In the slide below, you can see an annotated die shot of the Renoir APU - I.e. the 4000 series:Thank You for the very detailed response. My understanding is that a CU is composed of shaders, TMUs and ROPs. I'm still not sure what to make of these responses. I don't know if your trying to say that die space is limited so much so that AMD cannot actually increase the number of CUs on the 5000 series of chips. Or if your saying that they could produce an APU with 16 CUs but it would not help because...... 16 x 64 SPs is 1024 shaders.
The question is if AMD would sell enough of them to justify the new large die that would be needed. For sever with CDNA cores maybe, but consumer ?"65 W TDP"
A bit sad that they always target low end market.
I'd love to see a AMD APU at 150-200 W. That would actually challenge discrete GPUs.
Hate to repeat the same, but stop trashing a company with lies.It is 2021 and there is hardly anything with 4xxx series desktop APUs. I believe this APU will also be vaporware. It's a shame why isn't AMD using its prowess in the integrated graphics sphere for Desktops.
Yes, but you can already see that going from 8 CUs on 2200G to 11 CUs on 2400G gives virtually no benefit. This is because there's a massive bottleneck in the form of RAM bandwidth.Right. But I'm not talking about doubling the CUs on a 2200G. I'm talking about AMD doubling them up on an 5700 APU. They already give you 11 CUs on an Ryzen 2400G. Going up to 16 CUs on Zen 3 they should most certainly offer performance gains. But if you can go into a bit more details about why you think this would offer no performance improvements I'm all for learning something new. The max supported memory speed on the 2200G is 2933MHz. The 3000 series went up to a max of 3200MHz. I'm guessing the 5000 series would see a memory speed bump as well.
Actually, I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to research that a bit. It raises the question in my head of why then would AMD even offer the product and charge a premium. There has to be some value in it for the price premium.Yes, but you can already see that going from 8 CUs on 2200G to 11 CUs on 2400G gives virtually no benefit. This is because there's a massive bottleneck in the form of RAM bandwidth.
If your query pertains to why AMD charges notably more for the 2400G, compared to the 2200G, it's worth noting that the former has SMT (simultaneous multithreading) and clocks of 3.6/3.9 GHz, whereas the latter has no SMT and clocks of 3.5/3.7 GHz. Add in the bigger GPU and there are the reasons for the price difference.Actually, I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to research that a bit. It raises the question in my head of why then would AMD even offer the product and charge a premium. There has to be some value in it for the price premium.