Ryzen 2500u benchmark by The Tech Report (img heavy)

[Prysin]

First off: Ryzen's IMC is a smoking pile of shit

 

Second of all, the GPU is struggling with BAD frametimes:

Spoiler

 

Third of all, the CPU isnt that bad:

Spoiler

 

 

Gaming Benchmarks:

Spoiler

Quote

The strongest way for AMD's partners to make that case will be with price tags. As I outlined in my i5-8250U review, Intel's partners can put together Core i5-powered ultrabooks with GeForce MX150 graphics, 8 GB of RAM, and 256 GB SSDs inside for around $700 to $800. If one of AMD's partners can get a Ryzen 5 2500U into a thin-and-light laptop with a similar SSD and RAM configuration for around $600, we'll really be talking.

 

Lukewarm reception. Seems like AMD cannot deliver. Add this ontop of leaks showing terrible battery life and well, Ryzen with "Vega" graphics (worst marketing name EVER) seems to be a dud. Sure it has a strong GPU, and decent CPU, but its in mobile, and its battery life is meh.

 

Source: https://techreport.com/review/32877/amd-ryzen-5-2500u-apu-reviewed

 

[thorhammerz]

12 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Lukewarm reception. Seems like AMD cannot deliver. Add this ontop of leaks showing terrible battery life and well, Ryzen with "Vega" graphics (worst marketing name EVER) seems to be a dud. Sure it has a strong GPU, and decent CPU, but its in mobile, and its battery life is meh.

 

Source: https://techreport.com/review/32877/amd-ryzen-5-2500u-apu-reviewed

 

I wonder if share prices will tumble to the $10-11 region again 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

I wonder if share prices will tumble to the $10-11 region again 

wnah. Ryzen mobile is clearly expected to be lower volume this year. Also, its all about EPYC ramp atm

[ScratchCat]

Unexpected, given Ryzen's impressive power efficiency I would have expected it to be on par with the i5 8250U. Probably the seeming slow infinity fabric is limiting the Vega graphics: the spikes in frametime would suggest that the GPU was waiting for data, a memory bottleneck.

 

From this source it seems that it is closer to the i5 8250U , more in line with the expectations. Note: Although the MX150 is notably ahead of Vega the power consumption is greater by ~25W.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-first-Ryzen-5-2500U-benchmarks-are-in-and-Intel-has-every-reason-to-worry.266618.0.html

[Matu20]

Unexpectedly low, I am quite disappointed to be honest, was expecting a bit more.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, ScratchCat said:

Unexpected, given Ryzen's impressive power efficiency I would have expected it to be on par with the i5 8250U. Probably the split CCX design and seeming slow infinity fabric is limiting the Vega graphics: the spikes in frametime would suggest that the GPU was waiting for data, a memory bottleneck.

 

From this source it seems that it is closer to the i5 8250U , more in line with the expectations. Note: Although the MX150 is notably ahead of Vega the power consumption is greater by ~25W.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-first-Ryzen-5-2500U-benchmarks-are-in-and-Intel-has-every-reason-to-worry.266618.0.html

the APUs are single CCX. No split die

[WereCat]

Single channel 8GB is the issue... most likely

[Daniel644]

CPU performance barely above a 7th gen i5 U series dual core, honestly thats pretty shitty.

[Prysin]

Just now, WereCat said:

Single channel 8GB is the issue... most likely

for gaming, it probably cost them 8 FPS, maybe 12. But thats it. Its still slower then a MX150

[Bananasplit_00]

damn thats sad to see, was really hopeing for a stronger showing from the GPU, CPU is about what i expected though

[mr moose]

I'll be honest, I was expecting much better performance all around.  Maybe it's teething trouble??

[Dabombinable]

General questions:

• Is it better than an A8 4555M?
• Is it completely screwed over by Turbocore in any task that uses the CPU+GPU like my A8 4555M?

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'll be honest, I was expecting much better performance all around.  Maybe it's teething trouble??

I doubt it, its behaving in a similar manner to my A8 4555M when the CPU+GPU are put under load. Even Oblivion with settings lowered right down was a stuttery mess, unlike with my older Phenom II P920 (pre upgrade) and MR HD5650 1GB.

Edit: Disabling Turbocore affected the snappiness of the system, but it did run games far better-I was even able to OC the GPU.

[NumLock21]

I heard that some buyers tried to get a price match at Best Buy because HP is selling it for less than $600, but not everyone was successful with it. BB's is 15M and HP's is 15Z even though both have the same exact specs.

[Prysin]

15 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

General questions:

• Is it better than an A8 4555M?
• Is it completely screwed over by Turbocore in any task that uses the CPU+GPU like my A8 4555M?

I doubt it, its behaving in a similar manner to my A8 4555M when the CPU+GPU are put under load. Even Oblivion with settings lowered right down was a stuttery mess, unlike with my older Phenom II P920 (pre upgrade) and MR HD5650 1GB.

Edit: Disabling Turbocore affected the snappiness of the system, but it did run games far better-I was even able to OC the GPU.

AMDs new turbo function should smooth that issue out. The frame times is either memory (single vs dual channel) or GPU driver based - for now

[WMGroomAK]

44 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Lukewarm reception. Seems like AMD cannot deliver. Add this ontop of leaks showing terrible battery life and well, Ryzen with "Vega" graphics (worst marketing name EVER) seems to be a dud. Sure it has a strong GPU, and decent CPU, but its in mobile, and its battery life is meh.

Maybe we read a different review or got different information out of this, but from what I can tell (and from the conclusions of the article), AMD has a fairly competitive product for the mobile segment if it can be priced right (which AMD and it's partners appear to be trying).  In most cases, the R5 APU appears to be competitive with an Intel chip with integrated graphics (if not beating it at games).  As for the battery life I didn't see that being discussed anywhere in the article besides it being mentioned that the setup they are using has a 55.8 Wh Li-ion battery vs the Intel systems 3220 mAh batteries (which I think would put them around 50 Wh).  There was no discussion as to how long each system performed under different loads.

 

Quote

The Ryzen 5 2500U is the ultimate expression of AMD's APU concept that we've tested so far. Its four Zen CPU cores finally offer competitive performance for Intel's latest chips in a wide range of tasks, and its Vega 8 integrated graphics processor generally offers smooth and responsive entry-level gaming experiences that the blue team's comparably-positioned CPUs can't match.

 

The Vega 8 IGP is the brightest spot for the Ryzen 5 2500U. Where Intel's UHD Graphics 620 IGP might run out of gas even at the lowest possible resolutions and graphics settings in some titles, Vega 8 usually provides playable experiences even with more demanding games and sometimes even higher resolutions. It's no replacement for a GeForce MX150, but Vega 8 certainly sets a high new bar for integrated graphics performance in this power envelope.

 

On the CPU side of the die, Zen still has a modest single-threaded performance deficit versus a similarly-clocked Skylake core in our testing, and that seems to hurt the Ryzen 5 2500U in productivity tasks like web browsing and office work where responsiveness is paramount. Outside of its wins in Blender and Cinebench, the Ryzen 5 2500U hits multithreaded parity with the i5-8250U more often than not, though whether that parity will hold outside of a 15-inch notebook with plenty of metal casing and an aggressive fan remains to be seen.
 
Overall, AMD finally has the competitive CPU cores it's so desperately needed to go with the powerful graphics processors in its APUs, but for the middle of the bell curve, single-threaded performance and snappiness still matters most. Considering how precious that kind of performance is for a responsive user experience, AMD and its partners will have to make the case that the all-around competence of the Ryzen Mobile APU is worth trading away a bit of the single-threaded oomph of Kaby Lake Refresh for a broad swath of users.

 

The strongest way for AMD's partners to make that case will be with price tags. As I outlined in my i5-8250U review, Intel's partners can put together Core i5-powered ultrabooks with GeForce MX150 graphics, 8 GB of RAM, and 256 GB SSDs inside for around $700 to $800. If one of AMD's partners can get a Ryzen 5 2500U into a thin-and-light laptop with a similar SSD and RAM configuration for around $600, we'll really be talking.

 

With only one Ryzen Mobile system on the market right now, though, it's too early to make broad proclamations about the success of AMD's return to competition in mobile computing. Without a doubt, the Ryzen 5 2500U and Ryzen 7 2700U are AMD's best and most competitive mobile APUs ever. Whether that achievement can persuade notebook buyers to choose a Ryzen system over one with Intel inside remains to be seen.

 

[Prysin]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

Maybe we read a different review or got different information out of this, but from what I can tell (and from the conclusions of the article), AMD has a fairly competitive product for the mobile segment if it can be priced right (which AMD and it's partners appear to be trying).  In most cases, the R5 APU appears to be competitive with an Intel chip with integrated graphics (if not beating it at games).  As for the battery life I didn't see that being discussed anywhere in the article besides it being mentioned that the setup they are using has a 55.8 Wh Li-ion battery vs the Intel systems 3220 mAh batteries (which I think would put them around 50 Wh).  There was no discussion as to how long each system performed under different loads.

 

 

if you look at the current prices. we see that AMD isnt CLOSE to competitive.... it starts at 700+ if you want a 256gb SSD...

[Coaxialgamer]

25 minutes ago, Prysin said:

for gaming, it probably cost them 8 FPS, maybe 12. But thats it. Its still slower then a MX150

Vega 8 has 1/8 the shaders of rx veg64 , but only 1/25th the bandwith in this case , and it's shared with the cpu . That's definitely a limiting factor , especially considering that rx vega is already fairly limited by bandwith ...

 

I don't know what's happening with those memory latencies though ... My 1700 posts latencies well under 100ns. Early ryzen showed similar symptoms , and it seems raven ridge is seeing it all over again ...

 

Overall , i'm still disappointed.

[mynameisjuan]

Wow that is one shit CPU

[Trixanity]

Interesting that Notebookcheck had pretty much the opposite conclusions from their benchmarks. Guess we need more sources and quite frankly more devices to test with.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Vega 8 has 1/8 the shaders of rx veg64 , but only 1/25th the bandwith in this case , and it's shared with the cpu . That's definitely a limiting factor , especially considering that rx vega is already fairly limited by bandwith ...

 

I don't know what's happening with those memory latencies though ... My 1700 posts latencies well under 100ns. Early ryzen showed similar symptoms , and it seems raven ridge is seeing it all over again ...

 

Overall , i'm still disappointed.

same latencies we saw with Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator.... its the same IMC just improved. If you see lower memory latency, its because you got a single rank memory kit vs double rank. As that helps A LOT

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

snip

how do we know battery life is bad?

[Prysin]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

how do we know battery life is bad?

been 2-3 leaks out already... you can find them on google

[Coaxialgamer]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

same latencies we saw with Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator.... its the same IMC just improved. If you see lower memory latency, its because you got a single rank memory kit vs double rank. As that helps A LOT

How do we know whether this is single or dual rank though?

[Dabombinable]

16 minutes ago, Prysin said:

AMDs new turbo function should smooth that issue out. The frame times is either memory (single vs dual channel) or GPU driver based - for now

Does the new turbo function mean that the APU turbo at X frequency for a certain amount of time, then fluctuate between its minimum and base clocks?

[Prysin]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Does the new turbo function mean that the APU turbo at X frequency for a certain amount of time, then fluctuate between its minimum and base clocks?

it interlaces c-states, so that turbo doesnt "hard ramp" from "A to B", but instead gradually reduces clock. At the same time, per core power gating in addition to total chip power algorithms control a +25MHz turbo stepping.

 

 

There is no official info on whether or not it "locks" at a certain speed like Kaveri and Carrizo does