AMD Ryzen 7 8700G tested with overclocked DDR5 memory

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,013   +301
Staff
Bottom line: Overclockers have begun experimenting with the recently released Ryzen 7 8700G processor. Early tests indicate that AMD's APU, with its powerful integrated graphics, can leverage fast DDR5 to achieve improved results in memory-intensive applications, such as AI.

The Ryzen 7 8700G is AMD's latest Zen 4 processor, featuring an integrated Radeon 700M GPU. The chip has demonstrated significant graphics capabilities in (Full HD) gaming applications, showcasing improved performance levels when coupled with faster DDR5 memory chips. Recent overclocking endeavors affirm the APU's potential to deliver enhanced results by pushing memory frequencies beyond the conventional safe zone.

A user on the Overclock.net forums, known as "safedisk," recently shared the outcomes of their overclocking attempts. Safedisk paired their Ryzen 7 8700G APU sample with a pair of 16 GB memory modules from G.Skill, overclocking the DDR5-7800 C36 modules by 15 percent (DDR5-9000). Timings were also improved (36-51-49-55), and the DRAM voltage was elevated to 1.65V - higher than most would be comfortable operating at 24/7.

The overclocker successfully maintained the FCLK frequency at 2,500 MHz, encountering no errors and achieving "very nice results" during benchmarks. Safedisk assessed their extreme setup with AIDA64's integrated memory benchmark, achieving 79 GB/s, 126 GB/s, and 105 GB/s in read, write, and copy performance, respectively, with a latency of 52.2 ns.

Worth noting is the fact that the Ryzen 8000G APU series is only officially compatible with DDR5-5200 memory kits. Safedisk's overclocking achievements, then, are quite impressive and no doubt necessitate a high-quality APU sample. Unfortunately, no details were provided regarding real-world benchmarks or use cases.

It is well established that larger and faster memory buffers can significantly enhance performance in AI and machine learning algorithms. An X user recently conducted tests to assess the scalability of Ryzen 7 8700G performance when paired with higher system RAM frequencies. The results revealed a 15 percent boost in the APU's integrated GPU performance in UL's Procyon AI Inference Benchmark and a four percent improvement in GIMP with Stable Diffusion, specifically when using MSI overclocking profiles (DDR5-7600 C38).

The Procyon benchmark incorporates six neural network models: MobileNet V3, Inception V4, YOLO V3, DeepLab V3, Real-ESRGAN, and ResNet 50. Additionally, GIMP was tested with the Stable Diffusion plug-in to evaluate the program's speed in generating new AI images.

Currently available for $329, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G APU's overclocking results may naturally vary based on different user configurations.

Permalink to story.

 
Not worth it at this time. 8000mhz memory costs like a decent CPU.
Paying almost x3 times for a set of ram is not practical.
For fastest ryzen 8000 cpu maybe, but nobody is going to buy a middle end cpu and then spend as much or more
on fast ram.
 
I'm really disappointed by the 8700g and essentially every other APU in the lineup. They cost too much and they're too slow. People who are looking at making a budget gaming PC with an APU are looking to possibly delay buying a GPU. No APU needs 8 cores. The fact that the most expensive APU is slower than a 6500XT and ever other one isn't even capable of gaming is just wrong.

And, just wondering, why did they have to cut 8PCIe lanes when making a monolithic die? If it was chiplets, I'd understand, but it's not. Noone with any sense is going to want an 8core CPU that can't run a top teir GPU with only 8 PCIe lanes.

Who are the 8000 series APUs made for? Make a 6 core APU with 16CUs. The idea that the $330 model is the only one remotely capable of gaming while sacrificing features is just a wasted opportunity.

AMD has been losing all the good faith they bought withzen1,2 and 3. The 7000 series as a platform, not just a CPU, is more expensive than it needs to be and then they come out with this nonsense.

I was really looking forward to this as a product but, and correct me if I'm wrong, nothing about the 8000 series APUs make them worth buying over anything with basic integrated graphics. You're better off buying a 5600 and 6500xt,
 
I'm really disappointed by the 8700g and essentially every other APU in the lineup. They cost too much and they're too slow. People who are looking at making a budget gaming PC with an APU are looking to possibly delay buying a GPU. No APU needs 8 cores. The fact that the most expensive APU is slower than a 6500XT and ever other one isn't even capable of gaming is just wrong.

And, just wondering, why did they have to cut 8PCIe lanes when making a monolithic die? If it was chiplets, I'd understand, but it's not. Noone with any sense is going to want an 8core CPU that can't run a top teir GPU with only 8 PCIe lanes.

Who are the 8000 series APUs made for? Make a 6 core APU with 16CUs. The idea that the $330 model is the only one remotely capable of gaming while sacrificing features is just a wasted opportunity.

AMD has been losing all the good faith they bought withzen1,2 and 3. The 7000 series as a platform, not just a CPU, is more expensive than it needs to be and then they come out with this nonsense.

I was really looking forward to this as a product but, and correct me if I'm wrong, nothing about the 8000 series APUs make them worth buying over anything with basic integrated graphics. You're better off buying a 5600 and 6500xt,
The PCIe thing is a real kick in the nuts. Imagine buying an 8 core APU, and 2 years later going to give it a big dGPU only to find out the whole thing is hamstrung by PCIe lane count. oops.

Intel's $48 celerons have 20 lanes for consumer use. There is 0 reason the APUs should be this cut down,e except they are straight up mobile rebrands of the 7800 line, just like the 6400 was a mobile GPU put on a card.

For small PC builds a low profile 4060 will obliterate this thing, and so would a 6g 3050 which doesnt need external power.
 
I used to think that making a gaming PC with an APU would be cheap, but it seems that thought wasn't quite right..
The AM5 platform in general is very expensive. The trend for all hardware is to be more expensive from now on, development and manufacturing costs are exploding with the complexity of each new process. No one has yet found a way to remedy this: https://semiengineering.com/what-will-that-chip-cost/

Maybe in a year's time, the 8600G will become a little cheaper as well as DDR5 and become a good option for a cheap PC for E-sports and some old or light games like the 5600G was.

Right now these APUs only make sense for building super-compact PCs.
 
The AM5 platform in general is very expensive. The trend for all hardware is to be more expensive from now on, development and manufacturing costs are exploding with the complexity of each new process. No one has yet found a way to remedy this: https://semiengineering.com/what-will-that-chip-cost/

Maybe in a year's time, the 8600G will become a little cheaper as well as DDR5 and become a good option for a cheap PC for E-sports and some old or light games like the 5600G was.

Right now these APUs only make sense for building super-compact PCs.
They could have made it for a fraction of the cost but they went with a monithic die instead of a chiplet design because....? It just doesn't make sense as a product
 
They could have made it for a fraction of the cost but they went with a monithic die instead of a chiplet design because....? It just doesn't make sense as a product
It wouldn't be a fraction of the cost. The economy of the chiplet is due to the fact that AMD develops just one chip that scales to all markets, from consumer to server and is the same CCD, this saves hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps billions in the process. Being able to mix old and new processes also helps a lot in this regard.

But the modular design is not suitable for efficiency-oriented products, as there are energy losses in communication between chips. APUs are monolithic because the main market is notebooks and more recently handhelds. As I said, these APUs will serve a specific niche.
 
It wouldn't be a fraction of the cost. The economy of the chiplet is due to the fact that AMD develops just one chip that scales to all markets, from consumer to server and is the same CCD, this saves hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps billions in the process. Being able to mix old and new processes also helps a lot in this regard.

But the modular design is not suitable for efficiency-oriented products, as there are energy losses in communication between chips. APUs are monolithic because the main market is notebooks and more recently handhelds. As I said, these APUs will serve a specific niche.
There isn't a market for AMD laptops. the 8700g is a desktop part, there is no arguing that point. and that niche, which im part of, has completely been failed to be served by said product. It sucks as a product. I've been an AMD user since the k6 days with my only deviation being a 3770k. I have waited over a year for the 8700g only to have this trash thrown at me? The bean counters at AMD can pound the salt they expect to be paid for this trash because I don't see anyone using really money to buy this
 
There isn't a market for AMD laptops. the 8700g is a desktop part, there is no arguing that point. and that niche, which im part of, has completely been failed to be served by said product. It sucks as a product. I've been an AMD user since the k6 days with my only deviation being a 3770k. I have waited over a year for the 8700g only to have this trash thrown at me? The bean counters at AMD can pound the salt they expect to be paid for this trash because I don't see anyone using really money to buy this
Where did you get that from? In fact, it is one of the markets that AMD has advanced the most, and which continues to grow while the PC market contracts. There isn't a single person I know who doesn't prefer AMD laptops over inefficient Intel ones.

These chips have been on the market for a long time, the performance and specs were no secret to anyone. Did you expect that changing the name would magically make a relevant difference?
 
Where did you get that from? In fact, it is one of the markets that AMD has advanced the most, and which continues to grow while the PC market contracts. There isn't a single person I know who doesn't prefer AMD laptops over inefficient Intel ones.

These chips have been on the market for a long time, the performance and specs were no secret to anyone. Did you expect that changing the name would magically make a relevant difference?
I was talking about GPUs
 
Who are the 8000 series APUs made for? Make a 6 core APU with 16CUs. The idea that the $330 model is the only one remotely capable of gaming while sacrificing features is just a wasted opportunity.

16CU will not make big difference over 12CU when you still have DDR5 memory. We already see poor scalling gong from 8600G (has 8CU) to 8700G (12CU)

I think 12CU and some big GPU cache (infinity cache at 32MB or 64MB) should probably make more difference in performance, but it also cost more to produce.
 
16CU will not make big difference over 12CU when you still have DDR5 memory. We already see poor scalling gong from 8600G (has 8CU) to 8700G (12CU)

I think 12CU and some big GPU cache (infinity cache at 32MB or 64MB) should probably make more difference in performance, but it also cost more to produce.
Well it has a major design flaw slowing it down that noone is really talking about. This is a monolithic die design, the CUs are connected to the IO die over the PCIe bus even though it is in the die. AMD didnt even need to use the infinity fabric to connect the CUs to the IO die(although that still would have been faster), it's literally on the silicon chip right next to it. The data from the CUs has to exit the APU over the PCIe bus and then return to the CPU over the PCIe, this is also the reason why APUs are missing 8 PCIe lanes. Memory is certainly an issue but some nice DDR5 could be as effective as graphics memory on a mid ranged 10 or 20 series graphics card. as it stands, it's not the DDR5 holding the CUs back. What's holding the CUs back is the several extra steps they're making them take. It's kind of like how a ferrari is faster than a dirt bike but it doesn't matter if you're driving on a dirt road.
 
Back