[HN Gopher] AMD Ryzen 5 8500G: A surprisingly fascinating sub-$2...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Ryzen 5 8500G: A surprisingly fascinating sub-$200 CPU
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-02-07 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
| jes5199 wrote:
| a surprisingly what
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Limitation of HN title lengths probably. Or OP's capability to
| edit titles.
| Arnavion wrote:
| HN automatically filters words from titles that they think
| are clickbaity. "Fascinating" is probably in that list.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| That's pretty stupid, no? Why doesn't it alert the poster
| of the clickbaity word prompting him to remove it before
| being allowed to post it, instead of silently removing it
| without the poster's knowledge ending up with janky titles?
| bayindirh wrote:
| With the approach you're proposing, we'd possibly start
| to see titles like "AMD Ryzen 5 8500G: A Surprisingly
| F*$cin@ting Sub-$200 CPU".
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Why? People could also do that now if they wish. You
| can't stop malicious compliance with a poorly implemented
| filter. And for that you have the flag button and dang
| who deletes them.
|
| But if you do have a poorly implemented filter, why not
| let your users know the rules instead of them finding out
| through obscurity?
|
| Openness is better than obscurity, no? Isn't that the
| FOSS ethos?
| stavros wrote:
| I prefer that to "a surprisingly sub-$200".
| neogodless wrote:
| The HN ethos is to cultivate curiosity, so the word
| "Fascinating" seems on brand, even if it does help a bit to
| draw attention.
| jsight wrote:
| Surprisingly fascinating according to the article. It does seem
| like great performance for the price and Watt.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Surprisingly sub-$200
| stavros wrote:
| I definitely didn't expect it to be so sub-$200.
| based_gigachad2 wrote:
| One of the CPUs of all times
|
| Edit: the title now has been fixed
| moffkalast wrote:
| Definitely one of the CPUs ever made, possibly ever.
| sliken wrote:
| You'd think after AMD shipped Xbox One, XboxX, PS4, and PS5 with
| decent iGPUs and a decent memory bandwidth they might bless one
| of their APUs with > 128 bit wide memory. Seems an obvious
| bottleneck that would improve GPU performance.
|
| It's coming with the Halo Strix with it's 256 bit wide memory,
| but should it really have taken over a decade?
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Yeah same. Especially that those consoles were launched all the
| way back in 2020, nearly 4 years ago.
|
| I guess it's difficult to replicate the console performance
| when those run on GDDR as system memory and PCs on DDR so the
| bandwidth difference is huge.
|
| But it's not like a system integrator like Asus or Gigabyte
| couldn't have built a small form factor PC based on a PC
| variant of the consoles APU and use GDDR instead.
|
| AMD really missed out on this, especially during the pandemic
| when everyone was stuck indoor trying to game and looking for
| inexistent GPUs.
| sliken wrote:
| Xbox One came out in 2013, 11 years ago, with an AMD CPU.
|
| PS4 came out in 2013, 11 years ago, with an AMD CPU.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Yes, but what's your point with those facts? Those were
| Bulldozer based APUs, not very good compared to what you
| could buy for PC back then, in an era where AMD wasn't very
| competitive and GPUs weren't overpriced unobtanium.
| sliken wrote:
| Just pointing out that AMD has been shipping cheap APUs
| with nice memory systems that increase iGPU performance
| for over 10 years.
|
| Just mystifies me that AMD hasn't shipped similar in a
| laptop, SFF, or desktop yet. Especially during the GPU
| shortage. The AMD 780m iGPU does pretty well, clearly AMD
| could add more cores and ship a faster memory bus, like
| the ones on their Threadripper (4 channel), Siena (6
| channel), threadripper pro (8 channel), or Epyc (12
| channel).
|
| Apple's doing similar with M1/m2/m3 (128 bit), M1/M2/M3
| Pro (256 bit), and M1/M2/M3 Max (512 bit wide) available
| in laptops, tiny PCs (up to 256 bit wide) with the mini,
| and small desktops (studio).
| Narishma wrote:
| They were not Bulldozer but Jaguar APUs.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Jaguar was the APU console name but it was based on
| Buldozer CPU architecture.
| wtallis wrote:
| Jaguar was the codename for the CPU core
| microarchitecture. AMD had two separate families of
| microarchitectures, much like Intel's Core and Atom
| families (since united in one chip in Alder Lake and
| later).
| p_l wrote:
| GDDR isn't necessarily all that better on use for general
| purpose CPU.
|
| Most importantly, buyers didn't want machines with soldered
| memory, and that was main method of going with wider bus
| without prohibitively expensive boards etc.
| wtallis wrote:
| Jumping to a wider memory bus is most feasible in product
| segments that already use soldered CPUs and RAM. PCs have been
| reluctant to drop the sockets/slots until recently, and only
| then in thin and light laptops. In systems that don't have
| discrete GPUs, Intel hasn't been applying competitive pressure
| against AMD's integrated GPUs.
|
| So it's really been a question of whether AMD could spare the
| cash to tape out a larger laptop chip with the goal of cutting
| off the low end of NVIDIA's dGPU sales for laptops.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is exactly the reason - and perhaps they finally can do
| it because "Apple showed the way" with the M-series.
|
| They obviously could have done it from a technical
| standpoint, as they _had_ done it for consoles, but those are
| not general purpose from the viewpoint of who is laying out
| the motherboard design.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Before Apple does it: Bad idea. After Apple does it: Next
| big thing.
| ip26 wrote:
| They seem to have this unusual ability to get consumers
| to suddenly demand what used to be too expensive.
| bombcar wrote:
| More importantly you can get the Board of (insert company
| here) to finally do X if you can show that Apple did X.
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| They don't refer to it as a cult for nothing.
| subarctic wrote:
| An extremely large cult that has a spillover effect into
| larger society
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Or they have enough leverage for good contracts, and a
| lot of money on hand to be able to make semi-risky bets
| that others would not be willing to. Combined with good
| marketing and reputation.
|
| That enables them to take bigger bets than most, and
| their reputation means customers are more likely to buy
| into their big bets.
| wiseowise wrote:
| If that's what you call quality products, then I'd rather
| be a part of cult.
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| > If that's what you call quality products
|
| Well, those in the cult sure do.
| wiseowise wrote:
| When alternatives are Windows laptops that barely work -
| it doesn't seem so expensive.
|
| Case in point. Back in 2018, me and my gf bought new
| laptops. I've opted for MBP and she bought Asus Rog
| Strix. Both were over 2k euro.
|
| Two years after her laptop has constant issues with
| Windows updating all the time, WiFi modem dies until you
| power cycle whole machine, it randomly turns on at night
| or doesn't go to sleep at all, fans that sound like jet
| engines even on lowest of speeds.
|
| My MBP 2018 is still a champ after all these years, I had
| literally zero issues with it and the only reason why I'm
| contemplating upgrading is how amazing M processors are.
|
| And seriously? More expensive? MacBook Air with 16GB of
| RAM and M processor starts at 1500 euro. It has far
| superior build quality, software and battery life than
| any Linux/Windows machine in any category. And on top of
| that it runs completely silently. Apple=expensive meme
| needs to die.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> When alternatives are Windows laptops that barely work
| - it doesn't seem so expensive. Case in point. _
|
| Meh, yeah there are some junky laptops out there, but
| case in point I've only had sub-1000 Euro Windows
| notebooks from Acer, HP and Lenovo, and all worked fine
| and lasted no matter how hard I abused them. Maybe I'm
| just super lucky. Or maybe I was an informed consumer
| with a trained eye to spot the good from the junk. Or
| both.
|
| _> And seriously? More expensive? MacBook Air with 16GB
| of RAM and M processor starts at 1500 euro_
|
| 16GB ram and how much storage?
|
| Yeah, that's pretty expensive for the specs and EU
| purchasing power. Case in point, for Christmas I bought
| myself a new Lenovo with the new 4nm Ryzen 7840HS, 32GB
| RAM and 1TB NVME, for ~800 Euros sticker price, no
| special promotion or sale. That seemed like a good deal
| to me.
|
| Now how much does Apple charge for 32GB RAM and 1TB
| storage? 2500+ Euros for 24GB RAM. Damn son! Apple are
| only price competitive at the bare minimum base
| models(8GB RAM on a "Pro" device?! Give me break Apple).
| When you start adding cores, RAM and storage, the price
| skyrockets.
|
| Each to his own if the price is worth it, I don't judge.
| My friend who does a lot of video editing gets his
| money's worth, but for my uses cases(Windows, Linux,
| gaming, coding), that 800 Euro laptop will be more than
| enough, no need to spend way more on Apple for less
| functionality. Battery life on those Macs is tight tough.
| If you're on the road a lot, and don't need windows/linux
| stuff, I'd definitely get one.
| o11c wrote:
| Now that CAMM is a thing, there's nothing that forbids it
| from being used for non-laptop machines.
| wmf wrote:
| Unfortunately CAMM appears to have a larger footprint than
| a DIMM slot.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Unfortunately CAMM appears to have a larger footprint
| than a DIMM slot.
|
| We need a new motherboard form factor that assumes no
| PCIe graphics card. I like my ITX box and put the power
| connector and button where the expansion slot would
| normally go because I used an APU. But we could do a lot
| better with the board size by assuming integrated
| graphics. A lower riser on the back would be nice too -
| maybe only 2 USB high.
| tracker1 wrote:
| At that point, you can get a complete mini PC with a
| higher end laptop APU with a raised power limit anyway.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| True enough but not so so awful.
|
| > _Nominal module dimensions listed in the standard point
| to "various" form factors for the modules, with the
| X-axis measuring 78 mm (3.07 inches) and the Y-axis
| 29.6-68 mm (1.17-2.68 inches)._
|
| From Artechnica. Whereas a regular DIMM is 5.5 inches
| long & narrow on the Y.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| The footprint of a DIMM slot is not just the area the
| slot itself takes. DIMMs force you to do a lot of length-
| matching, which takes a lot of PCB space (and layers).
| The actual footprint of the DIMMs also includes all the
| space between the slots and the CPU. Especially LPCAMM2
| does this inside the connector, and you can place the
| connector as close as you can without causing clearance
| issues.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I think CAMM direct comparison is SO-DIMMs where the DIMM
| is parallel with the mainboard.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Isn't the main advantage of soldering RAM the speed you can
| run the bus at?
|
| I don't see how it affects width much when we're only talking
| about 4 slots and 256 bits.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Also the space for traces is a problem with sockets. At 256
| bits you need lots of traces with very precise equal
| lengths.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If you soldered DDR5 memory, wouldn't you still need to
| have a lot of precise trace lengths and a lot of wasted
| space to make that match across banks of chips?
|
| If the solution is to compensate for delays in a smarter
| way, then I would assume that solution could be applied
| to sockets too. Which goes back to asking what took them
| so long.
| rbanffy wrote:
| IIRC, some of that can be configured with the memory
| controller - doesn't it check the bus to make sure the
| timings are known in the board setup code?
| wtallis wrote:
| Doubling the bus width means more wiring and probably more
| PCB layers than offering two slots per channel.
|
| Right now, using DDR5 SODIMMs instead of LPDDR5 would throw
| away half of the benefits of doubling the bus width, so
| that's a non-starter. Using CAMM style modules may allow
| for full-speed operation, but those have almost zero
| adoption so far and I think it's too soon to tell how
| widespread they'll become.
|
| Whatever option for connecting the DRAM, doubling the bus
| width doubles the amount of DRAM the OEMs must populate the
| system with, adding another cost on top of the more
| expensive SoC and MLB.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Doubling the bus width means more wiring and probably
| more PCB layers than offering two slots per channel.
|
| Wouldn't that be offset, at least on desktop processors,
| with more slots and memory channels?
| wtallis wrote:
| No. Desktops make the cost issues even worse, because
| supporting twice the memory bus width not only means more
| wires, but also a larger, more expensive CPU socket, and
| maybe a new heatsink mounting standard.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| What market would they be targeting?
|
| People who want casual gaming buy consoles.
|
| People who want gaming-level performance buy discreet GPUs.
|
| AMD makes more money selling a CPU and GPU.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| What's to stop someone from taking a mid-high end dedicated
| graphics card and soldering on a CPU, RAM, and IO? (Do they do
| this already?) I know it sounds like sacrilege, but I suspect
| most people upgrade their mobo/CPU/RAM/graphics all at once.
| wtallis wrote:
| Soldering doesn't do anything about pin count. An off the
| shelf GPU chip is still going to support at most a PCIe x16
| interface to other chips, which isn't enough to share DRAM
| with a separate CPU.
|
| Taping out a new chip that combines existing GPU and CPU IP
| blocks is relatively straightforward, but taping out a large
| chip is extremely expensive.
| Osiris wrote:
| Why do they not use HBM and unified memory like Apple? I assume
| it's for cost reasons.
| naranha wrote:
| In the graphics benchmarks it performs mostly worse than the
| 5600g/5700g. That's pretty disappointing 3 years later.
| undersuit wrote:
| It's the lowest end of the consumer APUs. The 8600g and the
| 8700g are those models replacements.
| daemonologist wrote:
| Yeah it's a shame, you really have to step up to the 8700G (or
| at least the 8600G) to get the true APU experience with modern
| graphics performance. That said even the bottom of the range
| significantly outperforms Intel's integrated solutions, and I
| support anything that gives them a kick in the pants to ship
| better iGPUs - one step closer to my work laptop being able to
| run the Windows desktop at 4k without turning into a laggy
| mess.
| tremon wrote:
| The 5600G had 7 graphics compute units, the 8500G only has 4;
| if it performs within 10% of the 5600G, the compute units are
| almost 60% faster than 3 years ago.
| kvemkon wrote:
| At least you hope, it is more power efficient due to advanced
| manufacturing process. And then a totally disappointment: new
| CPU consumes significantly more both under load and idle. The
| AI-extensions are also missing. ECC is missing in all
| 8300G/8500G/8600G/8700G.
| tremon wrote:
| Got a link for the ECC claim? Last I read, the ECC issues
| with the AM5 platform were mostly fixed (at least many
| vendors are claiming ECC compatibility again, which they
| didn't a year ago).
| kvemkon wrote:
| I've just searched for official ECC support on * 8700G
| https://www.amd.com/en/product/14066 * 8600G
| https://www.amd.com/en/product/14071 * 8500G
| https://www.amd.com/en/product/14086 * 8300G
| https://www.amd.com/en/product/14091
|
| 5xxxG are also known for missing official support, only PRO
| favors have it.
|
| Since ECC is for robustness I'd really prefer when both AMD
| and ASUS/ASRock/Gigabyte/MSI/... mention ECC support in the
| specification. Last time I've checked, only ASUS did
| mention it for consumer AM5 mainboards. (Gigabyte did it
| for (at least) one simple but expensive server mainboard.)
| While for AM4 it wasn't such an issue for other
| manufacturers too.
| RussianCow wrote:
| Historically, only the PRO variants of AMD's APUs have
| supported ECC.
| toast0 wrote:
| If comparing to 5600g/5700g, there's no difference in AI
| extensions or ECC. AI is new for 8600g/8700g, and ECC is only
| in "pro" APUs.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| What are people using CPUs for?
|
| I mean I have a crappy 7 year old CPU that I use for single
| threaded dev, and it works for 99% of cases. In the 1% of cases,
| I threw on multithreading and its fine.
|
| Now my daily driver has a GPU and it unlocks new possibilities.
|
| Its been over 10 years since I've really spent time thinking
| about a CPU.
| jibe wrote:
| A lot of games still bottleneck on CPU.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| especially if you are trying to get high framerates
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Or trying to run large maps in sim games.
|
| Speaking as a 7800X3D owner, I don't think any CPU on the
| planet is sufficient for modded Rimworld yet.
| josephg wrote:
| Compiling rust code is slow and cpu bound. I have a fast cpu in
| part to improve compile times while I'm programming.
| tupolef wrote:
| Did you experience a big gap between an older CPU and the
| current one?
|
| I did not change mine for 6 years, but looking at some
| benchmarks, it looks like compilation times would not get
| more than a few percents faster per generation. I expect to
| get maybe 20% faster with a recent CPU in the same price
| range.
|
| Until 2005 I was updating the CPU every 2-3 years, then every
| 5 years, and when I'll get the next one I plan to keep it 10
| years easy.
| rwaksmunski wrote:
| I went from 2013 MBP to M3 Pro MBP and the performance
| improvement in Rust / rust-analyzer was staggering.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| There is a huge difference between my laptop and my desktop
| in using VS Code with a few basic plugins. The difference
| of the hardware between the 2 machines is mostly CPU and
| SSD performance, the SSD makes a big impact opening
| projects with many small files, but the CPU is used for
| IntelliSense or even when you copy/paste a few thousands of
| LOC from one file to another (laptop fan gets to max for
| tens of seconds).
|
| This is the biggest difference I see today. In the previous
| generation it was a huge boost in everything just becauase
| the old CPU was really old. I also keep CPUs 5 years or
| more.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| I'd be curious if your old cpu uses an NVMe or SATA drive.
| I've seen a 20% increase on big projects from NVMe alone -
| I suspect due to the big I/O queue depths of NVMe.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| A new CPU would probably have double the core count
| (16c/32t) of your current CPU. C++ compilation can use all
| the cores.
| the8472 wrote:
| Modern CPUs also have more cores. Make and Cargo can keep a
| threadripper fed for a few minutes with a task that would
| run an hour on a laptop.
| gwill wrote:
| I do astrophotography and stacking images is the only time I
| notice CPU performance. It can take close to an hour depending
| on how much data, so I just go do something else.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| With the release of Ryzen in 2016/2017 the bare minimum
| upgrades Intel was pushing YOY no longer worked in the market.
| Since then the CPU space has been _very_ exciting, you 've been
| missing out.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Gaming, video editing, music production, 3D modelling,
| compiling C++, etc.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> What are people using CPUs for?
|
| I compile C++ code with an AMD 2400G (zen1+) and parallel
| builds are way faster than single threaded. I also used the
| same box to add a bunch of parallel paths to the code (using
| OpenMP) which improved performance of the app by 3x-4x in some
| cases with little effort.
|
| Compiling a full build is 30-60 seconds for me. If I turn on
| LTO it's several minutes and that's with parallel builds -j
|
| I'm aiming to get a Zen4 or Zen5 with 8 cores one of these
| days. That should give about 4x speed boost. The new GPU has
| AV1 support too!
| hwbunny wrote:
| That's why most of the review sites never show older, just
| current, maybe previous generation of cpus with reviews.
| pi-rat wrote:
| Whenever bazel prints that it's compiling one of the rust parts
| of the codebase at work, then I mutter something about needing
| more faster better CPUs, and go fetch a cup of coffee..
| karolist wrote:
| Why not remote builds? https://bazel.build/remote/rbe
| ActorNightly wrote:
| I have a laptop with a 4080 and AMD chip. With Nvidia Prime,
| you can basically use the chip integrate graphics that are a
| lot more power efficient, and make the battery last way longer.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Actually... machine learning.
|
| One would think its all GPU. But you'd be suprised how single-
| core-speed limited parts of certain tasks are.
| deeth_starr_v wrote:
| Modern typescript based web-app ... you're going to want the
| fastest single core speed cpu & nvme possible to make it not
| suck.
| everyone wrote:
| I got a Ryzen 7 2700X, cus it seemed to have good benchmarks for
| the price.
|
| I have a vague feeling I might have been happier with less cores
| but faster ones. A lot of games put all, or almost all, their
| load on one core only, particularly older games. A lot of old
| games have amazing modpacks for them nowadays and I often run
| into CPU bound slowdown and lagspikes in stuff like Stalker
| GAMMA, Rlcraft, Supreme commander forged alliance forever.
|
| Overall I just dont know much about CPUs and just got one that
| was recommended by people at the time.
| tracker1 wrote:
| If there's an updated BIOS for your board, going to a 5700X3D
| or 5800X3D is a drop in replacement (maybe a third party tower
| cooler if you're running stock.
|
| Would be a noticeable experience difference, especially in
| games.
| RussianCow wrote:
| I'll add that this will likely only make a significant
| difference if your GPU is relatively powerful. If you're
| still rocking an RX 480 or similar, the GPU is going to be
| your bottleneck in most games and upgrading the CPU won't
| make as big a difference. I went from a 1700X to a 5900X with
| an RX 580, and I only noticed a difference in one game until
| I upgraded the GPU.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Fair enough... I tend to do GPU upgrade mine often than
| system, wasn't thinking about it. That said. Still a big
| difference for a lot of use cases.
| baobun wrote:
| 5700G might be a great upgrade from a 2700X.
|
| Better performance at lower TDP and the integrated graphics
| are impressive. Even if you do end up with a discrete GPU,
| being able to do passthrough with a secondary can be quite
| useful.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I also had one, it was a great CPU for those days. But several
| generations passed, games want more performance from CPU and
| GPU, I retired that 2700 in a server that sees less
| utilization.
|
| For the past 30 years the best CPU of a few years ago can have
| less performance than the low end of today, that is evolution.
| binary132 wrote:
| I just want to see an X3D series APU with a gigantic video cache.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| That would be irrelevant, tens of MB of cache do not cover for
| Gigabytes of slow memory for textures. Modern games use 4-8 GB
| of RAM, mostly for HD textures. Screen buffers are already in
| the cache.
| undersuit wrote:
| I think it's gotta be big, to be worth it. The X3D dies are
| tiny and the additional SRAM is flanked by unused silicon to
| keep the package a uniform shape.
|
| The lowest end Radeon 7600 still has 8MB of infinity cache.
|
| Giving an APU 64MB of cache would be a mistake at current
| performamne levels, giving it 4MB might not be worth the time
| or silicon or the 4MB SRAM die floats away from the wind
| generated by the place and pick.
| betaby wrote:
| Does hardware accelerated video decoding woks in Chrome on Linux
| for that CPU?
| NohatCoder wrote:
| This review seems to miss one of the most important competitors.
| The Ryzen 5 7600 costs only $20 more, and performs a good deal
| better for not a whole lot more power. I don't think there is a
| lot of customers to whom the iGPU difference is important, but
| not important enough to get a discreet graphics card.
| qwertox wrote:
| These days I noticed that my laptop, which has 32GB of RAM, is
| only capable of using 16GB of RAM, because the other 16GB are
| reserved by Windows 11 for "shared GPU memory"
|
| This Dell Precision 3541 with an i9-9880H and a 4GB VRAM Quadro
| P620 runs just fine with Ubuntu, but in Windows 11, as I said,
| the integrated GPU as well as the Quadro get the "shared GPU
| memory".
|
| For me the 4GB of the Quadro, which Chrome and other apps are
| using, is more than enough. The iGPU barely gets used and the
| BIOS has reserved 128MB of dedicated memory for it.
|
| Windows doesn't allow me to change how much memory is assigned to
| the "shared GPU memory", so 16GB of RAM is empty while the other
| 16GB are getting stressed to an extreme, so that the machine
| becomes unusable.
|
| Now, since this 5800G has an integrated GPU, I wonder if it has
| the same problem with Windows 11.
|
| Any Windows experts in here who know how to fix the issue (the
| registry fix with "DedicatedSegmentSize" has no effect)?
| szatkus wrote:
| Usually you can modify the amount of RAM dedicated to the GPU
| in BIOS.
| RussianCow wrote:
| I believe most (all?) machines allow you to configure this
| through the UEFI interface (pre-boot). Search your laptop model
| and you should find a way to change the amount of RAM dedicated
| to the integrated GPU.
| qwertox wrote:
| Dell's BIOS has no option to change it, but it says that it
| has reserved 128MB for it.
|
| As I said, Ubuntu has zero issues with handing 28GB+ RAM to
| applications, so this is convincingly a Windows thing and not
| something related to the BIOS.
|
| While searching for a solution there's another person having
| this issue with a Gigabyte Z97-D3H-CF mainboard. He has 32GB
| RAM and half of it goes to "Shared Video Memory". I
| downloaded the manual and the relevant section reads
|
| `Intel Processor Graphics Memory Allocation: Allows you to
| set the onboard graphics memory size. Options are: 32M~1024M.
| (Default: 64M)`
|
| So the mainboard has no option for 16GB "Shared Video
| Memory", yet Windows 10 is causing this problem to him [0].
|
| For me the "Works in Ubuntu" is what makes me disbelieve the
| BIOS-settings claims.
|
| [0] https://answers.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/forum/all/change...
| ntauthority wrote:
| The reserved memory would show up as 'dedicated' memory.
| Shared is just the amount of host memory that can be
| assigned to graphics resources, which usually equals the
| system memory or some amount derived from it.
|
| If the full amount of system memory isn't showing on
| Windows that's likely an unrelated issue you're
| experiencing (for example with UEFI/BIOS memory mapping
| mismatching whatever else) and it working on Linux implies
| that either Linux gets fed different memory layouts or it
| parses this broken case fine unlike Windows.
|
| If applications aren't using all the memory, and it's also
| not showing up as cached, that's odd as Windows usually
| tends to target around 80% of physical memory usage (unless
| you're really not using that many apps or there's another
| driver issue going on). Different OSes account for memory
| usage differently, and there's rarely one single 'memory
| used' indicator in modern operating systems.
| qwertox wrote:
| > If the full amount of system memory isn't showing on
| Windows that's likely an unrelated issue
|
| Full amount of system memory is seen by Windows. It just
| refuses to hand out more than 16GB of RAM to it so I
| assume (maybe wrongly) that this is related to the other
| 16GB which the GPUs get assigned to but have no use for.
|
| The memory graph in the task manager (Performance) never
| goes above 50%.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| I think you might be making a confusion here.
|
| I have an AMD Ryzen APU laptop also with 32GB of RAM and also
| with Windows 11 and yes just like in your case, it says in task
| manager GPU tab that 16GB are shared GPU memory, but like the
| name says, it's shared and not reserved, meaning the GPU can
| use up to 16GB of system RAM for textures and stuff but CPU
| apps are allowed to use nearly all the 32GB of RAM minus what
| you reserved exclusively for the GPU in BIOS and what the GPU
| is currently using on top of that.
|
| And I know because I saw apps (not games) use nearly all my 32
| gigs of ram.
| qwertox wrote:
| But then why do my apps not use more than 16GB RAM?
| Everything together never surpasses 16GB RAM (maybe a bit,
| because it gets compressed). And in the meantime the GPUs
| show <1% RAM usage.
|
| And Ubuntu has no issues with it, while Windows crawls on its
| knees once that limit is reached.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| No idea. Maybe a driver issue. Have you played around with
| drivers? From Dell's website versus Intel's website.
|
| Have you tried a fresh install of Windows 11 and not an
| upgrade from 10?
|
| Ask on the Dell forums or subreddits. Maybe there's others
| out there with this issue.
| vwoolf wrote:
| _runs just fine with Ubuntu_
|
| Maybe that is the answer?
| tremon wrote:
| It's only just below $200 though. In my opinion, it's too close
| to the price of the 8600G which has a dedicated NPU, twice the
| graphics core count and, more importantly in my opinion, has
| twice the available PCIe lanes: the 8500G only has 14 in total,
| of which 8 go to the southbridge -- the other 6 will be shared
| between the PCIe x16 slot and the first NVMe drive.
| chem83 wrote:
| Good opportunity to remember that AVX-512 is more than 512 bit
| vectors. Too bad that Intel is dropping it from their consumer
| CPUs.
|
| https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@rygorous/110572829749524388
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Isn't AVX 512 very useful for emulating PS3 and Xbox 360 games?
| xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote:
| A few months ago Intel announced AVX10, which is basically
| AVX-512 but without mandatory 512-bit vectors:
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intels-new-avx10-brings-av...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-07 23:00 UTC)