Quote from: Spunjji on September 08, 2020, 14:41:51

Quote from: Vaidyanathan on August 26, 2020, 11:57:28

Quote from: CmdrEvil on August 26, 2020, 11:44:05
AMD really has to start offering high-end mobile options.

Yeah this one's on AMD, actually. The RTX 2060 limitation seems artificial and frankly, unwarranted. AMD may do an Intel and say, hey what's the point of an RTX 2070+ when it seriously impacts battery life.

...WTF? No it's not "on AMD, actually". OEMs decide what GPU hardware goes in their devices, not AMD, and they've all mysteriously decided to only use the high-end Nvidia GPUs in Intel notebooks whilst ignoring AMD's 5700M entirely. Whether that's the fault of Intel, Nvidia or a combination is unclear - but I'd really love to know how you think it's the fault of AMD.

Isn't that obvious? Do you see the Ryzen 4000G APUs for desktop with this limitation? No. AMD themselves have confirmed the same. Not only the dGPUs but AMD dynamically downclocks the RAM as well (to probably allow more power to the iGPU). We've already carried some articles on this. Suggest you check them out:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-s-Ryzen-4000H-APUs-limited-to-only-8-PCIe-3-0-lanes-for-dGPUs-A-non-issue-mostly-even-for-dGPUs-above-an-RTX-2060.482722.0.html

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Here-is-why-LPDDR4x-4266-RAM-seems-considerably-faster-when-coupled-with-Intel-Tiger-Lake-U-CPUs-compared-to-equivalent-AMD-Renoir-APUs.480844.0.html

Quote from: Vaidyanathan on August 26, 2020, 11:57:28

Quote from: CmdrEvil on August 26, 2020, 11:44:05
AMD really has to start offering high-end mobile options.

Yeah this one's on AMD, actually. The RTX 2060 limitation seems artificial and frankly, unwarranted. AMD may do an Intel and say, hey what's the point of an RTX 2070+ when it seriously impacts battery life.

...WTF? No it's not "on AMD, actually". OEMs decide what GPU hardware goes in their devices, not AMD, and they've all mysteriously decided to only use the high-end Nvidia GPUs in Intel notebooks whilst ignoring AMD's 5700M entirely. Whether that's the fault of Intel, Nvidia or a combination is unclear - but I'd really love to know how you think it's the fault of AMD.

Quote from: dasdasda on August 26, 2020, 11:20:54
What is the problem with this?
AMD was doing the same thing, emphasizing their graphics advantage or whatever advantage they had during buldozer era and nobody complained.

The problem is that it's dishonest and hypocritical.
AMD having done a similar thing wouldn't make it okay - and yes, a lot of people "complained" about AMD's claims - articles just like this one were written addressing the specificity and/or of the claims, and fanboys howled from the hilltops. If you don't know that, why are you even here?

They are using League of Legends to show that their processors have great gaming performance? Like, really? >__>
That game runs fine even on the 10 year old laptop I'm currently using and the developer has repeatedly stated that it "would run on a toaster".
How about choosing a game that actually needs a good cpu instead of one you can play with almost every computer/laptop in existence?

They are telling gamers you'll get better fps and gamers get better fps, so? Do non-gamers buy 6c/8c laptops? How many people are willing pay the premium for high-spec cpus instead of the base?

Better products is engineer team's problem, and accurate marketing is marketing team's problem. You can't say marketing team was wrong because they didn't tell you the poor yield behind. Sure intel is having big problems with delivering what they promised in the road map but that's more for the stockholder.

Some awesome post already, and finally someone who has the guts to call them out on their shenanigans! It often backfires almost immediately, though only into the enthusiast and well-informed crowd. The everyday' users buying it. Despite it's often just sad: A lie, from start to finish. That being said, yeah, the amount of marketing-bs from Intel really has gotten ludicrous by now.

Intel's marketing has become extremely misleading to outright deceitful at times – especially since AMD has Ryzen again. They're trying to sh!t on their opponent whenever there's the mere possibility.

However, it never has been any other way. Intel just outright hates it with a passion. Not only AMD, but competition as a whole, since they can't handle it, and they never could.

As we all should know by now, the very day Meltdown & Spectre went public, Intel reflexively engaged into another age of their famous mode ›Cover-up‹. By the way, that's exactly why Intel hired all those marketing-people recently since Ryzen came out – and who they hired, boy does it tells a story already.

It really is like many said; Until finally able to compete again, Intel will helplessly spread FUD to stay afloat (and many fall for it). We really entered an age of fraud in 2017 and it's showing.


Smartcom

Looks like Intel's next desktop chips will be 10SF Tiger Lake-H with 8 cores + 8 threads,  14nm Rocket Lake-S with 8 cores+8 threads and the expected 14nm higher turbo rate and then Alder Lake with 8 Golden Cove cores + 8 Gracemont cores.

All three will include significant updates in core, cache, io architecture and memory support vs Comet Lake.

It is also likely that all three will add avx512 SIMD and AI operations that AMD has yet to support.

Quote from: john26082020 on August 26, 2020, 12:08:15
More articles about how AMD is winning, while Intel is shooting it's own feet.

Nobody is winning in gaming comparisons.
There are enough videos with "in gaming fps capped by your GPU" conclusions.
What's more, there are tests with 3600 vs 3300X vs 1600af and they are not making CPU choice look like a big deal at all.
But 4600H >>> 4600U @ 25W > 10750H legacy.

More articles about how AMD is winning, while Intel is shooting it's own feet.

At the same time an Intel based convertible with "ClickPad problems" gets 87% and an AMD based ultrabook that is "Absolute Monster" gets 85%.

Quote from: CmdrEvil on August 26, 2020, 11:44:05
AMD really has to start offering high-end mobile options. It's a shame that if you require laptops with gpu more powerful than rtx 2060 you have to go and buy Intel based ones. Hopefully with big navi and ampere we will finally able to lay our hands on 4800h + rtx 3070 / 3080 duo.
That's the reason why I'm still rocking I5-6300hq with gtx 1060.
At the moment I simply find upgrading pointless. Fingers crossed early next year will give us choice and some great value propositions.

Yeah this one's on AMD, actually. The RTX 2060 limitation seems artificial and frankly, unwarranted. AMD may do an Intel and say, hey what's the point of an RTX 2070+ when it seriously impacts battery life. While that is true, it should not be the reason for not having that choice in the first place. AMD may not have the marketing and influential abilities of Intel just yet, but that's their problem and not really ours as consumers.

AMD really has to start offering high-end mobile options. It's a shame that if you require laptops with gpu more powerful than rtx 2060 you have to go and buy Intel based ones. Hopefully with big navi and ampere we will finally able to lay our hands on 4800h + rtx 3070 / 3080 duo.
That's the reason why I'm still rocking I5-6300hq with gtx 1060.
At the moment I simply find upgrading pointless. Fingers crossed early next year will give us choice and some great value propositions.

Quote from: dasdasda on August 26, 2020, 11:20:54
What is the problem with this?
AMD was doing the same thing, emphasizing their graphics advantage or whatever advantage they had during buldozer era and nobody complained.
Simply put, Intel marketing team is in a dire situation now since their products are almost all at a disadvantage vs AMD and you don't actually expect them to say that since marketing means emphasizing the strong points of your product. Got it?

Well, two things. We are no longer in the Bulldozer era. And Intel too never complained about these benchmarks all these years.
I agree that marketing should focus on the strong points. Am absolutely fine with that. I also commend Intel for extracting the kind of performance from an ageing arch like we saw in Comet Lake-S. But marketing shouldn't be dismissive of the obvious just because you don't find yourself in a cozy position today.

What is the problem with this?
AMD was doing the same thing, emphasizing their graphics advantage or whatever advantage they had during buldozer era and nobody complained.
Simply put, Intel marketing team is in a dire situation now since their products are almost all at a disadvantage vs AMD and you don't actually expect them to say that since marketing means emphasizing the strong points of your product. Got it?