RX460m

[Pendragon]

Who's excited for AMD to be a year late with their RX460m. Sigh ):

Apparently its around a 965m. Unless it comes in at the price point of 800 dollars or so nvidia is gonna dominate again in this generation. 

[DarkBlade2117]

You can find 970m laptops for $900, it'll easily be in the $700 laptop range. Mostly for something like a college student who wants to play like CS:GO, Dota, LoL, Rocket League ECT

[handymanshandle]

17 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You can find 970m laptops for $900, it'll easily be in the $700 laptop range. Mostly for something like a college student who wants to play like CS:GO, Dota, LoL, Rocket League ECT

What about WoW?

 

Actually I think if it can run Dota, then it can run WoW on medium or high settings even when Legion hits.

[Pendragon]

20 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You can find 970m laptops for $900

is this new?

[DarkBlade2117]

13 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

is this new?

Brand new laptops, been this way.

[Pendragon]

2 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Brand new laptops, been this way.

show me. do you mean 960m? cause you typed 970m.

[Imglidinhere]

If you claim that a 965M can only handle WoW on medium settings, then you're crazy. Hell, the 960M can handle DOOM on medium settings, and that's a hell of a lot more graphically demanding than WoW can ever dream of being. The 965M isn't a bad spot to be in if it's competing against the 960M. However, unfortunate as it is, the card won't be up against the Maxwell chip for long. It's up against pascal now. :c

[Pendragon]

46 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

However, unfortunate as it is, the card won't be up against the Maxwell chip for long. It's up against pascal now. :c

exactly. sigh. AMD is would need to price this where 950ms currently are at around 500-700 dollars to be competitive with nvidia. 

[Imglidinhere]

11 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

exactly. sigh. AMD is would need to price this where 950ms currently are at around 500-700 dollars to be competitive with nvidia. 

Then again, if Pascal is supposed to be super hot as things have shown, then AMD might be a good choice this round. Even if it's only on-par with Maxwell for the time being, at least the owners won't have a damned super furnace to worry about all the time.

[D2ultima]

8 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You can find 970m laptops for $900, it'll easily be in the $700 laptop range. Mostly for something like a college student who wants to play like CS:GO, Dota, LoL, Rocket League ECT

No you can't. Those have to be refurbished or something; that doesn't count. The cheapest 965M laptop I know of is under $1000 USD, but that's without an OS and just a 1TB 7200RPM HDD. It has an i7 though, but still.

[DarkBlade2117]

6 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

No you can't. Those have to be refurbished or something; that doesn't count. The cheapest 965M laptop I know of is under $1000 USD, but that's without an OS and just a 1TB 7200RPM HDD. It has an i7 though, but still.

Laptop prices have sky rocketed. No, they weren't refurbished, used, open box, none of that shit. I didn't check, but just a month or two ago, 970m laptops were $900-$1,000, not this overpriced $1,400 bull shit.

Actually, cheapest I've found for a 970m is $1,200 right now, which again, I know fora fact NEW laptops with 970m's have gone for <$1000

[D2ultima]

13 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Laptop prices have sky rocketed. No, they weren't refurbished, used, open box, none of that shit. I didn't check, but just a month or two ago, 970m laptops were $900-$1,000, not this overpriced $1,400 bull shit.

Actually, cheapest I've found for a 970m is $1,200 right now, which again, I know fora fact NEW laptops with 970m's have gone for <$1000

Then you were finding clearance stock because Pascal is coming this month or next month... which probably vanished when the sellers realized that the OEMs aren't going to make thin laptops cooling Pascal and would probably have to run maxwell for another gen or something.

 

970Ms were at their CHEAPEST I've ever seen around $1219 with the P650SE models a couple years ago. $900-$1000 ain't happening, and laptops have not skyrocketed in price anytime in the short past.

 

960Ms for $900-$1000 is common. $800 if you're lucky, or it's using a ULV CPU or an i5. But not 970M. The 970M chips are $450 for the gsync models and $420 or so for the non-gsync ones, not counting heatsinks, not counting the CPU/RAM/HDD/Chassis/Screen/wifi card/etc. There's NO WAY they were naturally under $1000.

 

And 970Ms are the CHEAPEST x70M card we've seen in an extremely long time, if not ever, as well. So previous models (770M, 670MX, 670M, 570M, etc) would have been MORE expensive than these current "overpriced $1400 bullshit" you're seeing.

[Imglidinhere]

26 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

960Ms for $900-$1000 is common. $800 if you're lucky, or it's using a ULV CPU or an i5. But not 970M. The 970M chips are $450 for the gsync models and $420 or so for the non-gsync ones, not counting heatsinks, not counting the CPU/RAM/HDD/Chassis/Screen/wifi card/etc. There's NO WAY they were naturally under $1000.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015PYYDMQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

 

<u< Mah sig compy would like to have a werd or two with ya. =D

[D2ultima]

1 minute ago, Imglidinhere said:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015PYYDMQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00

 

<u< Mah sig compy would like to have a werd or two with ya. =D

That is a 960M + a shitty i5. That is not a 970M, which he is claiming can be found.

 

Also, I said "$800 if it's using an i5"

[Imglidinhere]

Just now, D2ultima said:

That is a 960M + a shitty i5. That is not a 970M, which he is claiming can be found.

A shitty i5? The 6300HQ is not a shitty i5. This isn't some ULV dual core dude.

[D2ultima]

Just now, Imglidinhere said:

A shitty i5? The 6300HQ is not a shitty i5. This isn't some ULV dual core dude.

It's a 2.8GHz i5 AT BEST under 4-core load with no overclock potential. That's a shitty i5. And Dell is known to have problems with turbo boost. If your turbo boost kicks off, it becomes an even shittier 2.3GHz i5.

 

If you find a 2.3-2.8GHz i5 is not shitty, you're pretty much on your own. 

[Imglidinhere]

Just now, D2ultima said:

It's a 2.8GHz i5 AT BEST under 4-core load with no overclock potential. That's a shitty i5. And Dell is known to have problems with turbo boost. If your turbo boost kicks off, it becomes an even shittier 2.3GHz i5.

 

If you find a 2.3-2.8GHz i5 is not shitty, you're pretty much on your own. 

I've had this machine since January 20th this year. You're wrong. It boosts up to 3.2GHz and has no issues with turbo boost in any case. Again, you're hilariously on the spectrum of "If it's not 4GHz, it's low-end" or at least that's the vibe you put out.

 

I quoted you a laptop with a quad core i5 and a 960M for under $800 and you claimed you had to "get lucky" to get one under $800 and those only came with crappy ULV CPUs. I proved you wrong. Furthermore, this machine isn't crappy. If this is a crappy i5, then the 6700HQ is a crappy i7. 

[octiceps]

17 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

then the 6700HQ is a crappy i7. 

Which it is LMAO

[D2ultima]

2 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

I've had this machine since January 20th this year. You're wrong. It boosts up to 3.2GHz and has no issues with turbo boost in any case.

 

Again, you're hilariously on the spectrum of "If it's not 4GHz, it's low-end" or at least that's the vibe you put out.

 

I quoted you a laptop with a quad core i5 and a 960M for under $800 and you claimed you had to "get lucky" to get one under $800 and those only came with crappy ULV CPUs.

 

If this is a crappy i5, then the 6700HQ is a crappy i7. 

SINGLE THREAD BOOST. Go run a CPU benchmark using all 4 cores and show me it's holding 3.2GHz. I would like screenshot proof of at least 30 seconds on the benchmark and confirmation that the benchmark is indeed still running in the screenshot. If you wish to prove me wrong, that is...

 

I think anything under 3.4GHz right now is weak for any intel CPU, because of how much CPU usage newer games use. I don't need 4GHz for a lower end GPU pairing, but 2.8GHz is garbage.

 

I said, in fact let me quote it:

39 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

960Ms for $900-$1000 is common. $800 if you're lucky, or it's using a ULV CPU or an i5.

Learn to read. I ALREADY told you that in my original post I mentioned i5 chips.

 

Yes, yes it is a crappy i7. Let me explain this:

 

The i7-6700HQ is a 3.1GHz 4-core load max turbo i7 which cannot have its turbo bins adjusted (even to limit the CPU to 3.1GHz for a stable undervolt is impossible). It has 6MB of L3 cache and lacks extra intel tech like vPro and whatnot. It costs the same as the 6820HQ and 6820HK according to Intel's MSRP.

 

6820HQ and 6820HK both have adjustable turbo bins (+400MHz OC limit on 6820HQ, unlocked on HK), 8MB of L3 cache, are 3.2GHz base 4-core turbo, and the HQ has the extra intel tech like vPro (there's other techs but I forget their names).

 

In other words, the 6700HQ shouldn't even exist. It's a slow, weak i7 compared to what we had in the two generations before it, and costing the same as the 6820HQ which is all-round a better chip, it shouldn't even EXIST.

[Imglidinhere]

37 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

SINGLE THREAD BOOST. Go run a CPU benchmark using all 4 cores and show me it's holding 3.2GHz. I would like screenshot proof of at least 30 seconds on the benchmark and confirmation that the benchmark is indeed still running in the screenshot. If you wish to prove me wrong, that is...

 

I think anything under 3.4GHz right now is weak for any intel CPU, because of how much CPU usage newer games use. I don't need 4GHz for a lower end GPU pairing, but 2.8GHz is garbage.

 

I said, in fact let me quote it:

Learn to read. I ALREADY told you that in my original post I mentioned i5 chips.

 

Yes, yes it is a crappy i7. Let me explain this:

 

The i7-6700HQ is a 3.1GHz 4-core load max turbo i7 which cannot have its turbo bins adjusted (even to limit the CPU to 3.1GHz for a stable undervolt is impossible). It has 6MB of L3 cache and lacks extra intel tech like vPro and whatnot. It costs the same as the 6820HQ and 6820HK according to Intel's MSRP.

 

6820HQ and 6820HK both have adjustable turbo bins (+400MHz OC limit on 6820HQ, unlocked on HK), 8MB of L3 cache, are 3.2GHz base 4-core turbo, and the HQ has the extra intel tech like vPro (there's other techs but I forget their names).

 

In other words, the 6700HQ shouldn't even exist. It's a slow, weak i7 compared to what we had in the two generations before it, and costing the same as the 6820HQ which is all-round a better chip, it shouldn't even EXIST.

Yes I am well aware of the multi-core turbo being radically different from what they state for advertisement purposes. Clearly you think everyone else is an ignorant savage what with your constant ramblings. Also, mind you, CPU usage and clock speed don't always mean the same thing when it comes to performance, so if you want to get that ideology straight in your head first, by all means.  Otherwise, I'll go ahead and tell everyone that anything under 3.4GHz is crap and anything above is amazing.

 

Furthermore, claiming that the 6700HQ is in fact weak, just like the poor lowly i5 my machine has (poor me), then you obviously think that gaming on a laptop is a dumb idea... oh wait... sorry forgot you used one too, and a higher-end model at that.  Perhaps trying to stop instilling others without thousands of dollars to blow on an overweight gaming desktop might be a good choice right about now. You're not going to convince me dude. Also, convenient to have another NBR flamer to show up just to reply against me. Oh well.

 

Skylake isn't about CPU firepower, it's about efficiency, and it runs considerably cooler at the same clock speeds than Haswell. To top all that off, CPUs don't NEED to be any more powerful than where they're at right now. You obviously don't understand what Intel is (it's a corporation that produces things btw, they make money and make more stuff FROM money) and learning what they are and what they see as profitable might help you get the idea that, perhaps offering 4+ CPU choices might not be the best way to rake in the profits. It's easier for the end-user to pick one decently specced i7 for any and all laptops and to know that since almost every game out there runs on 4 threads, even the 980 isn't bottlenecked.

 

So you can cry all you want about how the 6700HQ is a shitty CPU and how the 6300HQ is a shitty CPU too, but the proof is in the pudding, and that's that they clearly aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be selling like hotcakes compared to the 6820HK.

 

The business strategy is simple:

 

i5 quad for entry gamers

i7 model 1 for mid-to-upper range gamers

i7 model 2 for high end gamers

 

It's not hard to see why it's a GOOD idea. For me, it's all I need and for $810, it's the best machine I've ever used. Go elsewhere if you wanna hate. Not everyone NEEDs fuckin' 980s in SLI in a 5" thick 15 pound thing you call a laptop.

[dspboys]

46 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

So you can cry all you want about how the 6700HQ is a shitty CPU and how the 6300HQ is a shitty CPU too, but the proof is in the pudding, and that's that they clearly aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be selling like hotcakes compared to the 6820HK.

This is what you call "Argumentum ad Populum". Just because a lot of people bought it, does not make it a "not shitty" cpu. If you compare the tray prices of 6700hq/6820hq/6820hk, there is no reason for the 6700hq and 6820hq to exist aside from GREED.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88972,88970,88969,88967

[Pendragon]

11 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

Then again, if Pascal is supposed to be super hot as things have shown, then AMD might be a good choice this round. Even if it's only on-par with Maxwell for the time being, at least the owners won't have a damned super furnace to worry about all the time.

There's only no reason for the 6700HQ to exist. Options like the 6820HQ needs to exist for high end business workstations that don't need Xeon functionality, but due to reliability would like to limit OCing. For consumers, its the equivalent of offering a i7 6700 non-oc. 

 

6920HQ has a ridiculous tray price and I've only seen it in MSI's top tier offerings like GT72s and the GT80 Titans. Beyond that for some reason intel can't bin its mobile i7 chips properly and I think most of the stock is allocated to the Xeon chips that offer the same speeds as the 6920HQ but additional functionality. LOL business users come first. 

 

4 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

Furthermore, claiming that the 6700HQ is in fact weak, just like the poor lowly i5 my machine has (poor me), then you obviously think that gaming on a laptop is a dumb idea... oh wait... sorry forgot you used one too, and a higher-end model at that.

Wtf? There is zero correlation to any of that to anything. 

 

4 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

Also, mind you, CPU usage and clock speed don't always mean the same thing when it comes to performance, so if you want to get that ideology straight in your head first, by all means

Wtf? This doesn't make sense either. 

 

4 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

all laptops and to know that since almost every game out there runs on 4 threads, even the 980 isn't bottlenecked.

This is not true. Run something like Citites Skyline. 50% bottleneck. Other games? 10-25%. 

 

4 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

t's not hard to see why it's a GOOD idea. For me, it's all I need and for $810, it's the best machine I've ever used.

This is completely true. The i5-6300HQ and i7-6700HQ offerings were made with budget options in mind. It'll be the best bang for your buck at that price point and for most people it's fine. But objectively its shitty compared to the rest of intel's offerings. Just cause everyone uses it and says it fine doesn't mean its a good processor. It'd be like people telling you a honda civic is a top of the line car when shit like the Bugatti Chiron exists. It's perfectly adequate for laptops paired with a 960m because both are tier 2 items and won't be bottlenecking each other, but moving up, both of those have to go. 

[D2ultima]

1 hour ago, Pendragon said:

Options like the 6820HQ needs to exist for high end business workstations that don't need Xeon functionality, but due to reliability would like to limit OCing. For consumers, its the equivalent of offering a i7 6700 non-oc. 

 

6920HQ has a ridiculous tray price and I've only seen it in MSI's top tier offerings like GT72s and the GT80 Titans. Beyond that for some reason intel can't bin its mobile i7 chips properly and I think most of the stock is allocated to the Xeon chips that offer the same speeds as the 6920HQ but additional functionality. LOL business users come first. 

 

This is completely true. The i5-6300HQ and i7-6700HQ offerings were made with budget options in mind. It'll be the best bang for your buck at that price point and for most people it's fine. But objectively its shitty compared to the rest of intel's offerings. Just cause everyone uses it and says it fine doesn't mean its a good processor. It'd be like people telling you a honda civic is a top of the line car when shit like the Bugatti Chiron exists. It's perfectly adequate for laptops paired with a 960m because both are tier 2 items and won't be bottlenecking each other, but moving up, both of those have to go. 

I don't understand this. You can lock a CPU's overclockability with your BIOS. I've seen 4710MQ chips that couldn't overclock at all in lower end laptops, even using XTU, because the BIOS disabled it, despite having an inborne +200MHz bin OC limit on the chip. What should have happened is this:

6700HQ becomes 6820HQ, loses +200MHz OC binning. Max OC becomes 3.4GHz on 4-core load, but turbo sliders become adjustable.

6820HK remains as-is. Costs the same, loses intel tech like vPro but gains unlocked multiplier, similar to current K series chips.

6920HQ also has no real reason to exist other than it is 3.4GHz 4-core turbo at base (has 600MHz OC limits). It lacks Iris Pro, which means the only real reason to get it is if one needed a faster CPU than the new 6700HQ (which could be OCed a bit more, in this case to 4GHz 4-core load) but still needed the intel tech.

 

The 6920HQ's ridiculous tray price is just the default mobile slap-to-face from Intel. All the old XM and MX chips were $1000 versions of the $325 desktop K-series i7s.... while lacking an IHS. As for business users, there are Iris Pro versions of the i7 line that are extremely rare... those would be more for enterprise than these, I would assume.

 

The main issue with the 6700HQ is that it's the same price as two other, better-in-every-way chips. If the 6700HQ was cheaper, I would call it straight up a budget CPU, pack up shop, and go home. It won't make it a better CPU, for sure, but at least it'll have a place to exist. 

[Pendragon]

32 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

As for business users, there are Iris Pro versions of the i7 line that are extremely rare... those would be more for enterprise than these, I would assume.

The ones with P580 are hella rare. Xeon E3-1545M and 1575M v5 is basically the i7-6920HQ equivalent with pro features like ecc and p580 intel. I've only seen these on about 5 laptops in the world. All of them high end 17in workstations specced to the balls. The one 15in was the Zbook15. Man I wanted to get that one, but the processor was like $1200 by itself. 

 

40 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

What should have happened is this:

6700HQ becomes 6820HQ, loses +200MHz OC binning. Max OC becomes 3.4GHz on 4-core load, but turbo sliders become adjustable.

 

46 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

The main issue with the 6700HQ is that it's the same price as two other, better-in-every-way chips.

I wish, then I wouldn't have to overpay for my 6820HQ cause these things while are "technically" the same tray price, manufacturers still milk you for the upgrade. 

[Pendragon]

I've also been waiting till kingdom comes for the release of 6870HQ and 6970HQ. Anyone know anything about these two. I know there's a 6770HQ on the Skull Canyon NUC but that's not in a laptop.