AMD’s “Zen 4” Ryzen Processors Will Feature Integrated Graphics

[Endgame]

As long as I get the performance I want, and the capabilities I will use, in addition to no real additional cost... I don't care?

Does it have no cost? Look at that Intel block diagram - half is iGPU. They could just drop the iGPU, make double the chips and sell them for 45% less. This would make it a real monetary cost to have that GPU.

Alternately, it’s an opportunity cost. They have dropped a significant portion of cache and extra cores to free up die space to give you a GPU you’ll never use.

it sucks, but you just have to live with it, because what other choice will you have?

 

[LazyGamer]

Does it have no cost? Look at that Intel block diagram - half is iGPU. They could just drop the iGPU, make double the chips and sell them for 45% less. This would make it a real monetary cost to have that GPU.

While that picture is likely correct, note that Intel doesn't put their 'biggest' GPUs in their desktop CPUs, and that the CPU pictured is a quad-core unit.

Smaller GPU, four or more additional CPU cores, and it perhaps doesn't look so lopsided of a comparison.

 

[Brian_B]

Alternately, it’s an opportunity cost. They have dropped a significant portion of cache and extra cores to free up die space to give you a GPU you’ll never use.

I do not think this is true. At least with respect to it being a higher performing CPU versus one with IGP.

I think they hit a TDP wall with the cores way back when they first moved IGP from the chipset to the CPU. Once they hit that wall - they still had die space and figured why the heck not - it makes the IGP a lot faster, doesn’t hurt the CPU really, and opens up a huge market on the mobile/commercial side that don’t want to fool with discrete graphics anyway.

I don’t think removal of the IGP gets you a faster CPU - Xeons aren’t really faster than Pentiums, after all. If anything the reverse has been true - some dies with extra cache for the IGP have been faster than non-IGP or lesser IGP variants (Crystalwell).

would they be cheaper? Probably. That I can’t dispute.

 

[LazyGamer]

would they be cheaper? Probably. That I can’t dispute.

Cheaper to produce than a die without an IGP, yes - but that doesn't mean cheaper overall necessarily, right?

Obviously conjecture, but for Intel it may very well have been cheaper to 'waste' die space on GPUs that won't get used versus having to build a GPU-less part, remembering that these are all consumer-level dies for the most part. Intel has labeled some of these as Xeons, for example, but I don't think they've put any IGPs into their HEDT / actual Xeon sockets since at least Skylake.


And to point out where AMD differs here, is that AMD has taken the modular approach with their chiplets. How much AMD differs will depend on where they situate their GPUs in that architecture. If it's to be in the I/O die as I myself suspect, then that means that it won't necessarily be included in TR and Epyc releases. On the other hand if the GPU logic is in the CCD, then a Ryzen CPU could theoretically have two GPUs and a TR could have four, and so on!

 

[Uvilla]

Well with ddr5 we may get good graphics speeds. This ,I agree ,will of course cover huge markets needs by default.
I do agree it may be the IO die, makes sense. Very interesting cpu if all true.