more cores with terrible graphics kinda 50-50, better get a dedicated one.
I'd rather they stick to the 4C/8T combo and put a bit more into the integrated graphics whilst focusing on the power limitations/thermals/cooling.
I personally had an HP Envy x360 13.3“ with an AMD Ryzen 5 2500U and whilst I shouldn't expect amazing performance in a thin 13.3” body, I did find that the CPU was given way too much priority over graphics. I could run games on low settings on 1080p with it and get 30fps but after a few minutes, it would lower and throttle the GPU clocks whilst leaving the CPU clocks in tact even when the laptop was nowhere near its thermal limit.
From reading other people's research, I found this was a widespread issue. Fortunately, I also found that you could force it to run at max GPU clocks and raise the max temp and TDP whilst reducing CPU boost but that was with a team of kind developers effectively manually taking apart the Ryzen Master utility and creating a laptop version - people shouldn't have to do this and I would have expected AMD to work closely with HP to optimise performance. This would have been in their best interest to gain credibility in the laptop world where currently most people still think “urgh AMD laptop, must be crap” whereas AMD have been gaining a (deserved) following on their desktop CPU and to push out badly implemented (imo) laptops harms their reputation.
8 cores makes sense, given the 6 core competition. I'm more upset by the lack of navi.
well after the surface laptop 15" youtube issue, I'm not sure I would trust AMD on laptops without many reviews saying they are ok.
I'm much more interested in 4000 series desktop CPUs, but I feel like if these results are representative at all, we're in for a treat, and I'm glad I didn't jump on a 3000 series chip.
lumireleon
more cores with terrible graphics kinda 50-50, better get a dedicated one.
What makes you think the IGP will be terrible? For most people buying laptops I suspect even current gen IGPs are more than enough - catering to higher-end gaming with their APU die wouldn't make much business sense, so of course there will still be a market for discrete GPUs.
Ulti
I could run games on low settings on 1080p with it and get 30fps but after a few minutes, it would lower and throttle the GPU clocks whilst leaving the CPU clocks in tact even when the laptop was nowhere near its thermal limit.
From reading other people's research, I found this was a widespread issue. Fortunately, I also found that you could force it to run at max GPU clocks and raise the max temp and TDP whilst reducing CPU boost but that was with a team of kind developers effectively manually taking apart the Ryzen Master utility and creating a laptop version - people shouldn't have to do this and I would have expected AMD to work closely with HP to optimise performance. This would have been in their best interest to gain credibility in the laptop world where currently most people still think “urgh AMD laptop, must be crap” whereas AMD have been gaining a (deserved) following on their desktop CPU and to push out badly implemented (imo) laptops harms their reputation.
I wonder how much of this is AMD's doing vs the laptop manufacturer though? I'm not saying I disagree - in fact I'd say you're spot on about rubbish implementation of AMD's products likely harming their public reputation. We've seen it all before, a decent IGP ridiculously paired with single channel memory, etc.
Xlucine
8 cores makes sense, given the 6 core competition. I'm more upset by the lack of navi.
The use of Vega is interesting but I seem to recall reading a reason for this. I'd expect AMD to release some sort of explanation on release if it's a technical reason - maybe it has something to do with scaling?
will19565
well after the surface laptop 15" youtube issue, I'm not sure I would trust AMD on laptops without many reviews saying they are ok.
What issue is that? I've just tried searching for it but all I'm getting are reviews of the Surface
on Youtube…
Need 6 and 8 core gpu models now. + a larger gpu of course. 720p for most stuff is a joke. We need a higher low-end so we get better games overall. If intel launches a gpu at cost (dumb IMHO, but if you're trying to make a baseline, this is one way to do it), this will happen pretty quick I'd say if it's around gtx 1080. Not to mention push AMD/NV further feature/perf wise. I don't have much faith in Intel getting this right based on the long history of failures from them on gpu side. But happy to see a shot taken just to shake things up even in failure. I think Intel is why NV is saying BIG GAINS NEXT up. It is a clear move against Intel if their card turns out ok. I think they are literally going around getting devs to understand they are putting out a LOT more perf next gen so start taking advantage now. I can't remember when I last seen them do this so in your face and public and I've been doing this since about 3-5yrs after they started. It could be hype but I think they are really telling it like it is. Devs will have far more power with RTX 7nm.
globalwarning
I'm much more interested in 4000 series desktop CPUs, but I feel like if these results are representative at all, we're in for a treat, and I'm glad I didn't jump on a 3000 series chip.
The 4000 series APUs are Zen 2; the same CPU cores as the 3000 series on desktop.
4000 on desktop is still ~9 months out.
some applications is way more CPU + RAM demanding though
nobodyspecial
Need 6 and 8 core gpu models now. + a larger gpu of course. 720p for most stuff is a joke. We need a higher low-end so we get better games overall.
That makes no sense because of the required die size, power consumption and thermals, and it would be completely pointless for most of the people buying these products.
Raising the performance bar for low end arguably makes little to no difference regarding game quality, and you could even argue the opposite - a developer having an excess of performance available for their target market and wanting to extract as much money as possible from a game, why would they need to put as much effort into properly optimising and tuning its performance? This process doesn't only benefit those with integrated graphics, far from it!
gimme a 4/8 or 6/12 with GOOD grafix within a power budget of 45w or less , and I'll be happy.
BTW are these going to be on AM4 ? I suppose so ?
AMD has pledged to continue to use the AM4 socket through 2020 when Ryzen 4000 CPUs (based on the Zen2 Plus architecture) are expected to be released.
globalwarning
I'm much more interested in 4000 series desktop CPUs, but I feel like if these results are representative at all, we're in for a treat, and I'm glad I didn't jump on a 3000 series chip.
You're kind of comparing apples with oranges though. The 4000 series desktop CPU is simply going to be a refresh of the Zen2 3000 CPUs.
Is that the case? I was under the impression that Ryzen 4000 would be Zen3?
watercooled
Is that the case? I was under the impression that Ryzen 4000 would be Zen3?
They always seem to do a refresh, like the 2000 series was zen+ not zen2.
I think they are literally going around getting devs to understand they are putting out a LOT more perf next gen so start taking advantage now. I can't remember when I last seen them do this so in your face and public and I've been doing this since about 3-5yrs after they started. It could be hype but I think they are really telling it like it is. Devs will have far more power with RTX 7nm.
@Ulti, agree with your comments.
But it would be interesting to see
what latency gains are had, at such
a never before attempted monolith by AMD.
Personally the sweet spot is a 6 core, no
thread beefed up dGPU, as DX12 seems to love
this configuration.
Sorry ..RAzer = Walletrape .. I dont intend being a %metoo victim.
APU @ 45,35,25w … I might go for a 2000 instead,2700 ??
