Quote from: dsaasda on September 28, 2020, 08:40:23

Quote from: robin7 on September 28, 2020, 01:00:09

Quote from: opelit on September 28, 2020, 00:09:35
The whole question is, is doubling power worth the 25% more performance over iGPU?

Exactly. Sounds like an Nvidia paid article. Iris Xe is beating MX350 and he keeps talking about Iris Xe beating MX150, giving the illusion to the reader that may be it doesn't beat MX250/350, which is simply not true. Also MX450 is marginally faster but the power consumption more than doubles which would impact battery life and ghe laptop would run hot. If someone really needs high power GPU he/she should get RTX GPU in a thicker chassis. Otherwise for thin and light notebooks Tiger Lake is now the only choice. MX series is DOA until Nvidia doubles the performance while consuming same power and that has to happen soon before next gen Xe comes out.

Notebookcheck has turned slowly from an objective site with quality reviews to a sorrow fanboy review site...notebookcheck doesn't even bother to hide the fact that they despise Intel (sure, for good reason, but journalism should be professional) and they use every ocassion to bash on something.
Even now when Intel has something a bit better, they still try to minimize it.

I've noticed you posting elsewhere on this site with this reverse-psychology crap. False accusations of bias that isn't there don't cover for your own bias.

Xe isn't "better" until they can show that it reaches its projected performance in a real device and with proper game compatibility. None of those things are true.

It still seems that a properly ventilated Xe G7 could be very close to the MX450, nothing in the past or in this article suggests otherwise.

Quote from: robin7 on September 28, 2020, 01:00:09

Quote from: opelit on September 28, 2020, 00:09:35
The whole question is, is doubling power worth the 25% more performance over iGPU?

Exactly. Sounds like an Nvidia paid article. Iris Xe is beating MX350 and he keeps talking about Iris Xe beating MX150, giving the illusion to the reader that may be it doesn't beat MX250/350, which is simply not true. Also MX450 is marginally faster but the power consumption more than doubles which would impact battery life and ghe laptop would run hot. If someone really needs high power GPU he/she should get RTX GPU in a thicker chassis. Otherwise for thin and light notebooks Tiger Lake is now the only choice. MX series is DOA until Nvidia doubles the performance while consuming same power and that has to happen soon before next gen Xe comes out.

The article mentions that MX 150 could actually run faster than MX 250 in some laptops. Doesn't it?
Seeing how RTX 30XX series offers so much increase in performance over the previous generation, I don't see why NVIDIA can't do the same with ultra low power gpus.
RDNA2 is yet to be released and XE is yet to prove itself.
This might be a clickbait, but I don't see how it can be called a NVIDIA paid article.

It supports only NVDEC, no NVENC.

Quote from: robin7 on September 28, 2020, 01:00:09

Quote from: opelit on September 28, 2020, 00:09:35
The whole question is, is doubling power worth the 25% more performance over iGPU?

Exactly. Sounds like an Nvidia paid article. Iris Xe is beating MX350 and he keeps talking about Iris Xe beating MX150, giving the illusion to the reader that may be it doesn't beat MX250/350, which is simply not true. Also MX450 is marginally faster but the power consumption more than doubles which would impact battery life and ghe laptop would run hot. If someone really needs high power GPU he/she should get RTX GPU in a thicker chassis. Otherwise for thin and light notebooks Tiger Lake is now the only choice. MX series is DOA until Nvidia doubles the performance while consuming same power and that has to happen soon before next gen Xe comes out.

Notebookcheck has turned slowly from an objective site with quality reviews to a sorrow fanboy review site...notebookcheck doesn't even bother to hide the fact that they despise Intel (sure, for good reason, but journalism should be professional) and they use every ocassion to bash on something.
Even now when Intel has something a bit better, they still try to minimize it.

QuoteHowever, with RDNa2 and DDR5 in the horizon

Rembrandt is very promising, but still 1.5 years away.  :-\

QuoteThe chipmaker will finally update the aging Pascal architecture of the MX150/250/350 series to Turing

Except that it should be Ampere now.  :(

This is NVIDIA paid article...

Even 1650 Max-Q still better than this.

Especially considering the fact that this will be used in thin and lights, in which case thermal throttling will be a severe issue. I really don't see a use case for this unless it's same to bring significantly more performance or efficiency. I feel like this class of 'cards' currently only has separate vram as it's only selling point.

However, with RDNa2 and DDR5 in the horizon, things are not very promising. Not with this level of performance.

Quote from: opelit on September 28, 2020, 00:09:35
The whole question is, is doubling power worth the 25% more performance over iGPU?

Exactly. Sounds like an Nvidia paid article. Iris Xe is beating MX350 and he keeps talking about Iris Xe beating MX150, giving the illusion to the reader that may be it doesn't beat MX250/350, which is simply not true. Also MX450 is marginally faster but the power consumption more than doubles which would impact battery life and ghe laptop would run hot. If someone really needs high power GPU he/she should get RTX GPU in a thicker chassis. Otherwise for thin and light notebooks Tiger Lake is now the only choice. MX series is DOA until Nvidia doubles the performance while consuming same power and that has to happen soon before next gen Xe comes out.

The whole question is, is doubling power worth the 25% more performance over iGPU?