AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G APU Performance Tests and Results

[.Apex.]

17 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

The OEM models are vBIOS locked. There is no set cooler but they usually come with a radial one akin to the intel stock cooler. No copper slug. That's why they got 87 and throttle the boost.

 

Laptop models are limited to 40-50W and hence cannot boost more. Seeing as the Renoir models are in thrvsame performance category, I merely pointed it out. Sure, they're slower than an EVGA SSC or Asus Strix but those cards are factory unlocked to 90W

Got a score of 6939 while the clock speed is at 1772Mhz, so let's say it was running at 1400Mhz.

6939 * 0.79 = 5481

 

That score is still 32% higher than the Vega 8 in the 4750G.

[porina]

Want some power/thermal constrained numbers from a 1050? I'm firing up my laptop now. It might need some updates, but I'll run the three 3DMark benches and Heaven if I go download it. CPU is 7300HQ.

[5x5]

26 minutes ago, Syn. said:

Got a score of 6939 while the clock speed is at 1772Mhz, so let's say it was running at 1400Mhz.

6939 * 0.79 = 5481

 

That score is still 32% higher than the Vega 8 in the 4750G.

If only clockspeed scaled linearly.

[5x5]

15 minutes ago, porina said:

Want some power/thermal constrained numbers from a 1050? I'm firing up my laptop now. It might need some updates, but I'll run the three 3DMark benches and Heaven if I go download it. CPU is 7300HQ.

I mean the FX had a slightly higher power target than the 1050 spec but sure thing

[.Apex.]

8 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

If only clockspeed scaled linearly.

Maybe it doesn't but that's actually the worst case scenario with the way I calculated it, so if anything in real testing the performance would be higher at those clocks.

[porina]

52 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

I mean the FX had a slightly higher power target than the 1050 spec but sure thing

What's an FX got to do with things?

 

Anyway, I just finished preparing the laptop so the benches will start running soon. However I remembered I did some tests previously, so I can put those results up now. Number in brackets is the 4750G result from previous page.

 

Firestrike 5625 (4152): https://www.3dmark.com/fs/15338478

Firestrike Extreme 2534 (1872): https://www.3dmark.com/fs/15321518

Timespy 1795 (1586): https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3611553

 

That puts my laptop with a 1050 at +35%, +35%, +13% faster than the 4750G respectively for the 3 tests above.

 

For the same tests on previous page, the 4750G is +21%, +9.9%, +27% faster than the 1030. 

 

Note the 4750G result make be skewed by its potentially higher CPU performance. If just comparing graphics scores, the 1050 would likely be further ahead. Given OS, driver and whatever changes since I ran those tests, I'll re-run them shortly anyway.

 

Edit: I just noticed those results were run early on when I got the laptop, and it has a single channel 8GB of ram in 2 of the tests... it's on dual channel now. Let's see if that makes a difference.

[5x5]

29 minutes ago, Syn. said:

Maybe it doesn't but that's actually the worst case scenario with the way I calculated it, so if anything in real testing the performance would be higher at those clocks.

You're discounting memory clocks, memory bandwidth and many other things.

[.Apex.]

1 minute ago, 5x5 said:

You're discounting memory clocks, memory bandwidth and many other things.

I did not discount anything, the Memory Clocks will run constantly at spec no matter what the cooling solution is, so there is no change other than Core Clock, technically the clocks are linear but in testing they are not because there might be a memory bottleneck at high core clock so when you lower the clocks the performance might not be as low as you lowered the clocks, so by calculating it this way you're assuming the worst performance metric.

[porina]

Just done Unigine Heaven at 1080p low like they said. But there's 3 more settings that weren't specified. I used DX11 for both runs. First run with extreme tessellation and 8x AA got me 41.6 fps, and 2nd run with no tessellation and no AA was 131.9 fps. Or did they use some other combination of settings? Can't tell, so might be best to park this one to one side.

[.Apex.]

1 hour ago, porina said:

Just done Unigine Heaven at 1080p low like they said. But there's 3 more settings that weren't specified. I used DX11 for both runs. First run with extreme tessellation and 8x AA got me 41.6 fps, and 2nd run with no tessellation and no AA was 131.9 fps. Or did they use some other combination of settings? Can't tell, so might be best to park this one to one side.

Running this on my UHD 630 at 1080p (Low quality/Extreme Tessellation/8xAA) I got an average of 11.1 FPS, I would take their results with a grain of salt but it's no surprise that a GTX 1050 will perform much higher than the GT 1030 tested here even in a Laptop formfactor, and not to mention that it's unknown if the 3Dmark results are the Overall score or Graphics score, considering that the CPU performance is on par with a 3700X then an Overall score would push it higher than your 7300HQ.

 

I'm mentioning the GT 1030 because it's performing the same in games, so taking that as a baseline if what they're showing is the Overall score for the APU results, so maybe they're testing the GT 1030 with the i7-10700?

[porina]

FS 5179 https://www.3dmark.com/fs/23181606

FSE 2543 https://www.3dmark.com/fs/23181641

TS 1777 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/13180659

 

Fresh runs above. Firestrike is quite a bit lower than the old result, which I noticed now had a GPU overclock on it. New result is +25% faster than the 4750G.

 

Firestrike Extreme and Timespy are within tolerance of the old results. Does mean ram bandwidth doesn't affect them much.

 

Overall I'd argue the 4750G is still some way off my laptop with a 1050, with the ongoing caution that if we're looking at graphical performance, the 4750G will have quite a CPU advantage in the overall score. I'd also consider my laptop 1050 to not be the best for obvious reasons. A desktop class 1050 would likely do even better. So I can't accept the 4750G is "1050 class" here. Maybe there is some crippled 1050 out there that would be closer, but if making comparisons they should be somewhat resembling what people generally expect of the model. I'll let the more professional reviewers do wider game testing in due course before we get a better picture of where it fits in, but within this limited test the statement it is "1050 class" is not proven.

[thorhammerz]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

Maybe there is some crippled 1050 out there that would be closer

GTX 1050 DDR4 edition?

[porina]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

Did Nvidia ever release GTX 1050 DDR4 edition? 

There was a 1030 DDR4 version if that's what you're thinking of. 

[Dabombinable]

Well my 650ti just got rekt by an iGPU. And it took 7 years+AMD to do it...lol. Intel iGPU still be a bit on the shit side.

[RIPKABY]

There said, the APU is now on par or even better than a much more massive GT1030, so it's impressive enough to make Intel look even more bad.  

[Master Disaster]

18 hours ago, Deli said:

I'm more interested in 4650G. I hope it's €200 or less.

Unfortunately you'll never find out. The 4000 series APUs will be OEM parts only in the vast majority of the world (unless something changed within the last few days?), the only way you'll ever get your hands on one is to buy an OEM PC with one in or on the used market.

 

Makes sense if you think about it. For around $30 more you get a CPU that's within 5% of the performance of a 3700X but comes with an RX550/GTX1050 level GPU built right in. Nobody would buy the 3700X.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Unfortunately you'll never find out. The 4000 series APUs will be OEM parts only in the vast majority of the world (unless something changed within the last few days?), the only way you'll ever get your hands on one is to buy an OEM PC with one in or on the used market.

We'll have to see how tightly AMD try to control the OEM CPUs. In the past, on Intel side at least, it wasn't unusual for them to find their way to retail also. These days the savings aren't there though, and you don't get box warranty.

 

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Makes sense if you think about it. For around $30 more you get a CPU that's within 5% of the performance of a 3700X but comes with an RX550/GTX1050 level GPU built right in. Nobody would buy the 3700X.

To recap, the 4750G is a 65W TDP part on TSMC 7nm, but if it follows the older desktop parts, would actually limit to 88W PPT. Per my previous post, I'd need evidence by the regular game benchmarkers before I'd consider it 1050 class, as right now it looks as close to 1030 as it is to 1050. Let's split the difference, call it 1040 class  

 

 

A GT 1030 is 30W TDP, built on 14nm process and was released over 3 years ago. If you were to rebuild a 1030-class GPU on 7nm today, you'd likely get better power efficiency, or more performance, or both. That leaves at least 30W to over 50W for the CPU, which is not too limiting. Going the other side, a 1050 is 75W TDP, was released earlier than the 1030 but otherwise same considerations apply. Also look at the more than year old 1650, which is same TDP as 1050, but offers a ball park 50% uplift on relative performance. And it does so at 12nm. Given technological progress I think these APUs are where they should be, but are not exceptionally remarkable. They fit a good use case where simplicity and basic level performance is needed from the GPU side, but I don't think they're that radical.

 

Also, for all the chiplet hype, these APUs are monolithic.

[Kisai]

15 hours ago, BuckGup said:

I wonder if AMDs long term goal is to just fully integrate the GPU onto the CPU

No, AMD has been offering the APU chips for quite a while. The problem is that Intel's solution is trash under every scenario, even here where its' less than half. The "good" Intel GPU parts are only available on specific laptop parts, while the crappy iGPU's are on pretty much all the other parts, which tells you that the "good" iGPU parts are only laptop parts and the desktop parts are not made with good GPU parts on purpose.

 

AMD on the other hand, just uses the same integrated GPU part as their desktop part more or less. So the APU SoC type parts basically exchange half the potential CPU cores for this GPU part that runs on system memory (which is by itself slower than GPU memory) but more than passable when it comes to entry-level GPU requirements. Like it likely does not do 1080p60 in most software but can easily do 1080p30 or 720p60, which puts it in a better position than the Intel iGPU which can't even do 720p30 on the same games.

[5x5]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Unfortunately you'll never find out. The 4000 series APUs will be OEM parts only in the vast majority of the world (unless something changed within the last few days?), the only way you'll ever get your hands on one is to buy an OEM PC with one in or on the used market.

 

Makes sense if you think about it. For around $30 more you get a CPU that's within 5% of the performance of a 3700X but comes with an RX550/GTX1050 level GPU built right in. Nobody would buy the 3700X.

A 4700G mainstream model is coming, alongside Zen 3

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

A 4700G mainstream model is coming, alongside Zen 3

The 4700G is already technically launched but I see nothing to suggest its available to the public. What I have read is the entire 4000G series is available to only OEMs while the 4000G Pros are available to OEMs & SI's.

 

According to AMD the 4700G is a Zen 2 CPU with an iGPU so exactly the same as the 4x50s we've seen.

 

There's a few places in Europe selling them as Tray Models but as for general availability, not yet.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The 4700G is already technically launched but I see nothing to suggest its available to the public. What I have read is the entire 4000G series is available to only OEMs while the 4000G Pros are available to OEMs & SI's.

 

According to AMD the 4700G is a Zen 2 CPU with an iGPU so exactly the same as the 4x50s we've seen.

 

There's a few places in Europe selling them as Tray Models but as for general availability, not yet.

Boxed models will be launched with Zen 3 most likely

[Gohardgrandpa]

I don't understand how people can be so happy about these cpu's. Who buys a cpu for $345 to play games on low settings

[5x5]

14 minutes ago, Gohardgrandpa said:

I don't understand how people can be so happy about these cpu's. Who buys a cpu for $345 to play games on low settings

Adults with a job who only play a game of StarCraft per night and do heavy work during the day?

[Master Disaster]

24 minutes ago, Gohardgrandpa said:

I don't understand how people can be so happy about these cpu's. Who buys a cpu for $345 to play games on low settings

Except thats not the case.

 

The 4700G can run Death Stranding on High at 1080p 30 FPS or 720p 60 FPS. It can run Doom Eternal on High at 1080p 40 FPS to 80 FPS.

 

Lets be real here, this is an integrated GPU that is capable of matching (or getting damn close to) a base PS4.

[Gohardgrandpa]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Except thats not the case.

 

The 4700G can run Death Stranding on High at 1080p 30 FPS or 720p 60 FPS. It can run Doom Eternal on High at 1080p 40 FPS to 80 FPS.

 

Lets be real here, this is an integrated GPU that is capable of matching (or getting damn close to) a base PS4.

I agree, it’s great that it can match something that came out 7 years ago.