Quote from: Spunjji on March 26, 2020, 10:30:45
The MX150 was a solid option when it released. 2 rebrands later and it's looking so old that the Vega iGPU in optimal Renoir configurations will equal its performance at 2/3 the total TDP (CPU + GPU).

2 rebrands later, the same distance between the fastest igpu and the fastest mx. whatever happens, nvidia makes the lineup for the best share and profits.
..jokes about apus breaking the laws of physics is not funny if you heard them a hundred times.

Quote from: william blake on March 14, 2020, 09:16:20

Quote from: Jesse on March 14, 2020, 04:21:49
What is perplexing is why do people buy this crap?   Is it just a checkbox item to help market a laptop to rubes?

~30%~330% faster than igpu for 50-70 usd. great deal.

Where'd you get those numbers? The best I can see is the MX350 being 200% better than HD 610, which is not an achievement worth bragging about. It's also not really a "great deal" when considering how little extra a 1650 would add to the bill for a metric ton of extra performance.

The MX150 was a solid option when it released. 2 rebrands later and it's looking so old that the Vega iGPU in optimal Renoir configurations will equal its performance at 2/3 the total TDP (CPU + GPU).

Quote from: JohnMac on March 14, 2020, 02:54:31

Quote from: S.Yu on March 13, 2020, 17:42:33
The power figures are again perplexing, it seems from the table that to boost 25 more MHz with 25% more TUs turned on, and double the memory bandwidth, the 1050 consumes 300% the power of the MX350.

At such low power consumption 300% isn't actually that much in absolute terms.

GDDR5 and controllers use a significant amount of power, and actual clocks are likely very different. Eg a 10510u with 4.9ghz boost isn't going to come close to a 7700k with similar advertised boost clocks.

The boost clocks are minimal anyhow, the base clocks are the same, unless you're saying the 25W model can't maintain its base clock on 25W? Same thing for controllers, double the bandwidth shouldn't even translate to double the power, of the GDDR5 alone, and that's an equal 2GB in each model.

Quote from: william blake on March 14, 2020, 09:16:20

Quote from: Jesse on March 14, 2020, 04:21:49
What is perplexing is why do people buy this crap?   Is it just a checkbox item to help market a laptop to rubes?

~30%~330% faster than igpu for 50-70 usd. great deal.

Agreed. Some(many) people don't have the budget nor the need to play the latest triple A titles at their intended resolutions and settings, and this low end part plugged in is notably faster than the best iGPUs in expensive models, and battery shouldn't be a significant concern in gaming.

Quote from: Jesse on March 14, 2020, 04:21:49
What is perplexing is why do people buy this crap?   Is it just a checkbox item to help market a laptop to rubes?

~30%~330% faster than igpu for 50-70 usd. great deal.

What is perplexing is why do people buy this crap?   Is it just a checkbox item to help market a laptop to rubes?

I can't wait for AMD to take over the space with better CPUs and GPUs.

Quote from: S.Yu on March 13, 2020, 17:42:33
The power figures are again perplexing, it seems from the table that to boost 25 more MHz with 25% more TUs turned on, and double the memory bandwidth, the 1050 consumes 300% the power of the MX350.

At such low power consumption 300% isn't actually that much in absolute terms.

GDDR5 and controllers use a significant amount of power, and actual clocks are likely very different. Eg a 10510u with 4.9ghz boost isn't going to come close to a 7700k with similar advertised boost clocks.

The power figures are again perplexing, it seems from the table that to boost 25 more MHz with 25% more TUs turned on, and double the memory bandwidth, the 1050 consumes 300% the power of the MX350.

One gotcha: No nvenc on these MX graphics. Better to go for Intel iGPU, every one of those has Intel QuickSync or AMD Vega GPU, every one of those has Video Coding Engine/Video Core Next.

Quote from: A on March 13, 2020, 00:06:58
Why bother putting these GPUs into laptops when you can just use an APU with faster integrated graphics? These decisions boggles my mind.

Huh? Intel's G7 has 27 points and Vega 10 ~40 points in the perf rating compared to 50 or 60 for these new MXs. They are quite a bit better

Great.... now we got MX350, GTX 1050 3GB, GTX 1050 3GB Max-Q, GTX 1050 2GB, GTX 1050 2GB Max-Q, GTX 1050 4GB, GTX 1050 4GB Max-Q.

Don't tell me we will also get a MX350 max-Q..... it is getting ridiculous at this point.

The MX350 (25W) should have been compared with 1050 Max-Q (35-40W) rather than the regular one (70W). A baffling choice..

Quote from: WiredBrain on March 13, 2020, 00:40:45

Quote from: A on March 13, 2020, 00:06:58
Why bother putting these GPUs into laptops when you can just use an APU with faster integrated graphics? These decisions boggles my mind.

I surmise it has to do with contractual agreements the manufacturers have/had with nvidia to use their gpus for how ever long the contract is and for how many units to be purchased and in what products they are to be used in.
AMD had no real products to compete with Nvidia for a very long time so manufacturers saw Nvidia as a staple for the long term.
Unless AMD can offer better agreements with manufacturers (if contractual agreements manufacturers have with Nvidia don't prohibit the use of competitors' products in specific models etc.), we'll be seeing mostly Nvidia gpus in all product variations manufacturers have to offer.
The same surmise goes for Intel cpu's vs AMD even though AMD has the better product/cost.

Outside of APUs, AMD's low end dGPU offerings are pretty much junk. Much more power consumption for no greater performance. Sometimes, worse performance than Intel IGP, inside of a chassis that can easily cool an AMD APU (Thinkpad E series comes to mind... Lenovo didn't cheap out on the heatsink, either. E485 is great with an APU. E480 with Intel + AMD dGPU is basically junk. Better to have E480 with Intel only).

In terms of AMD APU laptops, they are fine. Battery life concerns dogged them for the first two APU generations, but this upcoming 3rd APU gen (AMD's terminology for the 4000 series APUs) should further narrow the gap with Intel or take the lead.

Quote from: A on March 13, 2020, 00:06:58
Why bother putting these GPUs into laptops when you can just use an APU with faster integrated graphics? These decisions boggles my mind.

i hear lisa su voice from 2017 in my head.
it didn't work, this marketing failed hard.

this is what happens if no competition from amd.
nvidia made their entry level dgpu just slightly faster than any 2020 igpu, to save the sales.

since when does notebookcheck use euphemisms? "Old Architecture, New Name" ("Old", not "Known". There, fixed it for you.)