Ryzen/Vega in laptops?

[Ace2213]

I don't understand how AMD performs in the laptop space.

I've heard their Vega iGPU is "twice as good" as Intel's, even though Intel has been pushing little more than iGPU improvements over the last few years. In some comparisons, I've seen the Vega 11 beat the MX150? I get that that's a super low-end dGPU, but it still creams Intel graphics. Does that mean that Ryzen laptops without a dGPU can still handle some casual gaming? Also, how does Vega even work? I saw Vega 8, 9, 10 and 11 all within the same Ryzen gens.

I also don't understand their CPU lineup in general, particularly in the laptop market. I'm still getting used to their naming convention. As a laptop user who cares more about battery life than raw performance, I tend to avoid i7 completely, opting instead for i5 or even i3. I've personally never had an issue with a U processor, but it's my understanding that the U means something else for AMD. What would be a good suggestion for Ryzen CPUs that focus primarily on battery life while still having at least 4 cores? I saw the Asus SKUs with an Nvidia card, but I saw little mention of battery life, or how Ryzen in general handles dGPUs (i.e do they fall back on the iGPU to save power?).

As an afterthought, I intend to get into video editing. I think pretty much whatever works for casual gaming at 720p/1080p should do just fine rendering, even if it takes a bit longer. But just for the sake of knowing in case it turns up, how does Ryzen play with eGPUs and thunderbolt? With it transitioning into USB 4, it should become more "universal", but I understand Intel will be retaining some exclusive features.

TL;DR, I'm fully aboard the hype train and with Nvidia and now Intel trying to rain on AMD's parade, I've decided that Ryzen will power my next laptop. I just don't have much experience with AMD and don't understand their lineups very well.

[Fasauceome]

Vega 11 is not far behind the GT 1030, and the MX150, depending on the model, is also behind the 1030 (the highest end model of the 150 is the mobile version of the GT 1030, the lowest end is crap) so yesm Vega 11 is not bad at all for casual gaming. Their mobile Vega solutions are also much more efficient than their desktop variants, due to much more refinement in the implementation.

[GoldenLag]

They have U series chips that are meant for low powet ultrabook style. Essentially tye same as Intel U series. 

 

And they have H series, which is gaming CPUs aimed at gaming laptops. 

 

 

AMD made it as simple as possible jy just copying the naming scheme of intel. That way people werent going to be very confused.

 

 

Yes the U series chips from AMD can do some casual gaming. Tho dont expect a whole lot

[Ace2213]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Yes the U series chips from AMD can do some casual gaming. Tho dont expect a whole lot

Coming from Intel graphics, it seems I'll be getting a lot more than what I'm used to!
 

 

4 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Their mobile Vega solutions are also much more efficient than their desktop variants, due to much more refinement in the implementation.

Do you have any data on the battery life performance of Ryzen-powered laptops with and without a dGPU?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Ace2213 said:

Coming from Intel graphics, it seems I'll be getting a lot more than what I'm used to!

Yeah... But lets also remember intel graphics is Essentially bottom of the barrel. 

 

Compared to intel the vega iGPU is fantastic

[Ace2213]

True, but believe it or not, there are very few games I can't run at 720p/1080p low/medium with very playable framerates. Even heavier titles like the Witcher 3 is surprisingly playable, albeit with some stutter here and there but not nearly enough to make it unenjoyable. It's mostly newer titles that I struggle with. Hell, I first played through Skyrim on my old i3-380M!

That's why I'm so excited about Vega. If it's such a major step up, I can only imagine how far I can push it.