2.5k 4070M High+:
Alan Wake 2 2023 - pathetic 40fps
Lords of the Fallen 2023 - funny 30fps
Starfield 2023 - 37fps
Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 Phantom Liberty - 55fps. Finish..
Immortals of Aveum 2023 - 32fps
Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart 2023 - 48fps
Even F1 23 2023 - 45fps! And this is a real-time game, where 60fps without dropouts is simply a must!
Star Wars Jedi Survivor 2023 - 52fps
The Last of Us 2023 - 45fps...
Atomic Heart 2023 - 51-52fps.
Hogwarts Legacy 2023 - 52fps

The pathetic bot Neenyah has messed up once again.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 29, 2024, 13:56:19

Quote from: NikoB on May 29, 2024, 13:29:01And that's not all - the 4070 with 8GB VRAM no longer allows you to run the latest games in ultra quality - there is simply not enough VRAM, 13-16GB is required.

Lol. Helldivers 2, quite demanding game, at maxed/ultra 1440p with 3070 laptop: https://youtu.be/wKhpbH9vt3Q?t=146, not once did it go over 5.8 GB VRAM and the 3070 laptop has 8 GB VRAM. 4070 laptop is about 22% faster than a 3070 laptop.

And the same game with the RTX 4090 desktop at 4K native ultra/maxed is reaching close to 9 GB VRAM but it is still always under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApSu1puuXYA
Still far below from your funny claims of 13-16 GB (lol again).

Just saw this for Hellblade 2, the most demanding game on the market, 9.1 GB VRAM was its highest recorded at native 4K maxed: https://youtu.be/1-8tG3sBFY4?t=46

Still 3.9 to 6.9 GB short of "13-16GB is required".

It also never went above 8.6 GB at 1440p native maxed, and, again, it is graphically the most demanding game out there where nothing but 4090 desktop is able to reach 60 fps at 4K native maxed detail (33 fps with the 4080 Super, as shown in the link above): https://youtu.be/1-8tG3sBFY4?t=654

Mostly agree with NikoB here except for the part regarding gpu bandwidth. Think they're forgetting that strix halo will also come with 32 MB of MALL cache, which helps a ton at lower resolution (e.g. 1080p) gaming. Don't believe Apple is using anything similar to this in their SoCs AFAIK.

Quote from: NikoB on May 29, 2024, 13:29:01

Quote from: Harrykonstantinos on May 29, 2024, 08:08:484070 can run latest games at 1440@60 native.

Absolutely not. Almost all the latest releases are not capable of delivering even stable 50fps on the mobile 4070.

Here is the list of the top 100 most popular games released in 2024, find more than exactly two which can't go 60+ ultra at 1440p with the 4070 laptop: https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/2024/

For example, Content Warning is quite popular: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2881650/Content_Warning/

You need GTX 1060 (desktop) to play ultra/max 60+ fps in 1440p native. 4070 laptop is roughly twice faster than a 1060 desktop.

Quote from: NikoB on May 29, 2024, 13:29:01And not only that, only with a fake 2.5k resolution through the DLSS crutch, without it everything is very, very bad.

Lol.

Quote from: NikoB on May 29, 2024, 13:29:01And that's not all - the 4070 with 8GB VRAM no longer allows you to run the latest games in ultra quality - there is simply not enough VRAM, 13-16GB is required.

Lol. Helldivers 2, quite demanding game, at maxed/ultra 1440p with 3070 laptop: https://youtu.be/wKhpbH9vt3Q?t=146, not once did it go over 5.8 GB VRAM and the 3070 laptop has 8 GB VRAM. 4070 laptop is about 22% faster than a 3070 laptop.

And the same game with the RTX 4090 desktop at 4K native ultra/maxed is reaching close to 9 GB VRAM but it is still always under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApSu1puuXYA
Still far below from your funny claims of 13-16 GB (lol again).

Quote from: Harrykonstantinos on May 29, 2024, 08:08:484070 can run latest games at 1440@60 native.

Absolutely not. Almost all the latest releases are not capable of delivering even stable 50fps on the mobile 4070. And not only that, only with a fake 2.5k resolution through the DLSS crutch, without it everything is very, very bad.

And that's not all - the 4070 with 8GB VRAM no longer allows you to run the latest games in ultra quality - there is simply not enough VRAM, 13-16GB is required.

Strix Halo even with a 256-bit memory controller (if you believe in an efficiency of 90%, which of course will not happen in practice, but everything will be very bad, as in the case of Apple, which claims 400GB/s, but in practice the shameful 120-130GB/s even in top SoCs) will still be significantly inferior in terms of VRAM bandwidth to NVidia dgpu.

Therefore, statements that supposedly Strix Halo will reach the level of at least the mobile 4070 do not cause anything from experts except Homeric laughter at the impudence of lies in the press by some authors, probably bribed by the marketing division of AMD.

At best, you should expect performance of 4050, and most likely even lower.

In order for igpu to start showing high performance, a separate HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 500GB/s and at least 16GB must be installed on the chiplet.
Then igpu really have a chance to get at least a mobile 4060.

Don't get the negativity on this, nor the speculation on running hot or being expensive.

Figures for 7000/8000u series vs M3 look bad due to varying PLs, but if you look at devices with good setups, they can cap at ~30w with 85% speed of 60w setups. So the averaged figures give a widely distorted impression of efficiency.

The current gen 780m 12cus is about 50% slower than 4050m. 4050=2560c 4070=4608c

Assuming next gen will offer better IPC, it's not hard to imagine 20cu matching 4050 or 40cu matching 4070. 4070 can run latest games at 1440@60 native. Sounds perfect to anyone with a life.

Addressing heat too, the whole point of integrating gpus is that it offers vastly better efficiency. Take a look at "Kaby Lake G" such as i5 8305g. As an experiement, They offered "vega 20" gpus with i5 7300h. The results were great.

Halo should be expensive, but probs won't be because theu need to sell it, just like kaby lake G. They will be vastly more efficient than the seperate parts, and thus cooler.

The future is large socs, and I for one, as a digital artist, can't wait for the possibility of M3 max efficiency in a convertible. Which will be possible  as long as OEMs do a decent job of power mamagement.

Some may find this hard to believe, but check benchmarks for 7840u thoroughly. The HP elitebook 845 g10 matches the M3 pro 11core (40w) in cinebench R24 despite the HP G10 capping at 35w.

Quote from: NikoB on May 05, 2024, 12:08:09I don't understand young people who are really concerned about games. If you want to play - only 4080+. Everything else is half measures and a drop in the quality of gameplay or graphics quality.

And then you look at the top 30 (or even top 50) of the most played games on Steam - https://imgur.com/7BsvlxV - and you realize that literally not a single one of them is graphically demanding and that each of them plays perfectly fine in high/maxed details at 3060 (mobile) or better. One could think that people play games because they want to have fun and engaging content instead of ultrarealistic graphics which they won't notice at all anyways if the game is - fun (and if the game has good story if it's a single player game).

But hey, if NikoB says that 4080 or 4090 are needed to have fun in Apex then 400,000 of daily players surely must be wrong given the fact that the game runs fully maxed 1440p at 165+ fps with 3060 6 GB. They simply have to upgrade to 4080+ (laptop) so NikoB can understand them.

-

Edit: 4070 laptop is MUCH faster than 3060 laptop, btw.

Strix Halo will not cost $30000 unless with 64 GB and 4 TB. They will be priced almost 'Apple' like but about $300-$400 cheaper due to being manufactured on an older node. So guesstimating 16 core/32 GB/1 TB/40 CU is $2-$2.2k (US) as list price on Alienware 7945HX and 7900M is $2800. Drop $400 per graphics tier to get to 7600XT/4070 mobile levels. Most than likely, they will price it $1899 for the old psychology trick of making it seem much cheaper than $2k.

Quote from: NikoB on May 05, 2024, 12:08:09I don't understand young people who are really concerned about games. If you want to play - only 4080+. Everything else is half measures and a drop in the quality of gameplay or graphics quality.

You're right. But:

1) I only play games from like 10 years ago anyway. Nothing modern from micro transaction era.

2) Some of these older games are quite demanding and unoptimized in certain areas. You basically need an RTX 4080 to run them consistently at 4k@120 but I'd be fine running them at 1080p@90, which strix halo igpu / RX 6600 / RTX 2070 Super tier level hardware should be good enough for.

Small sidenote:

I do think strix halo is widely overhyped in media and article coverage if you think about what it achieves. You're basically getting ps5 current gen performance 5 years later. But what did ivy bridge achieve back in 2012? 332 gflops which is roughly ps3/xbox360 tier but 5 years later on. And unlike arc, intel hd graphics drivers were fairly stable / solid even if they were abit slow.

But unlike ivy bridge laptops which you could find $1000, you can bet strix halo will be in $3000+ ultra premium laptops.

So AMD isn't any better than intel in this respect. And it really isn't surprising, considering the conflict of interest. We're never going to get AMD's biggest and most powerful APU's in the pc consumer market aslong as they've console contracts with Sony. The only reason we getting strix halo next year is because ps5 pro is coming by the end of this year.

Maybe you're right NikoB, I should just stick to consoles and wait for the switch 2. (Since this seems the only way to avoid buying expensive RTX 4080s and still being able to game) Or just quit gaming and find another hobby..

Another possible option is if snapdragon x elite laptops allow eGPU that could be very interesting as x86 on arm emulation ecosystem is maturing very quickly.

Technically, yes. Problem is: 4080+ are too expensive for many.

I don't understand young people who are really concerned about games. If you want to play - only 4080+. Everything else is half measures and a drop in the quality of gameplay or graphics quality.

Quote from: O'Connell on May 03, 2024, 20:14:38will be in par w/ GTX 1080 for 40CU maybe RTX 2070super (and here i'm optimistic)

I'd say this is a pretty reasonable take. Desktop RTX 2070 Super is roughly RX 6600 (desktop) performance I think, which is so far what all the rumors for strix halo indicate.

And yeah, I remember those RTX 3060 equivalent rumours too which gave no indication of desktop or mobile variant and were wildly wrong (ended up being GTX 1060 mobile at best instead). Probably best to ignore (AMD) leaks until something is actually released.

I do wonder what strix point's 50%+ of a mobile GTX 1060 / Radeon 780M would land up. Would that be as fast as mobile GTX 1070 / RTX 2060 / RTX 3050 ?

Unfortunately, the difference between a high powered RTX 3050 desktop and mobile RTX low power laptop is kinda huge. So any interest regular strix point just kinda died for me even for a just a x86 handheld, that wouldn't be quite enough for me.

Rather get a qcomm or arm SoC if all I'm getting mobile RTX 3050 perf. Game gpu requirements have just exploded too much recently thanks to current gen consoles to warrant anything less. (Than a RTX 2070 super desktop, that is)

I am not a gamer so I do not need any dedicated graphics card, but I do need a laptop that gives me mobility, weighs less than 2.2 pounds and has enough CPU + iGPU power and after seeing the very positive comments from MINISFORUM on YouTube and The incredible battery life is essential for me because I work anywhere, something that no Intel laptop has had and I am about to buy it, I hope this website can make a comparison between MINISFORUM V3 vs Surface 10 Pro.

QuoteI think that part of the issue is that you are mixing 4070 desktop and 4070 laptop.
The article talks about the 4070 laptop and 7600 desktop, which have similar performance.

no because the rumour was only RTX 3060, but everybody thought that maybe was reported to "mobile" even thought was at GTX 1060 performances (mobile eh).
Notebookcheck replaced others rumours that talks only of 4070 without specification like was succeded times ago with 3060...

with 8500 can't go over GTX 1080Ti perf.
16Cu 3.5rdna 3 Ghz with 7500 I leave u to suppose what can be...

Quote from: O'Connell on May 03, 2024, 20:14:38

QuoteI can't imagine how hot these chips will run, unless they are underclocked for notebooks - which means their performance will drop vs "up to RTX 4070 performance".

Aren't Ryzen 8000 APUs already difficult to keep cool?

is tipical for rumours create such smoke, we all remember when strix point was on par with RTX 3060 months before the launch. same with 9000 sseries, obviously willbe 50% faster than previous generation but will be in par w/ GTX 1080 for 40CU maybe RTX 2070super (and here i'm optimistic)

I think that part of the issue is that you are mixing 4070 desktop and 4070 laptop.
The article talks about the 4070 laptop and 7600 desktop, which have similar performance.