Quote from: william blake on April 14, 2020, 15:46:49
Quote from: Valantar on April 14, 2020, 11:25:52
I completely disagree - in fact, I would say the lower end your GPU is, the more of a difference any increase in performance makes.
yep. geforce 730 rules because geforce 610 is a complete crap.
..
ok forget about where gpu is located and even dpu itself. lets talk about dollars.
20$ anything is whatever in any market. 20$ part of a 1000$ product. the more money you spend on something the more it important and valuable to YOU.
cpu-200$
ssd-100$
screen-200$
case-200$
so on
if your gpu is 10$ or 20$ or 30$ THAT MEANS IT IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR YOU. it is your money, your choice.
You seem to live in some kind of fictional dream world where nobody ever makes poorly thought out choices and everyone always has a perfect overview of their own wants and needs both now and into the future. A little news flash to you: that isn't even close to the truth.
Price isn't what determines if a GPU is important to you; your intended use case is what determines that. If you buy a laptop without considering the GPU (which the
vast majority of people do, as they don't even know what a GPU is) but then decide to try to game on it later on, the GPU becomes important nonetheless. So, given how gaming is constantly increasing in popularity and people are demonstrably trying to game even on low-end laptops, any performance increase in these laptops should be welcome, yes? Of course those who
don't try to game won't care one way or the other, but those who do will definitely notice the difference between a Ryzen 5 or 7 with single channel RAM vs. dual channel - which was the whole point here. The difference between those two can be
very big for barely any cost increase at all.
As for your pricing, all that shows is you are (I would think deliberately, though it might not be) misunderstanding my point. My point is that for a theoretical $1000 ultrabook or otherwise thin and light laptop, which is likely to have a ~$600 BOM+amortization of R&D cost, going for a dual channel rather than single channel memory layout is a negligible added cost while having serious performance benefits for any iGPU load. Yet you somehow seem to think that's not worth it? Either your logic is failing or you're failing to argue your own points. People game on laptops like this whether you like it or not, thus iGPU performance obviously matters to the user experience. It's about making as good a design as possible within the framework you're working in, after all, and leaving performance on the table like that is just poor design.
Though going by your history here I would guess you're arguing for this mainly because you really want AMD-based products to be designed worse than Intel-based alternatives so that Intel can sell more. That kind of mindless loyalty is really difficult to understand - shouldn't our focus be that end users get the best product possible, regardless of who makes it?