Tested: No, Ryzen 7950X3D's iGPU Isn't 4X Faster

Ryzen 9 7950X3D

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • usertests
    The problem I had with the story is that it portrayed the 2 CU Ryzen 7000 iGPU as much weaker than the 32 EU UHD 770 used in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake, when other tests I've seen show them as about equal.

    Source:
    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7700x/22.htmlhttps://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/ryzen-7600x-and-7950x-review-zen-4-starts-off-expensive-but-impressive/5/#h2
    Michael Justin Allen Sexton said:
    Simply put, Intel's IGPs are far more powerful. The irony of this situation is almost painful: AMD not only has far more experience making GPUs but it also makes far more powerful IGPs in other products.

    Simply untrue, guy with 4 names.
    Reply
  • deesider
    Simply put, Intel's IGPs are far more powerful...
    AMD ... also makes far more powerful IGPs in other products.
    I'm not sure critical thinking is his forte.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Honest question because I haven't had time to review the architecture. Does the 7xxxX3D iGPU even have an interconnect to the V-Cache? I didn't think AMD was structuring the V-Cache to act like a UMA layer for both the CPU and GPU.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    JamesJones44 said:
    I didn't think AMD was structuring the V-Cache to act like a UMA layer for both the CPU and GPU.
    The CPU has to be cache-coherent, so it would make sense for the IGP to access stuff in-cache if it happens to be there (ex.: draw command queue) so it doesn't waste time fetching a stale copy from system memory. Doubt it has any mean of using the CPU cache as its own in any other way.
    Reply
  • AgentBirdnest
    Props to Paul for investigating and testing this. : ) You do good work.

    PC Mag updated their article:

    PC Mag said:
    Editors' Note, March 2, 2023: Some scrutiny by Tom's Hardware(Opens in a new window) and online commenters pointed out that our integrated graphics (IGP) testing numbers for the earlier Ryzen 9 7950X chip were unnaturally low; this was likely due to early-driver issues that only became evident with this review of the 7950X3D, and made the 7950X3D's IGP look like a leap forward by comparison. We have retested the Ryzen 9 7950X and updated the numbers in the IGP testing table here and in that original review, and made minor tweaks to this article's intro and IGP Testing section to reflect the new numbers. We'll also be retesting the IGPs on the Ryzen 7 7700 and 7700X in the coming days. The original, fundamental conclusions we made about this chip, though, have not changed.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Long time ago, before the hummus sapiens... intel make a cpu with edram crystal well with true 128mb l4 cache. Maybe has helped with graphics... but that glue amd shinigamis have can't be too good :)
    Reply
  • rluker5
    It is good this came out. Generally speaking, desktop igpus are terrible at gaming. Pretending they are good is just setting people up for disappointment.

    One can be better than the other, but if they are still worse than a 10 year old dgpu, sorry they are terrible.

    But they are good for non gaming display tasks, have been for a long time and having one is a big usability improvement for Ryzen for those who don't game.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    rluker5 said:
    It is good this came out. Generally speaking, desktop igpus are terrible at gaming. Pretending they are good is just setting people up for disappointment.

    One can be better than the other, but if they are still worse than a 10 year old dgpu, sorry they are terrible.
    Depends on the IGP: while the basic IGP in Intel and AMD's normal desktop lineups may be only adequate for basic desktop use and simple games. Intel's mobile IGPs with ~3X the performance is getting into usable territory and AMD's latest 780M does make most current sub-$200 GPUs irrelevant performance-wise.

    Once AMD or Intel decides to bring some DRAM on-package, we'll probably see "big IGPs" aiming somewhere in the neighborhood of RTX4060-4070 performance with a tile/chiplet whatever the size the DRAM chips stacked on top of it are.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    InvalidError said:
    Depends on the IGP: while the basic IGP in Intel and AMD's normal desktop lineups may be only adequate for basic desktop use and simple games. Intel's mobile IGPs with ~3X the performance is getting into usable territory and AMD's latest 780M does make most current sub-$200 GPUs irrelevant performance-wise.

    Once AMD or Intel decides to bring some DRAM on-package, we'll probably see "big IGPs" aiming somewhere in the neighborhood of RTX4060-4070 performance with a tile/chiplet whatever the size the DRAM chips stacked on top of it are.

    Totally agree here. DRAM on package will likely allow iGPUs to compete for lower end dGPU share.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    InvalidError said:
    Depends on the IGP: while the basic IGP in Intel and AMD's normal desktop lineups may be only adequate for basic desktop use and simple games. Intel's mobile IGPs with ~3X the performance is getting into usable territory and AMD's latest 780M does make most current sub-$200 GPUs irrelevant performance-wise.

    Once AMD or Intel decides to bring some DRAM on-package, we'll probably see "big IGPs" aiming somewhere in the neighborhood of RTX4060-4070 performance with a tile/chiplet whatever the size the DRAM chips stacked on top of it are.
    That is a relative measure. You can call phone graphics fast by a relative measure, but compared to the standard of desktop graphics they are not.
    The 680m is slower than a 2013 290x. And an A380. At least according to Techpowerup.
    The 680m, while excellent as a low power/low performance mobile solution, can't be called good in terms of the normal accepted reference of desktop gaming.

    The igpu in a 7700x or 12700k is hardly a 680m when it comes to gaming.

    People hoping otherwise will be let down.

    But they do display the desktop and play video quite well. At least the Intel ones. I'm just assuming the AMD ones do as well since their dgpus are up to normal standards.
    Reply