 3300X actually beats some of the higher core/thread count Ryzen chips in gaming performance. Not in all games, but in some games at least the single unified L3 with a single CCX cuts latency and helps performance.

Anyway, we've corrected the error. Thanks for pointing it out, and I've flogged Paul for you.
Click to expand...
As long as you flogged him, lol. Thanks for fixing, it was a good review overall 😉.
 
People rarely read the review they just check on bars and the diagrams ...

"The Renoir desktop APUs support a PCIe 3.0 x16 connection to the PEG slot"
 
Crashed System said:
People rarely read the review they just check on bars and the diagrams ...

"The Renoir desktop APUs support a PCIe 3.0 x16 connection to the PEG slot"
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't read it fully myself, I didn't even look at all graphs as this isn't something I'm to interested in, but figured Id give it a quick look.
 
mdd1963 said:
I expected /hoped for a bit more than bumping FPS in games up only 10-15% compared to the 3400G.... (Apparently I will not be happy until they can match GTX1060-level of performance into the APU)
Click to expand...
and with you be better off pairing a R5 3600 ($158) and GTX 1650 Super ($159) and you have a performance faster than both the APU and the GTX 1060.
 
JarredWaltonGPU said:
It's a bit weird, because the memory bandwidth is lower but all system RAM can be treated as shared VRAM, so you can sometimes run higher settings with less performance problems on in integrated Vega 8 GPU than on a dedicated GPU. But in general, Vega 8 for Renoir is roughly equal to an RX 560, which is basically equal to a GTX 1050.

In a lot of cases, the 1050 is still 25% faster, though. For example, Far Cry 5 1080p normal settings, I got 43 fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1080p Medium I got 39 fps, and Strange Brigade 1080p medium I got 72 fps. That means the GTX 1050 beat the integrated 4750G's Vega 8 Graphics, even when the latter was overclocked. And the GTX 1050 is a pretty slow GPU by today's standards -- the GTX 1650 Super is over twice as fast as the GTX 1050.
Click to expand...
It is true that the GTX 1050 is still faster. After all, its got dedicated power and resources as compared to the Vega 8 here. In my opinion, despite the lower CU count on the Vega 8 vs 11, the results are still very impressive for an iGPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msroadkill612
Sooo it seems that huge cache on Matisse parts is hiding a lot of latency, which now is obvious on these Renoir parts. Damn, they are basically rock bottom for gaming. Too bad.
 
Admin said:
We put AMD's 'OEM-only' Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G through the wringer to see how it performs in gaming and applications.

Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G Review: Renoir Ushers in a New Era for 7nm Desktop APUs : Read more
Click to expand...

"You can find the 3300X for around $120, which makes it impossible to recommend the $309 4750G for gaming with a discrete graphics card. "

"Intel still holds its gaming performance crown, albeit by a small margin when compared to the Ryzen 3000 models, in this price bracket.

In terms of average frame rates across the breadth of our test suite, the Core i7-10700F is 18.18% faster than the 4650G. The delta shrinks to 12% after tuning the Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G, but it's still significantly slower than the 10700.

The less-expensive $263 Core i5-10600K is the go-to chip for gamers chasing the highest frame rates possible on a budget"

WHAT?

You state that the $120 3300x is the proper 3000 compare for the dgpu gaming scenario, & then proceed to compare the inferior perf & more expensive APU, to a $263 Intel.

Even this rigged compare isnt much of a win - in fact its a clear win for amd 3300x at $240 less ( w/ a budget for a $240 dearer GPU)..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom