AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G Review: Zen 4 APUs with RDNA3 Graphics
by Gavin Bonshor on January 29, 2024 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- APUs
- Phoenix
- 4nm
- Zen 4
- RDNA3
- AM5
- Ryzen 8000G
- Ryzen 7 8700G
- Ryzen 5 8600G
Core-to-Core Latency
As the core count of modern CPUs is growing, we are reaching a time when the time to access each core from a different core is no longer a constant. Even before the advent of heterogeneous SoC designs, processors built on large rings or meshes can have different latencies to access the nearest core compared to the furthest core. This rings true especially in multi-socket server environments.
But modern CPUs, even desktop and consumer CPUs, can have variable access latency to get to another core. For example, in the first generation Threadripper CPUs, we had four chips on the package, each with 8 threads, and each with a different core-to-core latency depending on if it was on-die or off-die. This gets more complex with products like Lakefield, which has two different communication buses depending on which core is talking to which.
If you are a regular reader of AnandTech’s CPU reviews, you will recognize our Core-to-Core latency test. It’s a great way to show exactly how groups of cores are laid out on the silicon. This is a custom in-house test, and we know there are competing tests out there, but we feel ours is the most accurate to how quick an access between two cores can happen.
Looking at core-to-core latencies of the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G, as this is a monolithic Phoenix die, we can see good inter-core latencies between each of the eight individual Zen 4 cores. Going within the core, we can see solid latencies of 7ns, while things inter-core range between 17 and 21ns, showing that the Ryzen 7 8700G uses a single core cluster of eight cores.
Similar to what we've seen on previous iterations of Zen 4 and Zen 3, albeit on processors with multiple core complex (CCXs) such as the Ryzen 9 7950 and Ryzen 9 5950X, inter-core latencies are strong and low. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 8700G and other Ryzen 8000G monolithic chips on a single die remove the complications and penalties of connecting through AMD's Infinity Fabric interconnect. The Ryzen 7 8700G uses TSMC's refined 4nm manufacturing process, exactly the same as the Ryzen 7040 mobile, which is coincidentally the exact same design as the 8700G, given that AMD has repurposed Phoenix for use on AMD's AM5 desktop platform.
The core-to-core latency performance is inherently strong on the Ryzen 7 8700G, with low inter-core latencies. As expected, latency degrades a little going across the entire complex, but certainly not within the range where we would expect these penalties to cause latency issues when cores have to communicate with each other.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - link
For basic use a 4 core is fine. Plenty of games still run fine on 4 cores, and if you are using the iGPU your CPU cores are not going to be your limiting factor.FatFlatulentGit - Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - link
That setup would also eat over 2x as much power. The 8000G line is for people who want something with some expansion options and decent performance, but also want to keep it lower power/heat/noise, among other things. I'm eyeballing one for an HTPC upgrade.t.s - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
The problem with 8700G is the price. Too pricey. I'll take socketed CPU anytime over soldered If the price is right ($200-$250). Cause when you go 7840HS route, you can get complete packages with just $490 (16GB 5600MHz, 512GB SSD, BT5.2 + WiFi6) or about $390 no RAM no SSD.GeoffreyA - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
Quite a nice boost in performance over the 5000G APUs, with only a slight increase of power. Though I suppose for those already on AM4 APUs, it may be better to wait for the Zen 5 ones, and get an even bigger boost in one shot.cp0x - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
I've been reading Anandtech for decades, since it started. In all that time, this is the worst review I've ever seen. We already know these chip are budget / entry level (of the latest generation). There's only one thing that is truly interesting about these chips: The integrated graphics. And specifically, the IGP at 1080p. And while we get 4 pages full of tests of a discrete GPU with this CPU, we get a total of one page with the IGP at 1080p, and it contains only one chart comparing this chip with other options (e.g. Intel), and that one chart is of ... drum roll ... Civ6 🤦♂️ WTF!?!?!?!We do get a few more graphs of 720p gaming. Why?!? WHEN THE REVIEW ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE STEAM STATS SHOW MOST GAMERS PLAY AT 1080P?!?!?!?
I'm not going to assume that this is a conspiracy theory. After all: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Come on. Do better. This article should have been centered around and anchored on the 1080p results with this chip's IGP. It should have compared with more than just AMD's previous gen of this chip; it should have compared with Intel's offerings in this space. The questions the reader has are: What $$$ video card does this thing save me from buying? Will this play my game? How does it compare with other CPUs and their IGPs?
End rant. Do better.
cp0x - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
And of course (as other commenters have pointed out): What effect does slower or faster DDR5 make on the 1080p results? (Especially since faster DDR5 was actually being used in the Intel system.)FWhitTrampoline - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
The tech press in general ignores iGPUs and small form factor systems save ETA Prime and his YouTube channel. But ETA Prime is Gaming Benchmark Focused there mostly so any Blender 3D Cycles iGPU accelerated testing is ignored there. AMD tends to only focus on Games development for its APUs mostly as the console makers using AMD's APUs are more responsible for the games performance on AMD's APUs than AMD is responsible.And really the Gaming Hardware review sights are higher end Desktop Processor/dGPU focused there where Very Small Form Factor(InWin Chopin and ASRock X300/Other Desk Mini SKUs that use AMD and Intel Socket Packaged processors with powerful iGPUs make sense) system builds are ignored!
Both the ASRock X300/Desk Mini and the Inwin Chopin very small form factor system builds and are too tiny to accommodate any dGPUs and so Ryzen 5000G was popular there for the iGPU and in those builds with AMD/Intel APUs/SOCs with more powerful iGPUs. There will be an ASRock x600/AM5 Desk Mini and what is essentially the same case form factor as the X300/AM4 Desk Mini. The Inwin Chopin barely accommodates a Mini-ITX MB but lacks the room of any dGPU to get slotted into the x16 slot on a Mini-ITX MB, sans some case modding of the Chopin!
Bruzzone - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
1080 gaming, well, the real application for gamers running greater than a 6000 MHz memory bus is high frequency trading. mbnandnandnand - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
I think the worst crime in the review was using DDR5-5200.Thunder 57 - Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - link
AT isn't the same since Dr. Ian Cutress left.