AMD Ryzen 5700G

My guess would be that Synology is an expensive but weak computer, bare minimum for NAS. Immich does require some CPU and also GPU for video transcoding and vector search embedding generation. I had Immich (and many other containers) running successfully on AMD Ryzen 2400G for years. And recently I upgraded to 5700G since it was a cheap upgrade.

Just throwing another anecdote out there, my Zen 1 CPU (1700) was flaking out and I was kind of thinking of doing an AM5 build, with an IPMI motherboard and some nice DDR5 memory. DDR5 has a quasi-ECC built in, which is good for a server. Thing is, I have 128GB of memtest86-passed DDR4 RAM, and while I don't need that much, the idea of spending ~$300 on 32GB was ludicrous. So I have a Ryzen 5700G now, and all is well.

It's bad luck on your end. I have 3 AMD-based "desktops", never had a single problem with any of them. I just throw whatever memory in and it just works. These are being used more as servers than desktops, with large RAID arrays, HBA cards, tape drives, etc. They're consumer-level systems - Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

Journalists who need to be excited about having something to review to pay their bills are excited. I don't know any non-tuner-obsessives who are upgrading much more often than about once per decade. I personally went from (work Macs and) dual Socket 1366 hexacore Xeons (in 2011) to a Socket AM4 Ryzen 7 5700G (in 2022), and greatly appreciated the power consumption drop and performance boost. I'm not jumping on the AM5/modern Intel train until I see more cores, more RAM capacity, or much lower power consumption than what I have now.

65W TDP for CPU + GPU in power-constrained environments, or when you want to have less battery storage requirements for renewables/backup power, is quite the boon. I had a 5700G (I think) last year and the system would go up to 150W max. I could survive about 2-3h of no electricity with my small inverter battery setup if I kept usage minimal (no work, no gaming). Handy performance wise for a mostly work machine with some indie gaming on the side, but these 8000 series are under half that wattage. Admittedly this isn't the most common need/concern, but it's good to know options are getting better all the time.

For reference: I run 7B 5bit quantized models on a ryzen 7 5700G with 64Gb at 8 tokens/second CPU only. It's not close to what you can get with a high end graphics card but for every day use it is alright and has headroom for bigger models. Upgrading CPU, RAM and Mainboard in a 10+year old PC cost me just 400€

That's a cool capability and I didn't read deeply enough when I saw the new GAN charger come out to notice that. I haven't used it but from the outside it all appears very thoughtfully and competently engineered. His products have some of the highest TDP support (passive cases and his PSUs) on the passive HTPC market and the hifi aesthetic is great. I'd love to get an H5 or an H1 (although for a HTPC it'd be nice to have the H1.SODD - the H1.TODD doesn't look nearly as nice imo), don't really need it but the cat would love it. Streacom does some interesting stuff too (like the DB4 cube case). Not quite as high TDPs and I don't like their body/fin aesthetic as much, but the DB4 is cool. And Akasa as well, love the galactico design. Mini-box is the company that originated the picoPSU design and they do a fair bit of other miniature-computing stuff as well, including for the embedded automotive market. They have 18650 UPS modules for NUCs and other motherboards, shows up as a battery in the OS. The M350 case is also pretty nice for an on-the-desk type mini-pc, clearly to hit $50 you have to minimize costs but it's really the nicest $50 case that I've used in a long time (NZXT S340 non-elite got to $60 sometimes). The first picoPSU died within a day for no reason that I can tell but the second one has been fine, with the one caveat that the laptop brick is not low-noise at all. At one point I tried putting my PCs line-outs into an AV switcher and I was getting a groundloo…

yup, the correct answer here is people need to stop being worried about the thermals as a metric in themselves, and look at the performance their chip is generating. If your chip is running at 90C, but you're hitting 100 ScoreMarks, and attaching a 5hp chiller to it lets you hit 105 ScoreMarks, that's not really worth it. Yeah, longevity, blah blah, but laptop chips are designed to sit above 90C under load, it's fine. Just saying that "how hard it is to cool" doesn't solely depend on power consumption anymore. Heat density is making that harder and harder, even if power consumption stays the same. What does improve though is how much heat it pumps into your room. Yeah, a Rocket Lake at 200W might be roughly as hard to cool as an AMD at 90W or whatever... but one is still putting 200W into your room and the other is still putting 90W. Temperatures are not the same thing as power dissipation either. I don't like having my gaming PC running in my room during the summer, and I'm actually looking at maybe running cables through the walls to have it in the basement instead. I also have a 5700G and some NUCs that are much lower power that I prefer to use for surfing and shitposting.

Intel GPU performance was totally stagnant from Haswell (Iris Pto 5200) until Iris XE, from 2013-2019. AMD on the other hand was steadily building up their iGPUs, allowing the APUs to work together with external GPUs, and with the 5700g (which imho was a milestone) we finally had 30fps+ for all but the most brain-dead games (alan wake i'm looking at you!)

5700G might be a great upgrade from a 2700X. Better performance at lower TDP and the integrated graphics are impressive. Even if you do end up with a discrete GPU, being able to do passthrough with a secondary can be quite useful.

The 5700G had for some time been one of the best options for budged gaming. The 8700G should be seen as a successor of that I think. Enough to play a huge amount of games nicely under 1080p. But in a certain way at the lowest end of desktop gaming. Still better then the low-mid range of gaming on a laptop, tho. But for a lot of people that is exactly the right balance of what they get to what they pay. Weather that's because they don't have a lot money or they don't do a lot gaming and don't want to wast money. The main "problem" the 8700G might run into is I guess that the cost of AM5 motherboards and RAM. Also AMD (and I think Intel, too) have in recent years slowly worked to take advantage of integrated graphics even if you have also dedicated graphics (of the same vendor) if that sees some more improvements the 8700G could also become interesting in some use-case you wouldn't expect today. We will see.

only APU like the 5700G, 8700G or the recent Steam Deck APU (in reasonable comparison targets) The integrated GPUs of the 7000 serious (not APUs) are maximal minimalist to a point I think they couldn't have shrunken them more without running into unusual issues (assuming not changing the architecture/design). They are only suited for web browsing, office use-cases and debugging (but also kinda where made only for that use-case). Well I guess Dead Cells and similar "low requirement/high optimized" games still run nicely on it on 1080p. Still nice to have them if you only have such use-cases saves a ton of money.

Also their CPUs with Radeon GPU are a lot more performing than Intel equivalents. You can grab a 5600G or 5700G alone, no external video card needed, and expect to play most recent games, albeit not at maximum details. For those not obsessed with gaming at the highest possible details, this translates in saving some serious money. A search for "5700g gaming" on YouTube returns some examples.

> The Intel Arc discrete GPUs are set for a "limited" release this summer, with the Arc 3 currently available in laptops starting at $899. In the summer, the Arc 5 will be released and the Arc 7 is set for later this year. These GPUs will offer Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, supporting ray tracing and can up-convert images for better quality. Stein noted that early reviews have shown Intel's (INTC) Arc GPU have a greater than 50% performance than an integrated graphics card, the Arc 3 is really only competitive with the lower end of the market. I don't know anyone willing to pay $899 for a "weak" GPU having only 50% greater performance than an integrated graphics card. At that ratio, it sounds like it will be beaten by the newest AMD APU, when the next replacement for the AMD Ryzen 5700G comes around, as the already dated AMD 5700G is already solidy beating Intel CPUs with integrated graphics by > 75% in many performance tests [1] [1] https://www.thefpsreview.com/2022/03/07/intel-12900k-uhd-770...