Quote from: Doctor Hue on October 22, 2019, 04:47:43I am sure G7 only consume 12W, because I have two 1065G7 devices, Lenovo S940(new model) and YOGA C740. Just comparing the GT Cores power.Quote1065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
And about the game performance, you should also read the review of R9-3900X in TechPowerUp.com, which serves as a famous vertical media. (GPU-Z i don't believe there are someone who dont know.)
Or other reviews in tomsHardware, Techspot, Anandtech.
Are you sure Iris Plus G7 only consumed 12W? I see it consuming more power than RX Vega 10. (43W on G7, 37W on Vega 10).
Intel had to use DDR4-3733 to achieve this feat while AMD's capped at DDR-4 2400?
Most Vega 10 didn't achieve good 3dmark firestrike since OEMs not taking serious at AMD hardware by neutering them with crappy cooling or even single channel memory?
Quote1065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
And about the game performance, you should also read the review of R9-3900X in TechPowerUp.com, which serves as a famous vertical media. (GPU-Z i don't believe there are someone who dont know.)
Or other reviews in tomsHardware, Techspot, Anandtech.
Quote from: Ismael on October 20, 2019, 18:06:021065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
I think the only one biased here is you.
Most of that data is straight bs.
First there is no "R6 3600" xd.
Vega 10 does not consume that much when Idle, just like Iris plus. And when needed it performs like a gtx 950m with a lot less power. Iris Plus can't offer half of that performance (althought it has interesting hardware-achieved encodings).
I'll ignore the lies about the 9400F vs the 3900 bc it's plain stupid just as about the 8700k xd
Not even needed to talk about efficiency. You know, that thing you think about when you have to pay the electricity bill (or your parents).
Just look the videos on youtube. I don't believe in sintetic benchmarks. Watch gamer nexus or derbauer or hundreds more making tests with multimeters and overclocking. Intel has been sleeping and they subestimated AMD.
Now to be clear: idgaf about any of both of them nor to ARM or Risc-V, it's just I hate hoolligans and fanboys. And normally I tend to ignore them but when they just start to pretend "iamverysmart" and giving fake data it drives me nuts.
I don't care about Intel or AMD. At any given moment I will just choose the one that I need with the best price.
Intel had been brutally ahead of AMD this last decade (AMD's FX was really bad) and they thought "well why invest more right now, we can chill a bit" which, don't get me wrong. They are a business and at the end they don't care about you nor me, they want money and that's perfecly normal. But they didn't have a mechanism to be alerted before what had happened. AMD's momentum now will make Intel work hard and at the end that's good for you and me.
Quote from: Peterdesja on October 20, 2019, 23:12:59
The fact that your trying to say a 8700 will beat an r9 3900 is laughable and shows you dont know what you are talking about...Quote from: WhengLi on October 20, 2019, 14:15:15
Another AMD's fanboyism, LUL. Using Surface's Laptop as a evidence of AMD's OEM indicates your biases, not opinion.
The main reason why Microsoft uses AMD's CPUs and GPUs in Surface Laptop is that, the Surface Laptop is too expensive to sell well. There is no person who want to spend $1400 to buy a Ultrabook, which is not 2-in-1 and not supporting long battery-time. What's more, without 2-in-1 or convertible, touch screen becomes non-sense. That why Laptop sell much worse than Surface Pro and Surface Book.
However, the Vega 10 need 30W power to catch up with 1065G7's Iris Plus graphics, which only need 12W. The R7 H-series also needs more power than Whiskylake.
And in this price of about $1400, there are many substitutes, such as ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ThinkPad X1 Extreme, Dell XPS-13, HP Spectre and so on. None of these failed to provide a better price-quality ratio, a more perfect screen, and longer battery time.
Why OEM's choose Intel as first choice? The foremost is that Intel provides a better price-quality ratio, more stable platform, and higher game-performance. You should keep in mind that i5-9400F's game performance is equal to R6 3600's, i7 8700K's is equal to R9 3900X's, according to Computer Base, TPU, tomsHardware and Techspot. And you will see that the price of i5-9400F is so low that it becomes best choice for general gamers. The i7-9700KF also in the same situation, which plays better than ALL Ryzen 3 CPUs.
You don't need to doubt that more than 90 percentage of high-end CPU home users is just for gaming. The gaming performance values most.
Quote from: WhengLi on October 20, 2019, 14:15:15
Another AMD's fanboyism, LUL. Using Surface's Laptop as a evidence of AMD's OEM indicates your biases, not opinion.
The main reason why Microsoft uses AMD's CPUs and GPUs in Surface Laptop is that, the Surface Laptop is too expensive to sell well. There is no person who want to spend $1400 to buy a Ultrabook, which is not 2-in-1 and not supporting long battery-time. What's more, without 2-in-1 or convertible, touch screen becomes non-sense. That why Laptop sell much worse than Surface Pro and Surface Book.
However, the Vega 10 need 30W power to catch up with 1065G7's Iris Plus graphics, which only need 12W. The R7 H-series also needs more power than Whiskylake.
And in this price of about $1400, there are many substitutes, such as ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ThinkPad X1 Extreme, Dell XPS-13, HP Spectre and so on. None of these failed to provide a better price-quality ratio, a more perfect screen, and longer battery time.
Why OEM's choose Intel as first choice? The foremost is that Intel provides a better price-quality ratio, more stable platform, and higher game-performance. You should keep in mind that i5-9400F's game performance is equal to R6 3600's, i7 8700K's is equal to R9 3900X's, according to Computer Base, TPU, tomsHardware and Techspot. And you will see that the price of i5-9400F is so low that it becomes best choice for general gamers. The i7-9700KF also in the same situation, which plays better than ALL Ryzen 3 CPUs.
You don't need to doubt that more than 90 percentage of high-end CPU home users is just for gaming. The gaming performance values most.
Why the game performance is worse though AMD's 3900X has more cores? That is latency. The CCX architecture's inherent problem is latency is more higher that intel's Ring-bus architecture. And the CCX, Mesh and Ring-bus have its advantages and disadvantages, but I think that's not important for you because you won't be faced with the facts or you are not a senior menber of Hardware and lack relevant knowledge.
Quote from: THOMAS MIELIMONKA on October 20, 2019, 12:05:52
In my opinion this is mostly AMDs fault. Intel had hexacore notebook cpus for years now. I don't understand why AMD solely focuses on desktop / server market, and not on laptop one. Surely every year more and more people buy laptops instead of desktops.
All they have to do is release their hexa / octacore processors at the right price and eventually they will bury Intel.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar