Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 7 5700G Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kneekoo
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post
    For office use (or games?) I don't believe you should see a major difference between the 5600G and the 5700G.

    Note also that the "G" processors are a little bit slower than their "X" desktop cousins, meaning 5600G < 5600X.
    I specifically want a "G" processor because I don't want a dedicated graphics card. That's why I'm curious how the benchmarks would look for graphics-related tasks as well. Clearly there can't be much of a difference with the same iGPU in both CPUs, but seeing the overall difference might reveal interesting stuff - hopefully. :P

    Leave a comment:


  • domih
    replied
    Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

    There is more diffrences. Most important one is G series processors have a lot smaller cache and less PCI-E lanes, when i wouldn't worry much about GPU lanes as 8x in gen 4 is definitly enough, I would worry about that cache as it decimates performance in a lot of real world aplications. The processor 5700G is halfway from 3700X to 5700X.
    Yes, you're 100% right. I was focused on performance comparing 5600G vs 5700G and I forgot the rest. Yes the cache is smaller, they had to make room for the GPU (Quoting myself: <<...Note also that the "G" processors are a little bit slower than their "X" desktop cousins...>>). But in the context of comparing the 5600G and 5700G I assume they have the same amount of cache. Yes, PCIe is gen 3 and not gen 4. The 5000 series brings x16 in PCI Gen 3, so bifurcated or not there are still of lot of Gen 3 cards you can use with them, especially the sweet spot of Gen 3 x8 used by many cards.

    I don't have any 5000X at this point, so I can't give you comparative results. Phoronix could do and publish such tests. Please!

    I believe Hardware Unboxed on YouTube gives comparative results in their 5000G review but that's on Windows 10 and heavily oriented on games.
    Last edited by domih; 27 August 2021, 03:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • piotrj3
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post

    R5 5600G
    6C/12T
    Base clock 3.9 GHz
    Boost clock 4.4 GHz
    Ref: https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-5600g
    $295 on NewEgg


    R7 5700G
    8/16T
    Base clock 3.8 GHz
    Boost clock 4.6 GHz
    Ref: https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g
    $370 on NewEgg

    All other things being equal, it's $75 difference for 2C/4T more.

    I would risk the opinion that if bugdet is an important factor, you want to go with the 5600G and redirect the savings to for instance more memory: 32GB or even 64GB.

    The only difference IMHO would be the "comfort" running heavy multi-threaded applications:
    - Multi-threaded Java (e.g. Cassandra, Spark, etc).
    - Multi-process / Multi-threaded Web servers.
    - Multi-threaded Python.
    - Multiple VMs.

    For office use (or games?) I don't believe you should see a major difference between the 5600G and the 5700G.

    Note also that the "G" processors are a little bit slower than their "X" desktop cousins, meaning 5600G < 5600X.

    OFF-TOPIC: I happen to use all of the above at the same time, so for my workstation I went with a TR 3960X. Pricey BUT depreciated over projected 10 years of usage, that's nothing. And yes, it is very comfortable.
    There is more diffrences. Most important one is G series processors have a lot smaller cache and less PCI-E lanes, when i wouldn't worry much about GPU lanes as 8x in gen 4 is definitly enough, I would worry about that cache as it decimates performance in a lot of real world aplications. The processor 5700G is halfway from 3700X to 5700X.

    Leave a comment:


  • domih
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post

    Yes, it does. As mentioned in the article <<...The only caveat that I've encountered is the Zen 3 APU temperature monitoring not coming until Linux 5.15...>> CPU temp does not show in the Mate sensor applet and is not available via /sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp. Same here.

    Otherwise, everything else I tried worked OK so far. Using Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS.
    Oops: forgot the Unigine testing issue, it crashes with the 4750G or 5700G on my B550M board but works AOK on my B450 one with both the 3200 and 3600 memory kits. No clue why and does not happen always at the same time (the so-called "random bug"). What I know is that at some point artifacts start to appear on the screen and a few seconds later the system simply stops with a black screen. Once I even had to fsck the / fs because it got damaged. So my guess is that there is something writing all over the memory where it should not with unpredictable results. I tend to think it is board related.

    Leave a comment:


  • domih
    replied
    Originally posted by kneekoo View Post

    Thanks, I was wondering how the missing temperature monitoring behaves - if it's about the whole package, the CPU or iGPU. Great news, though! It means I can keep looking for parts for my new PC. Now having a benchmark for 5600G would help my decision to getting one of the CPUs. The graphics is the same in both, but whether it's worth the extra $100 for 2 more cores... who knows. 6 cores are already great for many things, so I'll wait for more info to come out. Hopefully the prices will also turn out in my favor.
    R5 5600G
    6C/12T
    Base clock 3.9 GHz
    Boost clock 4.4 GHz
    Ref: https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-5600g
    $295 on NewEgg


    R7 5700G
    8/16T
    Base clock 3.8 GHz
    Boost clock 4.6 GHz
    Ref: https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-5700g
    $370 on NewEgg

    All other things being equal, it's $75 difference for 2C/4T more.

    I would risk the opinion that if bugdet is an important factor, you want to go with the 5600G and redirect the savings to for instance more memory: 32GB or even 64GB.

    The only difference IMHO would be the "comfort" running heavy multi-threaded applications:
    - Multi-threaded Java (e.g. Cassandra, Spark, etc).
    - Multi-process / Multi-threaded Web servers.
    - Multi-threaded Python.
    - Multiple VMs.

    For office use (or games?) I don't believe you should see a major difference between the 5600G and the 5700G.

    Note also that the "G" processors are a little bit slower than their "X" desktop cousins, meaning 5600G < 5600X.

    OFF-TOPIC: I happen to use all of the above at the same time, so for my workstation I went with a TR 3960X. Pricey BUT depreciated over projected 10 years of usage, that's nothing. And yes, it is very comfortable.
    Last edited by domih; 27 August 2021, 01:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • piotrj3
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Yes, but it has diminishing returns and you have to be paired with a good monitor with minimal input lag. 60 to 120 offers a noticeable improvement in user experience and most everyone can tell the difference. Even 75hz and 90hz offer improved desktop experiences, smoother mouse movements, window dragging, and the like.

    Higher rates like 144hz, 240hz, etc, that's getting into the territory where you have to be a pro-gamer to tell and benefit from the speeds. The downside is there's a good chance you'll be playing the game on low-medium settings if you're at 2K/4K resolutions in order to push those framerates steady...and that's with beefy hardware.

    But like I said, if you don't pair any of that with a low input lag monitor, like 1-5ms response time, the benefits of higher framerate gaming are less apparent to negligible. If your monitor and input can't keep up then the increased framerate is next to useless. 60 with 15ms to 1-5ms is arguably better than 120 and 15ms.

    For casual gamers and people that aren't too picky, 45-120 FreeSync at up to 2K is a nice setup to aim for. Most all those monitors have decent enough response times. Not too expensive, obtainable with 2017+ hardware, and you can still play games with higher quality settings. Unless you're into eSports and fast-paced twichy games you really don't need above 120.
    There is diffrent types of response times.

    When it comes to refresh rate and FPS
    1000ms/60 = 16.6ms
    1000ms/75 = 13.3ms
    1000ms/120 = 8.3ms
    1000ms/144 = 6,94ms
    1000ms/165 = 6.06ms
    1000ms/240 = 4.16ms

    So yes there are diminishing returns, as going from 60 to 144hz is decreasing lag by almost 10ms while from 144 to 240 only 2.8ms.

    But i do not fully agree about "low input lag" monitor.

    There is 3 types of lag in case of monitor :
    1st from computing and refresh rate and that simply the higher fps/refresh rate the better.
    2nd type of lag is input lag of monitor
    3rd is from response time of pixels.

    The 1st and 2nd are actually the most important, because they are the full lag without any reaction to see. Response time of pixels is more complicated because pixels change over time. So when pixel for example turns from white to black in 4 ms, but changing from white to gray in that process takes only 2ms you could say that is already reaction just not finished.

    And here it is not simply you won't see the diffrence - sure diffrence is less noticable but still that diffrence exist and it always pays off, just diffrence is smaller. For me i use higher refresh rate monitors, mostly because it actually gives me less headache, I have often headaches from some monitors 60 or even 50 hz, (Lenovo has idiotic system of decreasing refresh rate to 48/50hz for sake of saving power and it very fast causes headache, while overclocking display from 60 to 72hz caused for me measerable improvement on that front, nowadays i use desktop 165hz one monitor and 144hz second). Refresh rate is overall more important then response time as input lag, as refresh rate is responsible both for smoothness of animation and response time, while input lag only for response time.

    And about freesync/g-sync it is important to know about ranges of refresh rate. eg. if monitor is 240 hz, but has freesync range of only 120-240hz, you gonna suffer at fps below 120.

    Leave a comment:


  • kneekoo
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post

    Yes, it does. As mentioned in the article <<...The only caveat that I've encountered is the Zen 3 APU temperature monitoring not coming until Linux 5.15...>> CPU temp does not show in the Mate sensor applet and is not available via /sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp. Same here.

    Otherwise, everything else I tried worked OK so far. Using Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS.
    Thanks, I was wondering how the missing temperature monitoring behaves - if it's about the whole package, the CPU or iGPU. Great news, though! It means I can keep looking for parts for my new PC. Now having a benchmark for 5600G would help my decision to getting one of the CPUs. The graphics is the same in both, but whether it's worth the extra $100 for 2 more cores... who knows. 6 cores are already great for many things, so I'll wait for more info to come out. Hopefully the prices will also turn out in my favor.

    Leave a comment:


  • arQon
    replied
    Originally posted by domih View Post
    I'm not a gamer not a graphics oriented user.
    I'm both, and I still agree with your conclusion - though like all such, I don't use IGP in the first place.

    Things do get funky past a certain point, as the IF ends up mattering more than the RAM timings, but the heart of what you say is true. What matters is that *slow* RAM is slow, but once you get past a certain point it's all basically a wash, other than - as you say - the e-peen of winning a 5-digit benchmark by 3 points.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    APUs only have 8 lanes for a gpu slot
    This time the 5000 apus do have the full set of pcie lanes, but it is limited to pcie 3, no v4.

    Leave a comment:


  • domih
    replied
    Originally posted by kneekoo View Post
    A Ryzen 5 5600G review would be great as well, to see how it compares to this one. Also, please consider testing it with Ubuntu 20.04.3. It would be useful to know if the "old" LTS is capable of handling these new CPUs.
    Yes, it does. As mentioned in the article <<...The only caveat that I've encountered is the Zen 3 APU temperature monitoring not coming until Linux 5.15...>> CPU temp does not show in the Mate sensor applet and is not available via /sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone0/temp. Same here.

    Otherwise, everything else I tried worked OK so far. Using Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS.
    Last edited by domih; 27 August 2021, 12:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X