why the mx450

[Daemon Byte]

I recently bought a new laptop which came with an i7-1165G7 (so Iris Xe g7 gpu I assume?) and an nvidia mx450. However from what I saw on some benchmarks and comparisions these 2 gpus seems fairly equal. Sometimes 1 over doing the other and vice versa. So I have 2 questions really. Firstly why would they bother with the mx450 if it performs basically the same as the iris? And secondly which card would you pick for parsec decoding h.265? 

[Red_Fox_1293]

def the mx450 for decoding h.265.

in general, it's better to separate the cpu and gpu for more performance and allocation of resources in general. (also I think the mx450 outperforms the iris)

[Fasauceome]

With the same amount of cuda cores as the GTX 1650, and barely lower clocks overall, I'd be surprised to see the Iris graphics coming close. Which benchmarks are you referring to?

[Daemon Byte]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

With the same amount of cuda cores as the GTX 1650, and barely lower clocks overall, I'd be surprised to see the Iris graphics coming close. Which benchmarks are you referring to?

Just some links google threw at me

https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-MX450-vs-Iris-Xe-Graphics-G7

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Iris-Xe-G7-96EUs-vs-GeForce-MX450_10364_10349.247598.0.html 

[Daemon Byte]

5 minutes ago, Red_Fox_1293 said:

def the mx450 for decoding h.265.

in general, it's better to separate the cpu and gpu for more performance and allocation of resources in general. (also I think the mx450 outperforms the iris)

That's what I assumed so I had set that for now. Logic would assume they'd not bother with a dedicated gpu if it didn't have some serious benefits but what I saw seemed to see it waivering this and that way depending on the benchmark so it made me unsure

[SupaKomputa]

Plain and simple, Intel GPU are buggy in games.

Another one is integrated gpu draws very little power when doing less intensive task.

So you're getting the best of both.

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, Daemon Byte said:

Just some links google threw at me

https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-MX450-vs-Iris-Xe-Graphics-G7

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Iris-Xe-G7-96EUs-vs-GeForce-MX450_10364_10349.247598.0.html 

I must have been confusing this iris graphics chip with intel's desktop line.

[Daemon Byte]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

I must have been confusing this iris graphics chip with intel's desktop line.

Hmmm that could well be it. That'd make a lot more sense if that was a desktop igpu being put against a mobile dgpu. Then I could see iris comparing

[Jurrunio]

11 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

I must have been confusing this iris graphics chip with intel's desktop line.

No the desktop ones are the slower ones. 

 

19 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

With the same amount of cuda cores as the GTX 1650, and barely lower clocks overall, I'd be surprised to see the Iris graphics coming close. Which benchmarks are you referring to?

It has half the memory bus width of only 64bit... If 1650 with GDDR5 is a nerfed 1650 with GDDR6, MX450 with 64bit GDDR5 is a 1650 GDDR5 that took a falcon punch to the crotch.

 

15 minutes ago, Daemon Byte said:

Just some links google threw at me

https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-MX450-vs-Iris-Xe-Graphics-G7

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Iris-Xe-G7-96EUs-vs-GeForce-MX450_10364_10349.247598.0.html 

That format are used by sites with data not collected from the same period of time, sometimes not even keeping things like memory equal between test systems. Do not rely on them.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/2158-intel-tiger-lake-core-i7-1165g7/

You can see how performance relative to MX250 and MX350 (basically last gen of MX450 and slower, btw MX150, 250 and 350 are rebrands) shifts a lot from much worse to even better. That is because of immature software.

 

So yes, 1165G7 makes sense with MX450 and no the iGPU in it is not similar to MX450 in performance.