AMD Ryzen 4000 mobile APUs already arrived this year, but according to a tweet from hardware detective @_rogame, it's possible we'll soon see AMD Ryzen 4000 APUs make their way to the desktop with AMD's Zen 2 microarchitecture.
AMD has pretty much flushed out its processor product stack with 7nm parts. Only the desktop APU hasn't received the Zen 2 treatment. AMD's current desktop APUs, (codenamed Picasso), are still on the Zen+ microarchitecture and GlobalFoundries' 12nm manufacturing process. The transition to Zen 2 and the 7nm process node would bring some significant improvements to the segment.
The unidentified processor's core and thread count is currently unknown, but it reportedly runs within the 35W envelope. Given the TDP rating, it could be an Athlon or one of those Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 GE-series parts that are optimized for efficiency. For context, existing Ryzen desktop APUs span up to four cores, while Athlon chips are stuck at two cores. The hardware sleuth seemed to think that the processor could be the Ryzen 3 4200GE or Ryzen 3 4100GE.
According to the tweet, the CPU features a 3 GHz base clock with performance somewhere between a Ryzen 5 4600U and Ryzen 7 4700U. The hardware detective didn't share the exact design of the iGPU; however, it was seemingly operating with a 1.2 GHz clock speed. Graphics performance was allegedly slower than a Renoir chip with six Vega Compute Units (CUs).
The desktop AMD Ryzen 4000 APU was reportedly tested with a system using an AMD motherboard that appeared under the "Artic" codename, which could point to an unreleased chipset. The processor was paired with DDR4-3200 RAM, so there's no doubt that it's a desktop processor. In any case, the APU should be backwards-compatible with AMD's 300-and 400-series motherboards with a mere firmware update.
Please, make your CPU/APU naming schemes simpler to understand! We shouldn't have to know the version numbers of Zen, desktop, and/or mobile APUs to figure out which is better - why a 4000 APU uses the Zen 2 CPU but isn't necessarily better than a 3000-series desktop. Make all of the numbers tell you at a glance what you need to know, and let them connect to each other in easy-to-understand numbers - you know, synergy!
Zen could have all been 1000 series, Zen 2 could have all been 2000 series, and Zen 3 could all be 3000 series. Add a "M" at the end for mobile, "A" for APU, and make all the thousand-series numbers relative to each other in terms of performance. Keep the 3, 5, 7, and 9 to make it easy to compare against Intel, if you want. Just simplify the model #s in the thousand-series to make it easier on all of us!
You could even re-number upcoming Zen series to keep it all together - make Zen 3 into Zen 5 (e.g. 5000 series), and start fresh with simple to understand naming!
My first thought was that people will confuse the 4000 APU (Zen2) desktop series with the 4000 (Zen3) desktop series. As if they are somehow equal, with the exception of integrated graphics , or not.
Intel does naming, in general, better than AMD. It's much simpler by having the same naming convention, with the "F" added to the same family name to let consumers know it doesn't include graphics. Imagine the confusion if the 10700K used the 9700K CPU (8core/8threads). While the 10700KF was the newer 8core/16thread CPU. I think AMD needs to do a hard-stop so their naming conventions can re-align.
I don't agree. The Ryzen 4000 Mobile CPUs are much newer, and have a different IO die, and were released a year later. I'm fine with Ryzen 4000 for some Zen 2 parts. It's pretty simple, CPUs with integrated graphics vs without. Not hard.
I know that its just a Zen 2 APU and not Zen 3 but who knows.
Edit: I have an X370 and a 1800X. I will only upgrade to Zen 3.
I disagree. Look at the current Intel 10xxx series, there's Ice Lake and Cannon Lake, both are using the model 10xxx, while 1 is 10nm and other is 14nm with an architecture that's the same since 6xxx series.
I don't deny I don't like the AMD naming convention and can't understand why the APU needs to be 1 generation behind, but certainly don't agree that Intel is better when it comes to naming convention.