Most OEMs treat AMD CPUs like second-class citizens when it comes to laptops. Now is the time for change

[Redaktion]

Microsoft had the cajones to put both AMD and Intel on its flagship Surface series. In contrast, other OEMs offer AMD options only for their lower-end to mid-range product families. The Ryzen 5 3500U and Ryzen 7 3700U are comparable enough to the Core i7-8565U and even Core i7-1065G7 to be treated on equal ground on flagship laptops.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Most-OEMs-treat-AMD-CPUs-like-second-class-citizens-when-it-comes-to-laptops-Now-is-the-time-for-change.439891.0.html

[fmyhr]

Don't know if it's lack of cajones or profit margins or imagination or what, but this article hits it on the head: the other manufacturers seem to need Microsoft (and Apple) to lead. The rest mostly watch and copy. I don't think we'd be able to enjoy 3:2 or even 16:10 IPS screens without MS & Apple proving they sell. Unfortunate choices like non-user-replaceable battery, soldered-on-RAM are copied too -- and not just in ultrabooks where there may not be room to do otherwise. Maybe one day Lenovo (to call out one mfg) will offer a P series ThinkPad with Ryzen Pro and ECC RAM. Should be possible to sell one at a reasonable price, unlike ludicrously-priced Xeons. MS will probably have to offer it first.  ::)

[THOMAS MIELIMONKA]

In my opinion this is mostly AMDs fault. Intel had hexacore notebook cpus for years now. I don't understand why AMD solely focuses on desktop / server market, and not on laptop one. Surely every year more and more people buy laptops instead of desktops.
All they have to do is release their hexa / octacore processors at the right price and eventually they will bury Intel.

[sadassddasdsa]

I think until Zen AMD was not worthy to enter a premium laptop, it was garbage. Also, first Zen mobile (14nm) was pretty bad, with low battery life and just good performance.
Nowadays, they fixed the battery life issues in most part and we are starting to see more AMD equipped laptops. So I don't think anyone had something with them, it was just a matter of, if we make a premium AMD device, people won't buy it since the CPU is weak, battery life is weak, etc, etc.

[86lappytester]

For me most OEM and even retailers decision to focus on Intel based
OEM products than AMD.
It is not solely because of profit margin but customer perspective of AMD based laptop.
Since there are perspective that AMD chips are hot, slow and etc.
Customers tend to shun away from laptop using AMD chips
even with recent Ryzen based laptops.
Intel in the mobile space have been aggressive with releasing
chips that are hexacore and etc.
However even recently articles mention such chips tend to run hot under load.
If AMD were to release such chip hopefully it would run cooler than Intel.
As seen in few articles that some AMD Ryzen based laptop tend not to throttle unlike Intel. (Dependent on manufacturer and model of the laptop.)
For now AMD dominate DIY desktop, notebook not yet. .
I myself have used AMD based laptop Turion, Phenom, Richland
but didn't embark on Ryzen.
These laptop have decent performance and battery.
Other than that, I also wish for AMD mobile chips with 8 cores
with IGP and uses GDDR ram than standard ram.
But if that does come true than RAM upgradability would be impossible.

[WhengLi]

Another AMD's fanboyism, LUL. Using Surface's Laptop as a evidence of AMD's OEM indicates your biases, not opinion.
The main reason why Microsoft uses AMD's CPUs and GPUs in Surface Laptop is that, the Surface Laptop is too expensive to sell well. There is no person who want to spend $1400 to buy a Ultrabook, which is not 2-in-1 and not supporting long battery-time. What's more, without 2-in-1 or convertible, touch screen becomes non-sense. That why Laptop sell much worse than Surface Pro and Surface Book.
However, the Vega 10 need 30W power to catch up with 1065G7's Iris Plus graphics, which only need 12W. The R7 H-series also needs more power than Whiskylake.
And in this price of about $1400, there are many substitutes, such as ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ThinkPad X1 Extreme, Dell XPS-13, HP Spectre and so on. None of these failed to provide a better price-quality ratio, a more perfect screen, and longer battery time.

Why OEM's choose Intel as first choice? The foremost is that Intel provides a better price-quality ratio, more stable platform, and higher game-performance. You should keep in mind that i5-9400F's game performance is equal to R5 3600's, i7 8700K's is equal to R9 3900X's, according to Computer Base, TPU, tomsHardware and Techspot. And you will see that the price of i5-9400F is so low that it becomes best choice for general gamers. The i7-9700KF also in the same situation, which plays better than ALL Ryzen 3 CPUs.
You don't need to doubt that more than 90 percentage of high-end CPU home users is just for gaming. The gaming performance values most.
Why the game performance is worse though AMD's 3900X has more cores? That is latency. The CCX architecture's inherent problem is latency is more higher that intel's Ring-bus architecture. And the CCX, Mesh and Ring-bus have its advantages and disadvantages, but I think that's not important for you because you won't be faced with the facts or you are not a senior menber of Hardware and lack relevant knowledge.

[Ismael]

I think the only one biased here is you.
Most of that data is straight bs.
First there is no "R6 3600" xd.
Vega 10 does not consume that much when Idle, just like Iris plus. And when needed it performs like a gtx 950m with a lot less power. Iris Plus can't offer half of that performance (althought it has interesting hardware-achieved encodings).
I'll ignore the lies about the 9400F vs the 3900 bc it's plain stupid just as about the 8700k xd
Not even needed to talk about efficiency. You know, that thing you think about when you have to pay the electricity bill (or your parents).

Just look the videos on youtube. I don't believe in sintetic benchmarks. Watch gamer nexus or derbauer or hundreds more making tests with multimeters and overclocking. Intel has been sleeping and they subestimated AMD.

Now to be clear: idgaf about any of both of them nor to ARM or Risc-V, it's just I hate hoolligans and fanboys. And normally I tend to ignore them but when they just start to pretend "iamverysmart" and giving fake data it drives me nuts.

I don't care about Intel or AMD. At any given moment I will just choose the one that I need with the best price.
Intel had been brutally ahead of AMD this last decade (AMD's FX was really bad) and they thought "well why invest more right now, we can chill a bit" which, don't get me wrong. They are a business and at the end they don't care about you nor me, they want money and that's perfecly normal. But they didn't have a mechanism to be alerted before what had happened. AMD's momentum now will make Intel work hard and at the end that's good for you and me.

[drspychology]

I kinda agree, especially compared to the i5's, the ryzen counterparts keep up very well. However, if AMD really wants to contend in the laptop market, it needs a stronger offering, it needs to give reasons why people should pick AMD over Intel. On desktop, it pushes core counts to new heights and making intel play catch-up, but on notebooks, they're behind, even if it's only at the high end. The fact that their 3rd gen mobile CPUs are a node behind versus 3rd gen desktop CPUs (Zen+ vs Zen 2) also doesn't help, especially since it desperately needs the efficiency improvements that Zen 2 brings on mobile. Intel is known to play dirty, paying manufacturers not to use AMD processors, and although this is clearly unfair competition, it's the state of the market and if it wants to compete, it needs to offer better products, like it does in the server and desktop market.

[Peterdesja]

You forgot to mention that the APUs in the Microsoft surface laptops are 12nm against intels 10nm.. just wait till those APUs from AMD are on 7nm in Q1 of 2020... it will be a blood bath...

[Peterdesja]

It is because AMD did not have the volume to supply the laptop market. They were frighting against bankruptcy after the bulldozer debacle... they are in a MUCH better position now and could steal half the market...

In my opinion this is mostly AMDs fault. Intel had hexacore notebook cpus for years now. I don't understand why AMD solely focuses on desktop / server market, and not on laptop one. Surely every year more and more people buy laptops instead of desktops.
All they have to do is release their hexa / octacore processors at the right price and eventually they will bury Intel.

[Peterdesja]

The fact that your trying to say a 8700 will beat an r9 3900 is laughable and shows you dont know what you are talking about...

Another AMD's fanboyism, LUL. Using Surface's Laptop as a evidence of AMD's OEM indicates your biases, not opinion.
The main reason why Microsoft uses AMD's CPUs and GPUs in Surface Laptop is that, the Surface Laptop is too expensive to sell well. There is no person who want to spend $1400 to buy a Ultrabook, which is not 2-in-1 and not supporting long battery-time. What's more, without 2-in-1 or convertible, touch screen becomes non-sense. That why Laptop sell much worse than Surface Pro and Surface Book.
However, the Vega 10 need 30W power to catch up with 1065G7's Iris Plus graphics, which only need 12W. The R7 H-series also needs more power than Whiskylake.
And in this price of about $1400, there are many substitutes, such as ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ThinkPad X1 Extreme, Dell XPS-13, HP Spectre and so on. None of these failed to provide a better price-quality ratio, a more perfect screen, and longer battery time.

Why OEM's choose Intel as first choice? The foremost is that Intel provides a better price-quality ratio, more stable platform, and higher game-performance. You should keep in mind that i5-9400F's game performance is equal to R6 3600's, i7 8700K's is equal to R9 3900X's, according to Computer Base, TPU, tomsHardware and Techspot. And you will see that the price of i5-9400F is so low that it becomes best choice for general gamers. The i7-9700KF also in the same situation, which plays better than ALL Ryzen 3 CPUs.
You don't need to doubt that more than 90 percentage of high-end CPU home users is just for gaming. The gaming performance values most.
Why the game performance is worse though AMD's 3900X has more cores? That is latency. The CCX architecture's inherent problem is latency is more higher that intel's Ring-bus architecture. And the CCX, Mesh and Ring-bus have its advantages and disadvantages, but I think that's not important for you because you won't be faced with the facts or you are not a senior menber of Hardware and lack relevant knowledge.

[WhengLi]

The fact that your trying to say a 8700 will beat an r9 3900 is laughable and shows you dont know what you are talking about...

Another AMD's fanboyism, LUL. Using Surface's Laptop as a evidence of AMD's OEM indicates your biases, not opinion.
The main reason why Microsoft uses AMD's CPUs and GPUs in Surface Laptop is that, the Surface Laptop is too expensive to sell well. There is no person who want to spend $1400 to buy a Ultrabook, which is not 2-in-1 and not supporting long battery-time. What's more, without 2-in-1 or convertible, touch screen becomes non-sense. That why Laptop sell much worse than Surface Pro and Surface Book.
However, the Vega 10 need 30W power to catch up with 1065G7's Iris Plus graphics, which only need 12W. The R7 H-series also needs more power than Whiskylake.
And in this price of about $1400, there are many substitutes, such as ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ThinkPad X1 Extreme, Dell XPS-13, HP Spectre and so on. None of these failed to provide a better price-quality ratio, a more perfect screen, and longer battery time.

Why OEM's choose Intel as first choice? The foremost is that Intel provides a better price-quality ratio, more stable platform, and higher game-performance. You should keep in mind that i5-9400F's game performance is equal to R6 3600's, i7 8700K's is equal to R9 3900X's, according to Computer Base, TPU, tomsHardware and Techspot. And you will see that the price of i5-9400F is so low that it becomes best choice for general gamers. The i7-9700KF also in the same situation, which plays better than ALL Ryzen 3 CPUs.
You don't need to doubt that more than 90 percentage of high-end CPU home users is just for gaming. The gaming performance values most.

LOL. The funny one is you.
You ever read the review of R9 3900X in TechPowerUp？Dont say you dont know TechPowerUp, which provides the famous GPUZ.
And you should also read reviews in Techspot.com. Maybe other medias like TomsHardware.com, Anandtech. Just compares the game avg fps.

The fact is, AMD's fanboyisms never have courage to face the fact that CCX architecture produces higher latency and does bad in games.
1065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
And about the game performance, you should also read the review of R9-3900X in TechPowerUp.com, which serves as a famous vertical media. (GPU-Z i do't believe there are someone who dont know.)
Or other reviews in tomsHardware, Techspot, Anandtech.
(https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png)

[WhengLi]

I think the only one biased here is you.
Most of that data is straight bs.
First there is no "R6 3600" xd.
Vega 10 does not consume that much when Idle, just like Iris plus. And when needed it performs like a gtx 950m with a lot less power. Iris Plus can't offer half of that performance (althought it has interesting hardware-achieved encodings).
I'll ignore the lies about the 9400F vs the 3900 bc it's plain stupid just as about the 8700k xd
Not even needed to talk about efficiency. You know, that thing you think about when you have to pay the electricity bill (or your parents).

Just look the videos on youtube. I don't believe in sintetic benchmarks. Watch gamer nexus or derbauer or hundreds more making tests with multimeters and overclocking. Intel has been sleeping and they subestimated AMD.

Now to be clear: idgaf about any of both of them nor to ARM or Risc-V, it's just I hate hoolligans and fanboys. And normally I tend to ignore them but when they just start to pretend "iamverysmart" and giving fake data it drives me nuts.

I don't care about Intel or AMD. At any given moment I will just choose the one that I need with the best price.
Intel had been brutally ahead of AMD this last decade (AMD's FX was really bad) and they thought "well why invest more right now, we can chill a bit" which, don't get me wrong. They are a business and at the end they don't care about you nor me, they want money and that's perfecly normal. But they didn't have a mechanism to be alerted before what had happened. AMD's momentum now will make Intel work hard and at the end that's good for you and me.

1065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
And about the game performance, you should also read the review of R9-3900X in TechPowerUp.com, which serves as a famous vertical media. (GPU-Z i don't believe there are someone who dont know.)
Or other reviews in tomsHardware, Techspot, Anandtech.
(https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png)

[gusMo]

Cojones, not cajones, unless you meant Microsoft has big boxes ;D

[Doctor Hue]

1065G7's Graphics marks 3150 in 3DMark Firestrike Graphics in 25W configuration, only need 12W. But Vega10 need 30W to reach this points. Read Vega10 notebooks review in Notebookcheck.com, you will find that most of notebooks failed to reach 3000 (Firestrike Graphics).
And about the game performance, you should also read the review of R9-3900X in TechPowerUp.com, which serves as a famous vertical media. (GPU-Z i don't believe there are someone who dont know.)
Or other reviews in tomsHardware, Techspot, Anandtech.

Are you sure Iris Plus G7 only consumed 12W? I see it consuming more power than RX Vega 10. (43W on G7, 37W on Vega 10).
Intel had to use DDR4-3733 to achieve this feat while AMD's capped at DDR-4 2400?
Most Vega 10 didn't achieve good 3dmark firestrike since OEMs not taking serious at AMD hardware by neutering them with crappy cooling or even single channel memory?