{"id":117524,"date":"2024-07-15T03:44:05","date_gmt":"2024-07-15T01:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/novosti-interneta\/novaya-statya-obzor-ryzen-5-8500g-raznoyadernyj-shestiyadernik-na-zamenu-ryzen-5-5600g"},"modified":"2024-07-15T03:44:05","modified_gmt":"2024-07-15T01:44:05","slug":"novaya-statya-obzor-ryzen-5-8500g-raznoyadernyj-shestiyadernik-na-zamenu-ryzen-5-5600g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/novaya-statya-obzor-ryzen-5-8500g-raznoyadernyj-shestiyadernik-na-zamenu-ryzen-5-5600g","title":{"rendered":"New Article: Review of Ryzen 5 8500G: A Six-Core Chip with Mixed Cores Replacing Ryzen 5 5600G","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"

The lineup of hybrid processors from AMD designed for the desktop platform Socket AM5 includes a total of four representatives. We previously discussed the two higher models \u2014 the octa-core Ryzen 7 8700G<\/a><\/noindex> with Radeon 780M graphics and the six-core Ryzen 5 8600G<\/a><\/noindex> with Radeon 760M graphics in detail. These hybrid processors, based on Zen 4 cores and RDNA 3 graphics architecture, offer unique capabilities \u2014 they provide gaming performance comparable to that of GeForce GTX 1650-level video cards, with just the integrated GPU. This feature makes the Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G quite suitable for building relatively inexpensive gaming systems, allowing for the complete omission of a discrete graphics card.<\/p>\n

However, there is a serious issue: for those computers where it would make sense to install them, they are still too expensive. For the amount you would need to spend on a platform with one of these processors featuring powerful integrated graphics, you could easily purchase a system with a last-gen six-core processor and a significantly more powerful graphics card (like the Radeon RX 6600). Thus, there is currently no clear economic justification for choosing the higher-end APU models for the Socket AM5 platform.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

But that does not mean that all representatives of the Ryzen 8000G series are of no interest. Besides Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G, it includes two more processors. One of them, the four-core Ryzen 3 8300G, is intended for distribution through OEM channels and is unlikely to become widely available, making it less interesting. On the other hand, the six-core Ryzen 5 8500G looks much better: just look at its specifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nRyzen 7 8700G<\/th>\nRyzen 5 8600G<\/th>\nRyzen 5 8500G<\/th>\nRyzen 3 8300G<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Design<\/strong><\/td>\nPhoenix<\/td>\nPhoenix<\/td>\nPhoenix 2<\/td>\nPhoenix 2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cores<\/strong><\/td>\n8 \u00d7 Zen 4<\/td>\n6 \u00d7 Zen 4<\/td>\n2 \u00d7 Zen 4 + 4 \u00d7 Zen 4c<\/td>\n1 \u00d7 Zen 4 + 3 \u00d7 Zen 4c<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Threads<\/strong><\/td>\n16<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L3 Cache, MB<\/strong><\/td>\n16<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Base frequency, GHz<\/strong><\/td>\n4,2<\/td>\n4,3<\/td>\n4,1 \/ 3,2<\/td>\n4,0 \/ 3,2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max. Frequency, GHz<\/strong><\/td>\n5,1<\/td>\n5,0<\/td>\n5,0 \/ 3,7<\/td>\n4,9 \/ 3,6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NPU<\/strong><\/td>\nThere is<\/td>\nThere is<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GPU<\/strong><\/td>\nRadeon 780M (12 CU)<\/td>\nRadeon 760M (8 CU)<\/td>\nRadeon 740M (4 CU)<\/td>\nRadeon 740M (4 CU)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GPU Frequency, GHz<\/strong><\/td>\n2,9<\/td>\n2,8<\/td>\n2,8<\/td>\n2,6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
TDP, W<\/strong><\/td>\n65<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Price<\/strong><\/td>\n$329<\/td>\n$229<\/td>\n$179<\/td>\nN\/A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/center> \t\t\t\t <\/p>\n

On one hand, the Ryzen 5 8500G is over 20% cheaper than the neighboring six-core model, the Ryzen 5 8600G. On the other hand, the specifications of the Ryzen 5 8600G and Ryzen 5 8500G are quite similar, leading to the thought that the rightful successor to the extremely popular Ryzen 5 5600G should not be the overrated Ryzen 5 8600G, but rather the more affordable Ryzen 5 8500G.<\/p>\n

This is why we decided to dedicate a separate review to the Ryzen 5 8500G. In it, we will evaluate this processor as a modern alternative to the Ryzen 5 5600G and answer the questions that arise in this context. Can it boast the same revolutionary progress in graphics performance as its Ryzen 8000G counterparts, and can the Ryzen 5 8500G be considered a more budget-friendly version of the Ryzen 5 8600G?<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Ryzen 5 8500G is interesting not only because it has a chance to become a versatile all-in-one processor for budget gaming systems. It also deserves attention because it is based on the Phoenix 2 semiconductor chip. This means that the Ryzen 5 8500G is one of the first AMD desktop processors that include cores of different types: high-performance Zen 4 and efficient Zen 4c.<\/p>\n

\u2193<\/a><\/noindex>#<\/a><\/noindex>What are Zen 4c cores and what do they do in the Ryzen 5 8500G?<\/p>\n

The concept of efficient Zen 4c cores originated in the server segment. The main goal of their creation was to minimize the area occupied by each core on the processor's semiconductor chip to produce highly multi-core CPUs. Ultimately, AMD achieved its goal: it was the Zen 4c cores that became the foundation for the 128-core Epyc Genoa. After that, AMD implemented these cores in the mobile segment, where they allowed processors to be not only cheaper but also more energy-efficient. And now, the Zen 4c cores have reached desktop PCs, where they similarly coexist with standard Zen 4 cores and address comparable tasks \u2014 reducing the cost of the lower-end APU versions.<\/p>\n

Essentially, the Ryzen 5 8500G can be considered an equivalent to the mobile Ryzen 5 7545U: it is the same six-core processor based on the Phoenix 2 design, which simultaneously uses compute cores of two types: Zen 4 and Zen 4c. However, AMD's hybrid approach implemented in Phoenix 2 differs significantly from Intel's approach. The performance and efficient cores in the Ryzen 5 8500G do not differ in base architecture or size of Level 2 cache memory, thus yielding equal performance at the same clock frequency. The difference lies in the area occupied by Zen 4 and Zen 4c on the semiconductor chip. The efficient cores are physically smaller, not due to simplification, but because of the increased transistor density.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

The area of a single Zen 4 core is 3.84 mm\u00b2. The Zen 4c core is 35% smaller, occupying 2.48 mm\u00b2 on the chip. Both versions of the core are produced using the same 4nm process technology, but the Zen 4c in silicon uses different libraries, resulting in a higher concentration of transistors per unit area of the chip. This has its consequences: the denser Zen 4c cores cannot operate at the same high frequencies as the standard Zen 4. This difference is quite significant. While the maximum frequency of Zen 4 cores exceeds 5 GHz (in some cases by several hundred megahertz), the frequency of Zen 4c is limited to 3.7 GHz. This leads to the efficiency of Zen 4c: the reduced frequency allows for a lower voltage, which in turn reduces power consumption.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

The Phoenix 2 chip used by AMD in the Ryzen 5 8500G differs fundamentally from the base Phoenix chip found in the higher-end APU of the same series (Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G). This is originally a six-core, not an eight-core silicon, where only two cores belong to the Zen 4 class, while the other four are 'densified' Zen 4c. As a result, the total area of the Phoenix 2 chip is only 137 mm\u00b2, while the area of the Phoenix chip is 178 mm\u00b2.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

However, the silicon savings in Phoenix 2 are not solely due to the transition from an eight-core to a six-core design and the use of Zen 4c instead of Zen 4. The capabilities of Phoenix 2 are also significantly reduced in terms of integrated graphics: the number of CU blocks is reduced from 12 to 4. Additionally, this version of the die lacks the Ryzen AI coprocessor.<\/p>\n

\u2193<\/a><\/noindex>#<\/a><\/noindex>Detailed specifications of the Ryzen 5 8500G<\/p>\n

The Ryzen 5 8500G is a processor that utilizes all the capabilities of the Phoenix 2 chip to the fullest. It is a six-core chip where the maximum frequency of Zen 4 cores reaches up to 5 GHz, and Zen 4c cores reach up to 3.7 GHz; the size of the L3 cache is 16 MB, while the integrated Radeon 740M graphics uses all available 4 CUs with RDNA 3 architecture and operates at a frequency of up to 2.8 GHz.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

Thus, when comparing two related six-core APUs based on the Phoenix and Phoenix 2 chips \u2014 the Ryzen 5 8600G and Ryzen 5 8500G \u2014 it becomes clear that the processor with the higher model number excels primarily due to the power of its graphics core, which has twice as many CUs. There is also a second advantage \u2014 the ability of all cores of the Ryzen 5 8600G to operate under multi-threaded load at a frequency of 4.6 GHz. In a similar situation, only two cores classified as Zen 4 in the Ryzen 5 8500G will operate at 4.6 GHz, while the others will only reach 3.7 GHz.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

Moreover, the frequency formula for the Ryzen 5 8500G, if you look closely, is quite peculiar. The frequency of its Zen 4 cores can reach 5.05 GHz only when one, two, three, or four cores are under load. However, once five or six cores are engaged, the maximum frequency of the Zen 4 cores is strictly limited to 4.6 GHz. At the same time, the frequency of the Zen 4c cores adjusts based on the current frequency of the Zen 4 cores. If they are operating at 5.05 GHz, the Zen 4c cores are set to a frequency of 3.4 GHz, and if at 4.6 GHz, then 3.7 GHz.<\/p>\n

As a result, the Ryzen 5 8500G can face a situation where increasing load intensity causes the frequency of the Zen 4 cores to decrease while that of the Zen 4c cores increases. For instance, this flip occurs when transitioning from a quad-threaded to a five-threaded load, as shown in the graph below, which we built by observing the frequencies of the Ryzen 5 8500G during rendering in Cinebench R23 with varying active thread counts. Under a quad-threaded load, two Zen 4 cores operate at 5.05 GHz, while two Zen 4c cores run at 3.4 GHz. When another thread comes into play, and a third Zen 4c core is activated, the frequency of the Zen 4 cores drops by 450 MHz, while the frequency of the Zen 4c cores increases by 300 MHz.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

Fortunately, this illogical frequency formula doesn't cause any issues because processors designed with Phoenix 2 architecture lack their own mechanisms for distributing threads akin to Intel's Thread Director. Threads are directed to cores by the standard Windows task scheduler, which follows a very simple principle: first, load is directed to cores with a higher clock speed, and then to those with a lower speed. As for the virtual cores generated by SMT technology, they are loaded last.<\/p>\n

Thus, the effective cores in the Ryzen 5 8500G are not oriented towards background task management, and the Windows scheduler does not take their energy efficiency into account when distributing workload. Even minor loads are always directed primarily to the Zen 4 cores, making the Ryzen 5 8500G a less economical processor than it could have been with better collaboration between AMD and Microsoft.<\/p>\n

However, it is difficult to raise any complaints about the energy efficiency of the Ryzen 5 8500G. According to official specifications, it, like the Ryzen 5 8600G, is classified as a processor with a thermal package of 65W. Moreover, in practice, its maximum consumption during multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench R23 is around 42W.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

The similar Ryzen 5 8600G based on the Phoenix design, in the same situation, consumes significantly more power \u2014 about 72 watts. However, it should be understood that the energy efficiency of the Ryzen 5 8500G in this comparison is due to the frequency of the Zen 4c cores, which is nearly a full gigahertz lower than that of the Zen 4 cores.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, it turns out that the main power consumer in the Ryzen 5 8500G is not the computational cores but the graphics. For instance, under high graphical load during the Furmark test, the APU's power consumption reaches up to 55 watts.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

Consequently, under full and simultaneous load on the graphics and CPU cores, the Ryzen 5 8500G still hits its consumption limit set at 88W. However, this has little effect on the processor's operating frequencies. The computational cores continue to operate at peak frequencies, while the limitation only affects the GPU frequency, which drops from a maximum of 2.8 to 2.6-2.7 GHz.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

However, the situation in the screenshot above is artificially created by running the most resource-intensive applications in their class \u2014 Cinebench R23 and FurMark. In real games, nothing like this is observed. The maximum consumption of the Ryzen 5 8500G (using the integrated graphics core) is around 50-60 watts. For instance, the following graphs show the measured consumption of the Ryzen 5 8500G in Counter Strike 2 and Cyberpunk 2027.<\/p>\n

\"New \"New <\/p>\n

From the results of such measurements, it follows that the Ryzen 5 8500G has not become a more economical APU compared to the Ryzen 5 5600G, at least when it comes to gaming. The six-core representative of the Cezanne family consumes 5-10 watts less under similar conditions. However, this is not surprising. Although the Ryzen 5 8500G is manufactured using a more modern 4nm process, its Radeon 740M graphics core is significantly more powerful, even if it may not seem so at first glance. But let's dig deeper.<\/p>\n

\u2193<\/a><\/noindex>#<\/a><\/noindex>Radeon 740M Graphics: Gaming or Office Use?<\/p>\n

On one hand, the graphics of the Ryzen 5 8500G do not look powerful: it is based on 4 CUs and has 256 shader processors, 16 texture units, and 8 rasterization units. For example, the six-core APU from last generation, the Ryzen 5 5600G, has a much richer set of resources: its GPU consists of 7 CUs and offers 448 shader processors, 28 texture units, and 8 rasterization units. But on the other hand, all of this is balanced out by the architectural differences \u2014 the graphics of the Ryzen 5 8500G is based on the RDNA 3 architecture and even supports hardware ray tracing, while the previous generation APU used the GCN 5th generation (Vega) graphics architecture from seven years ago. Additionally, the graphics core of the Ryzen 5 8500G has a significantly higher frequency \u2014 2.8 versus 1.9 GHz. As a result, in terms of theoretical performance, the graphics of the Ryzen 5 8500G represents a significant step forward. The performance of the Radeon 740M can be estimated at 2.7 teraflops, while the calculated performance of the Ryzen 5 5600G graphics stands at 1.7 teraflops.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

Furthermore, this must be supplemented by a significant increase in memory bus bandwidth, which greatly affects the performance of integrated GPUs. Platforms with the Ryzen 5 5600G are equipped with dual-channel DDR4 SDRAM, providing a bandwidth of 51.2 GB\/s (when operating in DDR4-3200 mode). At the same time, the Ryzen 5 8500G, paired with at least dual-channel DDR5-5200, can provide its graphics core access to memory with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB\/s.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Ryzen 5 8500G, like its older siblings the Ryzen 5 8600G and Ryzen 7 8700G, has a good chance of making its way into entry-level gaming systems, even though it is based on the Phoenix 2 chip with a reduced GPU. This is compensated by its price: the Ryzen 5 8500G currently costs around 17-18 thousand rubles, while a similar six-core Ryzen 5 8600G on the Phoenix chip is sold for no less than 24 thousand rubles.<\/p>\n

However, it should be noted that the Radeon 740M is, in some sense, a compromise solution. Against the backdrop of the Radeon 780M and Radeon 760M, its specifications are not particularly impressive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nRadeon 780M<\/th>\nRadeon 760M<\/th>\nRadeon 740M<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Architecture<\/strong><\/td>\nRDNA 3<\/td>\nRDNA 3<\/td>\nRDNA 3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CU<\/strong><\/td>\n12<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Stream processors<\/strong><\/td>\n768<\/td>\n512<\/td>\n256<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Texture units<\/strong><\/td>\n48<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Rasterization units<\/strong><\/td>\n24<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RT units<\/strong><\/td>\n12<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Frequency, GHz<\/strong><\/td>\n2,9<\/td>\n2,8<\/td>\n2,8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L0 cache, KB<\/strong><\/td>\n192<\/td>\n128<\/td>\n64<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L1 cache, KB<\/strong><\/td>\n1536<\/td>\n1024<\/td>\n512<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
L2 cache, MB<\/strong><\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filling rate, GTexels\/s<\/strong><\/td>\n139,2<\/td>\n89,6<\/td>\n44,8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filling rate, Gpixels\/s<\/strong><\/td>\n69,6<\/td>\n44,8<\/td>\n22,4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FP32 performance, TFLOPS<\/strong><\/td>\n8,91<\/td>\n5,73<\/td>\n2,87<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

But in real performance, the gap between the Radeon 780M, Radeon 760M, and Radeon 740M is not that drastic. All three accelerators use the same memory bus, which smooths out the differences. For example, according to the synthetic benchmark 3DMark Steel Nomad Light, the integrated graphics of the Radeon 780M outperforms the Radeon 740M by 80%, although in terms of specifications, the superiority should be threefold.<\/p>\n

\"New <\/p>\n

As for the comparison of the built-in accelerators, the Radeon 760M and Radeon 740M, the graphics of the Ryzen 5 8600G, according to 3DMark Steel Nomad Light, is practically only 32% faster. But for now, this is a preliminary estimate; detailed tests in real games are ahead.<\/p>\n

\u2193<\/a><\/noindex>#<\/a><\/noindex>Disadvantages of the Ryzen 5 8500G: overclocking and PCIe<\/p>\n

However, even if we don't nitpick the graphical performance, it cannot be said that the Ryzen 5 8500G can become a full-fledged successor to the Ryzen 5 5600G. It's not just that the six-core APU of the previous generation currently costs about 40% less in stores. Much worse is that the new generation processor has unpleasant limitations that will make it seem worse to many than the six-core APU for the Socket AM4 platform.<\/p>\n

The first issue with the Ryzen 5 8500G is overclocking. In this processor, it is almost completely locked. You cannot raise the frequency of the integrated cores or overclock the graphics core. The only things you can change in the Ryzen 5 8500G are the memory and Infinity Fabric bus frequencies. In addition to this, access to the Curve Optimizer function remains in the Ryzen 5 8500G, but in this case, it is of little use.<\/p>\n

The second, more serious issue is the PCI Express bus controller. The Phoenix 2 chip, on which the Ryzen 5 8500G is based, was primarily designed for mobile PCs. As a result, the options for connecting various peripherals are significantly reduced, even more so than in processors using Phoenix chips. There is no support for PCI Express 5.0 at all, and the number of PCI Express 4.0 lanes is cut down to 14 (compared to 20 in Phoenix and 28 in standard Ryzen 7000). Out of these 14 lanes, 4 are dedicated to connecting with the chipset, while the remaining 10 are split between the external graphics card and NVMe drives.<\/p>\n

As a result, when installing a discrete graphics accelerator in a system with Ryzen 5 8500G, it will only be able to utilize the PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. The first SSD will also get the same interface, while the second drive will have to make do with two PCIe 4.0 lanes. This not only limits the potential use of systems based on Ryzen 5 8500G with fast SSDs, but also raises questions about the feasibility of their subsequent upgrades with discrete graphics cards. However, for now, this doesn\u2019t seem so dire: as tests show, currently available graphics cards lose no more than 10% of their performance when using PCIe 4.0 x4 instead of PCIe 4.0 x16.<\/p>\n

\u2193<\/a><\/noindex>#<\/a><\/noindex>Description of the test systems<\/p>\n

So, in terms of graphical capabilities, the Ryzen 5 8500G is significantly cut down compared to the Ryzen 5 8600G. Nevertheless, it remains a next-generation hybrid processor with modern architectures for computing cores and graphics. Therefore, it is quite relevant to check how applicable it is in full-fledged entry-level gaming systems.<\/p>\n

The main competitors of the Ryzen 5 8500G in this study will logically be its higher siblings (Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G), as well as AMD's previous generation hybrid processors (Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G). In fact, this set of processors covers the entire range of options available for building a gaming system without a discrete graphics card. Here, two main questions arise, to which we will provide answers later: how much slower is the six-core Ryzen 5 8500G with the Phoenix 2 design compared to the six-core Ryzen 5 8600G with the Phoenix design? And is it truly faster than the tried-and-true six-core Ryzen 5 5600G for the older Socket AM4 platform?<\/p>\n

In addition, we will pay attention to how the Ryzen 5 8500G performs in regular applications, as well as in games after installing a discrete graphics card. The goal of this part of the testing is to determine how good the idea of enhancing it with an additional graphics card is.<\/p>\n

As a result, the configuration of the test systems included a quite extensive list of components.<\/p>\n