AMD Ryzen 5 3400G APU with Vega Graphics Spotted


    If you are a PC hardware enthusiast, then this is probably going to be one of the best times of the year for you. With Computex going on in Taiwan, we are seeing a slew of new products from all major tech companies every day. AMD announced the Ryzen 3000 and Epyc Rome, as well as the Navi GPUs processors on day one, NVIDIA’s keynote was somewhat lukewarm without any new hardware for gamers, but Intel’s conference wasn’t bland at all. The company announced their 10nm Ice Lake CPUs which are expected to offer the biggest generation boost since 2015’s Skylake. However, AMD was also expected to unveil the Zen+ based Picasso APUs which didn’t happen, however, amid the 7nm excitement no one seemed to care. But it seems like team red hasn’t forgotten about them. TweakTown ran into a Ryzen 5 3400G and was quick enough to conduct a few benchmarks of the chip before disappearing into the crowd.

    AMD Ryzen 5 3400G APU with Vega Graphics

    The outlet claims that it’s a Zen 2 based quad-core APU with eight threads, paired with a Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics processor, but looking at the scores I’m pretty sure it’s a 12nm Zen+ part (Picasso). Considering that the chip is clocked higher than the 2400G with a base and boost clocks of 3.7GHz and 4.2GHz if it had Zen 2 cores it’d post notably higher scores which it doesn’t. It’s barely faster than its predecessor in TimeSpy and actually a tad bit slower in 3DMark.

    AMD Ryzen 5 3400G APU with Vega Graphics

    The Ryzen 3400G scores 1149 points in the TimeSpy benchmark, with a graphics score of 1022 and a CPU score of 3940. For comparison, the 2400G nets 3828 points in this bench and 3111 in FireStrike. The newer chip, however, scores only 1149 points in FireStrike, but there’s no need to be worried, the combined score is a bit lower because of the relatively lower GPU score. The Vega 11 isn’t properly tuned in this sample. The final production units should be faster, if only by a little.

    Read more:


    Leave a Reply