News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Daniel Lee Ridenhour
 - March 29, 2020, 18:38:45
If you do any nvidia iray rendering... then the best integrated GPU in the world is no better... your still cpu bound.   The mx150 is light years better than iGPU for rendering applications.
Posted by william blake
 - March 28, 2020, 23:28:54
Quote from: A on March 28, 2020, 21:46:40
Also, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the igpu to take up all the watts from the cpu. Why? Because if it did, your computer would hang.
as you wish. like to argue with physics for some reason-go ahead.
giscrete graphics is about more(or way more) room for tdp and productivity. thus, all these 3dmark numbers is a direct lie to the customers.
igpus has their segment, below 300-400 usd for the whole device, to save a bit of money, lets say 20-30 usd.
higher than that-there is no reason not to buy a discrete if you need more fps of other hardware power.
athlon vs pentium-make sense
tiger lake or top renoir-igpu numbers are irrelevant.
ALL high end integrated gpus are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Posted by A
 - March 28, 2020, 21:46:40
@william blake - Both of the igpus are capable of 25W, and more if you go for the H and HS models. It's cheaper and will get you more performance per watt.

Also, it's IMPOSSIBLE for the igpu to take up all the watts from the cpu. Why? Because if it did, your computer would hang.

That said, when people are using their GPU to the max, it is usually a task like gaming or gpus workload where little would be in the background. At best only thing running would be the recorder.

@laskjfd - except benchmarks don't show that, notebookcheck even said the MX250 isn't worth it over iris let alone vega.
Posted by william blake
 - March 28, 2020, 17:43:25
Quote from: A on March 28, 2020, 04:50:56
So let us clarify something, the lowest MX150 is 2796 in 3d mark 11, and highest is 4905.
In comparison the 1065G7 gets from 3677 to 4630. And 4800U is even faster.
yes, and ZERO watts left to cpu workloads. ZERO performance left to anything else.
low end discretes is about tdp limits, lets clarify it. 15w to vega igpu means 0 watts left for 8 zen 2 cores.
open a chrome tab during your 3dmark run and you are screwed.
stop this marketing nonesense, leave it to lisa su and intel guys.
Posted by william blake
 - March 28, 2020, 17:34:19
personally i prefer 10w version, but all this is about how anti-consumer this market is. hidden parameters and marketing names instead of real world numbers.
Posted by laskjfd
 - March 28, 2020, 12:56:28
Cool story.
MX150 etc is superior to Vega and Intel Iris in every way.
Also Xiaomi Notebook Pro with unlocked TDP is better.
Posted by A
 - March 28, 2020, 04:50:56
So let us clarify something, the lowest MX150 is 2796 in 3d mark 11, and highest is 4905.

In comparison the 1065G7 gets from 3677 to 4630. And 4800U is even faster.

So is there a point to discussing which has the fastest MX150?

Of course it sucks that manufacturers do these kind of things where they aren't transparent about their parts. But the MX150 is way too dated to be useful.
Posted by Redaktion
 - March 28, 2020, 04:27:35
The performance difference between the slowest and fastest GeForce MX150 laptops is startling at roughly 60 percent. The Blade Stealth GeForce MX150 is essentially on par with the more expensive GeForce MX250.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/We-compare-dozens-of-laptops-with-the-same-GeForce-MX150-GPU-and-the-Razer-Blade-Stealth-comes-out-on-top.459247.0.html