Quote from: Tinien on July 30, 2020, 13:19:41
I want to argue with you about your confidence in the superiority of embedded video over discrete one. All you wrote about efficiency of iGPU and inefficiency of dGPU with their performance-per-watt isn't supported by illustrative examples - only emotional speculations. On the contrary, your opponent gave a quite compelling evidence of MX350 obvious superiority over Vega 7 in the game benchmarks. Weird that you didn't comment on this in any way, you simply ignored an inconvenient fact that does not agree with your speculations. But facts are stubborn thing they speak for themselves. About dGPU performance-per-watt inefficiency - to put it mildly, you are exaggerating heat dissipation of MX350. Considering that it only consumes 10 watts (we speak about less powerful version designed for thin 14" ultrabooks) this dGPU hardly can overheat even in such constrained space as in ultrabooks. And despite this is less powerful version of MX350 even it easily beats 4700U's Vega 7 in game benchmarks. The 25 watt version will all the more surpass Vega 7. But 25 Watt version should be used on larger, 15" laptop and in its case this MX350 will work quite efficiently and calmly.
Quote from: Astar on July 07, 2020, 08:49:56I want to argue with you about your confidence in the superiority of embedded video over discrete one. All you wrote about efficiency of iGPU and inefficiency of dGPU with their performance-per-watt isn't supported by illustrative examples - only emotional speculations. On the contrary, your opponent gave a quite compelling evidence of MX350 obvious superiority over Vega 7 in the game benchmarks. Weird that you didn't comment on this in any way, you simply ignored an inconvenient fact that does not agree with your speculations. But facts are stubborn thing they speak for themselves. About dGPU performance-per-watt inefficiency - to put it mildly, you are exaggerating heat dissipation of MX350. Considering that it only consumes 10 watts (we speak about less powerful version designed for thin 14" ultrabooks) this dGPU hardly can overheat even in such constrained space as in ultrabooks. And despite this is less powerful version of MX350 even it easily beats 4700U's Vega 7 in game benchmarks. The 25 watt version will all the more surpass Vega 7. But 25 Watt version should be used on larger, 15" laptop and in its case this MX350 will work quite efficiently and calmly.
FFS, there are no "religious igpu believers", you idiot! Only people who understand what power-performance efficiency in thermally constrained casing - as compared to idiots like you.
In laptops, there's never enough thermal headroom for anything, whether CPU, iGPU or dGPU. Its the zealots like you who apply your zealot view of PCs to a zero understanding of laptop design.
Its all about putting the most price/weight/size/performance-efficient silicon in a laptop. The point is that low end crappy dGPUs like MX150, 250, 350 are pointless rubbish.
You don't even understand the basics. The wiring to connect the CPU to such crappy dGPUs like the MX350, at the nanometer level, is like the equivalent of driving a car (as an analogy to electrons) from one city to another across state lines. On an AMD APU's iGPU, the wiring distance that the electrons have to travel from the Zen 2 CPU cores to the Vega GPU cores is like the equivalent of driving across the street!
Hence, this CPU-GPU latency inefficiency means dGPUs can NEVER be as efficient or as fast or as latency free as iGPUs. Anybody with cow brains & cow sense should understand that! They consume a lot of energy for the same performance. This energy also creates far more heat, which builds up in the laptop chasis with tiny fans and tiny heatsinks, which then screws everything up as the CPU, the iGPU, the dGPU, the RAM, the SSD... EVERTHING then has to throttle.
In a PC chasis, you can put in a fan as large as you want, feed the fan and dGPU as much power as you want to leverage the huge silicon die size efficiencies where there are a lot more CUs in close proximity to each other on the dGPU die. But this is really a case where you feed brute force power to extract graphics performance from the dGPU die to overcome the inherent dGPU-to-CPU distance inefficiencies.
As I have said many times to ignorant zealots like you, the most power efficient, price efficient and design efficient solution is the AMD APU with iGPU. MX150/250/350 dGPUs are stupid when they consume 25 or 35W on their own... when the AMD Zen 2 CPU and Vega iGPU only consumes 15W!!!
The size of the die also makes the motherboard surface area much bigger, which means there is less space for battery volume/capacity obviously. Not forgetting that the dGPU usually requires its own copper heat pipe and fan, reducing internal space even more!
You don't seem to even understand basic common sense stuff like what so many others have been pointing out here. It is MUCH CHEAPER in terms of BOM costs, to put a single larger copper heat pipe and/or larger fan on top of the AMD Zen 2 Renoir APU to allow it to clock higher speeds. Yet the performance-per-watt will beat any MX350 anytime!
Quote from: william blake on May 08, 2020, 12:27:08
another attack by religious igpu believers? lol
lets check the data
https://www.ultrabookreview.com/38004-amd-vega-7-8-mx350-benchmarks/
last table, same chassis, vega 7, second best vega versus mx350(10w version, keep in mind)
+30% fps
-5%
+95%
+60%
+41%
0 fps vs 30, not sure how to count it
+32%
+33%
+11%
+225%
10w mx is incomparably better, more than +50% avg fps, even more in 1% lows, some games are not even working on vega.
but yea,, go spread some "you dont need more fps" bullshit between noobs.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 10, 2020, 09:25:01Quote from: Finch on May 09, 2020, 11:20:00
To those complaining about AMD GPUs, with as much as I hate to admit it, go watch videos comparing some of the "top end" creator systems from MSI, Asus etc being compared to a 16" Macbook Pro (I'm VERY anti-apple so it literally pains me to admit it) but the Macbook Pro using Vega graphics handles things like 4k and 8k video editing better than the "Creator" based machines like the Prestige or Creator P75 using "Nvidia Studio Drivers" .. so I fail to see how AMD's GPU's are lacking with the exception of intense gaming which I don't do and have no interest in. Though even the comparisons I've seen there, unless you're on a 240hz+ display, I doubt you're going to notice a difference.
That's to a large extent Apple's work. Both in OS/ drivers and in Final Cut Pro (if that's what they're comparing against). Install Windows and performance is going to drop significantly. Or look at DaVinci Resolve, tends to be significantly faster on MacOS (and FCP can beat it still) IIRC. Vega isn't bad. But it's expensive. And AMD struggled with drivers. And Windows can suck. And the editors are not all as optimized. Apple simply has its ducks in a row. In video editing, Mac can indeed be considered "Pro". Simply buying a Vega card won't get you there.
Quote from: Finch on May 09, 2020, 11:20:00That's to a large extent Apple's work. Both in OS/ drivers and in Final Cut Pro (if that's what they're comparing against). Install Windows and performance is going to drop significantly. Or look at DaVinci Resolve, tends to be significantly faster on MacOS (and FCP can beat it still) IIRC. Vega isn't bad. But it's expensive. And AMD struggled with drivers. And Windows can suck. And the editors are not all as optimized. Apple simply has its ducks in a row. In video editing, Mac can indeed be considered "Pro". Simply buying a Vega card won't get you there.
To those complaining about AMD GPUs, with as much as I hate to admit it, go watch videos comparing some of the "top end" creator systems from MSI, Asus etc being compared to a 16" Macbook Pro (I'm VERY anti-apple so it literally pains me to admit it) but the Macbook Pro using Vega graphics handles things like 4k and 8k video editing better than the "Creator" based machines like the Prestige or Creator P75 using "Nvidia Studio Drivers" .. so I fail to see how AMD's GPU's are lacking with the exception of intense gaming which I don't do and have no interest in. Though even the comparisons I've seen there, unless you're on a 240hz+ display, I doubt you're going to notice a difference.
Quote from: Valantar on May 08, 2020, 13:50:23They tested that using a Zephyrus G14 with the dGPU disabled. Yes, there was a significant improvement. No, it wasn't enough to beat MX350 (in the Zenbook). As far as I recall. G14 doesn't have the best cooling system in the world, but it's much better than what you'll typically find in ultrabooks.
Both are thermally limited, and while the MX350 is faster overall, in lighter loads the Vega 7 does indeed seem able to keep up. There is also a serious question to be raised of whether the Vega would be able to keep up better if the thermal design of the laptop wasn't quite poor (even if the MX350 was given the same improved thermal design, obviously) as the overall thermal design of the laptop seems incapable of sustaining even 25W total load for the system.
Quote from: Valantar on May 08, 2020, 20:19:36Quote from: DavidC1 on May 08, 2020, 19:41:21
@A Actually it doesn't work like that. The CPU will use less than rated TDP because it doesn't have to use the iGPU. It's especially the case here since low-end GPUs need only a slow CPU to max it out.
You can see from that very link you put up that the iGPU package power is higher and the CPU frequency is lower, supporting my point that dGPU total power consumption isn't 15W + 10W but 0.x*15W + 10W.
Not to mention the 10W dGPU configuration equal/faster than the much higher power H series APU configuration and demolishes the U APU.
A capable dGPU is competitive even in perf/watt against an iGPU. Only thing its worse at it is taking up more board real estate.
Quote from: Ahmad Aizat on May 08, 2020, 21:13:06That is pure nonsense. All GPU drivers have bugs, and while there were quite a few when Navi was launched, most were quickly fixed. The rest is a very vocal yet tiny minority with very specific issues that are near impossible to recreate for others. AMD drivers these days are stable and work just fine for >99% of users.
It wasnt that hard to understand. AMD has been notoriously bad in their GPU driver and software. It is so badly optimized that wont even compare it anymore. Simply put, the gpu division of amd has been poorly doing its job. You won't be surprised seeing everywhere in the internet, reddit and forums about how it is. Asus didnt want to take the gamble of having to deal with customer in gpu.
Its funny how their cpu division however, is doing a great job nowadays.
Quote from: Ahmad Aizat on May 08, 2020, 21:13:06
It wasnt that hard to understand. AMD has been notoriously bad in their GPU driver and software. It is so badly optimized that wont even compare it anymore. Simply put, the gpu division of amd has been poorly doing its job. You won't be surprised seeing everywhere in the internet, reddit and forums about how it is. Asus didnt want to take the gamble of having to deal with customer in gpu.
Its funny how their cpu division however, is doing a great job nowadays.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar