[HN Gopher] Ryzen Z1's Tiny iGPU
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ryzen Z1's Tiny iGPU
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 100 points
       Date   : 2024-02-26 18:11 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (chipsandcheese.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (chipsandcheese.com)
        
       | SunlitCat wrote:
       | I really wonder why AMD is so reluctant to release desktop cpus
       | with a powerful iGPU.
       | 
       | Yeah, I know the 8x00G exists, but it's kinda too little too
       | late.
        
         | rbanffy wrote:
         | Could be that they are selling all the capacity they could
         | hire. In that case, they'll aim to produce just the products
         | with the highest margins (meaning the more specialized ones).
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Any better iGPU would be limited by memory bandwidth. More
         | bandwidth would require a different socket and probably more
         | expensive motherboard.
        
           | SunlitCat wrote:
           | Mhm, but it kinda hurts to see, that AMD is able to push out
           | APUs powering the likes of a Playstation 5 and everything on
           | a single chip, while on desktop you need to buy the cpu and a
           | chunky gpu seperately.
        
             | wmf wrote:
             | The consoles are not socketed or upgradeable. That's the
             | difference.
        
             | bryanlarsen wrote:
             | AM5 only has a 128 bit wide memory bus. (2 64 bit
             | channels). So we're not going to get a usably beefier GPU
             | until AM6.
             | 
             | However, on laptops which aren't constrained by backwards
             | compatibility, Strix Point Halo appears to have both a
             | beefy GPU and a 256 bit memory bus.
        
         | PaulKeeble wrote:
         | The G chips are also pretty seriously crippled by the cache
         | reduction from 32MB to 16MB. It hurts their compute performance
         | so much they behave similar to equivalent chips from a few
         | generations before as well. I suspect its done to hit a power
         | target but its an unfortunate trade off making these chips a
         | bit of a let down.
        
         | jwells89 wrote:
         | I've wondered this too. I would imagine that there's a
         | significant market for PCs with iGPUs roughly on par with those
         | of consoles... that's enough horsepower to play all esports
         | titles extremely well as well as most other types of games on
         | medium settings, which is more than good enough for a lot of
         | people.
         | 
         | To work around memory issues, these CPUs would need some
         | onboard memory which would increase costs a bit, but the
         | tradeoff is that it'd make for simpler, cheaper low-end
         | motherboards. One can imagine a mini-ITX board with nothing but
         | a CPU socket and a couple of M.2 slots that'd cost
         | significantly less than current entry-level ITX boards. A full
         | system upgrade could be performed by simply swapping out the
         | CPU which would be great for non-enthusiasts; without a power
         | hungry discrete GPU, power requirements are unlikely to
         | increase meaningfully (and in fact are likely to _decrease_
         | with upgrades), so upgrading wouldn't necessitate a PSU change.
         | These hypothetical boxes could easily stay relevant for a
         | decade or more.
         | 
         | Higher end SKUs of motherboards for this type of CPU could have
         | the usual RAM slots (acting as a second tier of slower RAM in
         | place of swap), PCI slots, etc.
        
           | Atotalnoob wrote:
           | On die memory increases costs significantly. It would be
           | premium only to put any large on die memory sets
        
             | cduzz wrote:
             | Even for chiplets?
             | 
             | I'd expect that you could probably get okay yields at okay
             | costs if you are running a process that's a rev or two
             | behind and making smaller chiplets that are then wired
             | together after testing -- like the pentium pro's cache but
             | for main memory to get 2 / 4 / 8gb ram all on "chip"
             | 
             | It'd probably cost more than a normal CPU, but the trade
             | off is much more speed and the actual computer /
             | motherboard at that point would just be a couple USB
             | devices. You (the CPU maker) would grab a lot more of the
             | per-unit profit.
             | 
             | Ah -- that's why they don't do it; no vendor would want
             | their milkshake drunk...
        
               | eropple wrote:
               | AMD does seem to be trying new stuff with Strix Point
               | Halo, but in-package RAM seems like it'd add new physical
               | challenges that probably need a defined market before
               | they swing for the fences?
               | 
               | Because it's not just the memory chip, also the
               | interposer it's stacked on top of, which now needs to be
               | bigger, which means you need to find more room in the PCB
               | (today) or a bigger silicon interposer (likely in the
               | near future) which reduces yields, and so on and so
               | forth. If you wanted to have more than the very limited
               | SoC RAM, you'd also then be looking at having multiple
               | DRAM controllers, which also adds to surface area, and so
               | on and so forth.
        
           | bryanlarsen wrote:
           | An APU with a decent amount of fast on-package memory is
           | going to be expensive. $1000 maybe? It'd be odd to pair a
           | $1000 CPU with a $100 mobo. Maybe it's a good idea, but the
           | market would find it confusing.
        
           | wtallis wrote:
           | "Some onboard memory" for a socketed CPU is impractical.
           | They're not going to make a die with a wide DRAM controller
           | for on-package memory and then a second narrower DRAM
           | controller for memory slots, especially if the latter was
           | only going to be used for high"end systems. It'll be soldered
           | CPU and DRAM or the usual sockets/slots; I don't see how a
           | mixed approach would make economic sense.
        
             | bryanlarsen wrote:
             | On-package memory is coming to x86 laptop CPU's, it's a
             | question of when rather than if, IMO. Apple MacBooks are
             | killing x86 laptops, and a large part of the reason is the
             | on-package memory. I'm sure Dell et al are screaming at
             | Intel and AMD asking for competitive chips.
             | 
             | You're right that they likely won't make 2 different dies.
             | Desktop AM5 chips will just get a package with some of the
             | memory controller pins unconnected. The big question is
             | whether they'll also package the full width laptop chip
             | with on-package memory in a package for desktop that's
             | incompatible with AM5.
             | 
             | If they don't, somebody is going to solder that monster
             | laptop chip into an ITX motherboard. People will grumble
             | about a motherboard that can't upgrade either the CPU or
             | the memory, but if the performance is there they'll still
             | buy it.
        
           | sapiogram wrote:
           | There just isn't enough memory bandwidth. Afaik dual-channel
           | DDR5 still can't hit 100GB/s? Meanwhile the $270 RX 7600 has
           | 288GB/s on-board memory.
        
             | bryanlarsen wrote:
             | jwells89 says "onboard memory", by which I assume they mean
             | on-package memory like the Apple Mx. The M2 Ultra has 800
             | GB/s of memory bandwidth...
        
             | adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
             | DDR5-6000 is 60GB/s per channel.
        
           | mikepurvis wrote:
           | Such a simple motherboard could even just put the power
           | supply onboard, with a barrel plug or something, similar to
           | how routers like this are configured:
           | 
           | https://www.mini-box.com/Alix-APU-Systems
        
         | MrBuddyCasino wrote:
         | They did this, nobody bought them.
         | 
         | Also the RAM bandwidth just isn't there, and special mainboards
         | with more memory channels eat up the cost advantage. And
         | they're hard to cool.
        
         | sliken wrote:
         | I've had the same thought. They obviously know how to add
         | decent iGPU and the required bandwidth in the PS5 and XboxX
         | (and the previous gen).
         | 
         | Does seem like they finally plan to do this with the AMD Strix
         | Halo which looks to hit somewhere late this year or early next.
        
         | mdasen wrote:
         | Others have pointed out things like memory bandwidth, but I
         | think there might be another thing: would people want it?
         | 
         | Let's say that the CPU + powerful iGPU cost 95% of what a
         | discrete CPU and GPU cost - but now you can't buy them
         | separately, can't upgrade them separately, etc. You're less
         | likely to get the mix of CPU and GPU that you're looking for
         | since you can't select them independently. Why not just package
         | the RAM with the CPU too? Apple's done that, but I think most
         | people don't love that because it means they can't upgrade
         | their RAM independently.
         | 
         | It also places constraints on how good something could be.
         | Let's say that you produce new GPUs every 18 months and new
         | CPUs every 12 months. Well, now you need to synchronize them.
         | If the new CPU is ready to go, but the new GPU is 3 or 6 or 9
         | months out, what should your product releases be?
         | 
         | By having them separate, someone can buy the latest AMD CPU
         | even though the next-gen GPU is 6 months out. When the next GPU
         | comes out, they can buy that and upgrade the graphics and CPU
         | on different cycles. Syncing up different product cycles isn't
         | always easy.
         | 
         | I think the reason why is that they don't think there's likely
         | a market. With things like a PlayStation or Xbox, it's going to
         | (pretty much) have one set of capabilities for its 7-year
         | lifecycle. You can integrate the CPU and GPU because there's
         | only one buyer and because the CPU and GPU release have to be
         | synced anyway for the console's release. With PCs, the release
         | doesn't have to be synced and there are many buyers with
         | different priorities.
        
         | roenxi wrote:
         | I don't think they are reluctant, their APU have started low
         | end and been steadily [0] moving up to the performance
         | spectrum. We're about on schedule for some powerful ones to hit
         | the market. The 8000G is the first that has entered the
         | conversation but I doubt it'll be the last.
         | 
         | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_APU
        
         | Dylan16807 wrote:
         | I'm not sure what you mean by "too late"?
        
       | nfriedly wrote:
       | I never really got the point of the Z1 non-extreme. If it enabled
       | them to ship a device for $400 or less then it would make some
       | sense as a Steam Deck competitor, but not when the Z1 ally was
       | $600 and you could double the performance by going up to $700. (I
       | know it's gone on sale for ~$450, but IMO that should have been
       | the launch price, with sales putting it below $400.)
       | 
       | Honestly, the whole Z1 lineup puzzles me a bit, since it feels
       | like just a re-badge of the regular mobile chips with some slight
       | tuning. If AMD was going to go through the effort of making a
       | gaming focused chip, they should lean into that with more
       | emphasis on the GPU side, and perhaps some extra cache or more
       | memory bandwidth. Maybe even drop a couple of CPU cores. What we
       | got instead just feels like a cheap marketing ploy.
        
         | wtallis wrote:
         | I'm not sure there was any special tuning or binning involved.
         | I think Asus just bought special branding without having any
         | influence on AMD's silicon roadmap.
        
         | agloe_dreams wrote:
         | All of this is weird personally. I think it is weird that the
         | 7840u (Z1X laptop model #) exists in the first place. It has a
         | wildly overpowered GPU for a mobile chip of it's type and while
         | they quote a 28W TDP, the actual max-power draw is
         | stratospheric for a U series (well over 50 watts). To be
         | honest, I wouldn't be shocked to find out the Z1X internally
         | came, as a concept at least, before the 7840u. Meanwhile, the
         | Z1 is so wildly weak in comparison. It is only 1/3 the TFlops.
        
           | nfriedly wrote:
           | > _I think it is weird that the 7840u (Z1X laptop model #)
           | exists in the first place. It has a wildly overpowered GPU
           | for a mobile chip of it 's type..._
           | 
           | I have a handheld with a 7840U (GPD Win Mini), and I love it.
           | I suppose if it were labeled a Z1 Extreme instead of a 7840U,
           | I'd be just as happy with it, so I can somewhat see where
           | you're coming from. But also I think it's becoming more
           | common to want to run "real" (non-gaming) workloads that can
           | leverage a GPU on devices without a discrete GPU, so I still
           | think it makes sense as a general-purpose part. (Also, I
           | think the Z1 was an Asus-exclusive part, at least initially,
           | so if there wasn't a non-exclusive variant, then I'd be stuck
           | with something inferior.)
           | 
           | > _...and while they quote a 28W TDP, the actual max-power
           | draw is stratospheric for a U series (well over 50 watts)._
           | 
           | The ideal TDP for that chip is around 18W, with diminishing
           | returns after that. (I usually run mine at 7-13W depending on
           | the game.) Beyond 25-30W, you get only marginal performance
           | gains relative to the amount of additional power, so while it
           | technically can use over 50 watts, it's clearly not designed
           | for that and the extra performance isn't worth it when you're
           | running on battery.
        
           | wtallis wrote:
           | The 7840U is the same die as the 7940HS. AMD only did two
           | mobile processor dies this generation; Phoenix 2 is in the Z1
           | and the larger Phoenix is in the Z1 Extreme, 7840U and
           | 7940HS, among others. So they're doing a lot of product
           | differentiation solely through adjusting power and clock
           | limits, which is confounded by the leeway OEMs have to
           | further adjust those limits.
        
         | ip26 wrote:
         | Special tuning today, custom silicon tomorrow. Maybe this is
         | the MVP of handheld PC gaming.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-26 23:00 UTC)