AMD's FX-9800P (Excavator) APU edges out the Core i7 in laptop benchmarks

[Prysin]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yeah, and they still on the very edge of  bankruptcy so the other option is that they just fucking suck. I was actually generous saying the tech isn't there for practicality but maybe you're right: the laptops are poor, the consoles are remarkably underpowered, all around nothing but fucking financial failures in the wake of APUs. 

 

So which is it? 

I am sure the consoles would be WAY more powerful, if Sony/MS would be willing to pay for a beefier solution.

 

The laptops are shait because of OEMs forcing AMD to make sub-optimal chipsets/solutions for the consumer, so that the OEM can save money.

(cuz AMD is almost bankrupt, so they cannot risk losing a OEM contract by telling the OEMs to blow it out their asses and deal with it. So instead, AMD ended up being the OEMs bitch)

 

You can read more about the latter statement here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10000/who-controls-user-experience-amd-carrizo-thoroughly-tested

 

and finally, i bet you wouldnt be able to run the company any better if you were given the reigns after the Bulldozer failure and subsequent nosedive in "relevancy".

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

has it ever struck you. That you sound like a salty fanboy? 

Has it occurred to you that nobody is willing to read your walls of text if you open up with a personal insult? 

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

The fact that 32/28nm node CPUs w/ crappy, 4 year old architectural design still competes with certain 14nm equivalents from Intel exhibits AMD's proficiency. 

i wouldn't chalk that up to AMDs proficiency but rather stagnation. Sandy Bridge also holds up quite well. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Well this is no surprise, Intel's GPUs kinda suck. A lot.

[79wjd]

45 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

EDIT: Random, but you go to UIUC? 

Mhm, a CS and math major. 

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

I was expecting much better tbh 

[JefferyD90]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 3:08 AM, Electronics Wizardy said:

There comparing igpu's. Nothing much has changed. The cpu is still much worse than the one in the intel. They still pull more power.

They quite literally did a apples to apples comparison.  Both of them are under the same thermal and power design.  AMD is trying to say that if you're looking for a entry level gaming notebook, then they have the best option.  Which is 100% the truth.

[themaniac]

8 hours ago, Prysin said:

I am sure the consoles would be WAY more powerful, if Sony/MS would be willing to pay for a beefier solution.

iirc the ps4 has a 7850/7950 gpu in it and the biggest problem is the cpu bottlenecks it, not sure whats in the xbox one but i'd assume its a similar situation?

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, themaniac said:

iirc the ps4 has a 7850/7950 gpu in it and the biggest problem is the cpu bottlenecks it, not sure whats in the xbox one but i'd assume its a similar situation?

theirs the same, almost

 

XBONE has fewer streaming processors and CUs in their 7850 iGPU. And the XBONE CPU is clocked 8% higher then Sonys.

[3DOSH]

AMD made a lot of small tweaks to poor architecture that all add up to big gain in IPC while beening stuck with poor architecture for the past years and that is without going to smaller proccsse. This is very big since all these tweaks can be implemented in the upcoming zen architecture fairly easy and that is on 14 nm.

Rather than sitting around and just re-branding the same apus, AMD is making due with what they can which is very cool to see. 

[patrickjp93]

20 hours ago, Prysin said:

I am sure the consoles would be WAY more powerful, if Sony/MS would be willing to pay for a beefier solution.

 

The laptops are shait because of OEMs forcing AMD to make sub-optimal chipsets/solutions for the consumer, so that the OEM can save money.

(cuz AMD is almost bankrupt, so they cannot risk losing a OEM contract by telling the OEMs to blow it out their asses and deal with it. So instead, AMD ended up being the OEMs bitch)

 

You can read more about the latter statement here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10000/who-controls-user-experience-amd-carrizo-thoroughly-tested

 

and finally, i bet you wouldnt be able to run the company any better if you were given the reigns after the Bulldozer failure and subsequent nosedive in "relevancy".

I certainly would have. Get Keller back and start from square one with a dedicated team while shutting down all other CPU product investment and put the remaining resources into GPUs while also giving the graphics division far more autonomy.

[patrickjp93]

15 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Well this is no surprise, Intel's GPUs kinda suck. A lot.

No they don't. The comparison is just between AMD's largest iGPU SKU and Intel's smallest. Expecting a less than 1/2 sized GPU to beat its competitor is idiotic. The manufacturing node doesn't even matter in this regard. There are better 15W Intel Iris options. This was GT2, and Intel held its own.

[Jahramika]

On 6/2/2016 at 3:14 AM, ZetZet said:

exactly. Ever since Iris Pro AMD was left behind. Just because this graphics oriented chip beats Intel's CPU oriented chip doesn't mean much. 

Really ? That's a 14nm chip vs 28nm and its about the same. Wonder what that will like with Zan a 4 gig of dedicated memory for the AMD graphics. Also note that HP laptop with 8gig om memory is in a single slot vs 16gig for intel in a dual slot configuration.

[Jahramika]

On 6/2/2016 at 4:35 AM, Ansau said:

15W they say, throttling they hide.

http://www.gaminglaptopsjunky.com/amd-carrizo-fx-8800p-benchmarks-15w/

 

That's the old chip the 8800p in this link you posted the new one is the 9800p and 9830p

[Prysin]

On 04/06/2016 at 2:18 PM, patrickjp93 said:

No they don't. The comparison is just between AMD's largest iGPU SKU and Intel's smallest. Expecting a less than 1/2 sized GPU to beat its competitor is idiotic. The manufacturing node doesn't even matter in this regard. There are better 15W Intel Iris options. This was GT2, and Intel held its own.

truth be told Patrick. If we ran a proper analysis, the real reason why intel did this good is not because the CPU or GPU. Nor is it because AMD has a ballin iGPU and a atrocious CPU.

 

It is simply because Intel has by far better memory bandwidth utilization then AMDs chips. And the AMD iGPU is insanely memory bandwidth starved. The fact that OEM laptops often use 1333 or 1600MHz SODIMMS only make the case even worse.

 

The day AMD makes a proper IMC, they will destroy all Iris SKUs there is. But i don't see them doing that anytime soon. AMDs IMCs historically has been shit,

[Ansau]

3 hours ago, Jahramika said:

Really ? That's a 14nm chip vs 28nm and its about the same. Wonder what that will like with Zan a 4 gig of dedicated memory for the AMD graphics. Also note that HP laptop with 8gig om memory is in a single slot vs 16gig for intel in a dual slot configuration.

When AMD releases Zen we will talk about it. Until then, AMD has nothing on the table. They put thier highest solution against one of the lowest from intel and it barely wins. Put the highest intel model and let's see.

3 hours ago, Jahramika said:

That's the old chip the 8800p in this link you posted the new one is the 9800p and 9830p

Oh sorry, I didn't remember some people are fooled by rebranding. FX-8800p and FX-9800p are exactly the same chip, but the second has a couple of more features that aren't enough to solve the issues...

[patrickjp93]

40 minutes ago, Prysin said:

truth be told Patrick. If we ran a proper analysis, the real reason why intel did this good is not because the CPU or GPU. Nor is it because AMD has a ballin iGPU and a atrocious CPU.

 

It is simply because Intel has by far better memory bandwidth utilization then AMDs chips. And the AMD iGPU is insanely memory bandwidth starved. The fact that OEM laptops often use 1333 or 1600MHz SODIMMS only make the case even worse.

 

The day AMD makes a proper IMC, they will destroy all Iris SKUs there is. But i don't see them doing that anytime soon. AMDs IMCs historically has been shit,

I vastly disagree with a 512SP iGPU. If someone can definitively prove there is a bottleneck, fine, but I don't buy it.

[Prysin]

19 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I vastly disagree with a 512SP iGPU. If someone can definitively prove there is a bottleneck, fine, but I don't buy it.

i can. its simple, and i've tested the shit out of this. Even with the help of Magetank for memory overclocking and tuning. No avail.

 

A10 7870k (the newer iGPU is using Tonga, so it has "more bandwidth" due to delta compression. But not enough to make any big difference).

 

The 512 Hawaii based SPs are comparable to a R7 250 1GB dGPU.

The R7 250 has 86GB/s memory bandwidth...... It ususally hits VRAM limits (only 1GB VRAM) or GPU limits before memory bandwidth is an issue....

The A10 7850k uses DDR3, and in theory it should have 32-36GB/s bandwidth when using dual channel 2400MHz memory.

My i7 4790k hits 32GB/s in AIDA64 using a Kingston 2x4GB 2400MHz CL11 kit.

My 7870k NEVER breaks 24GB/s using the same damn kit. Regardless of settings. Even if i push the kit for 2666MHz i still cannot break 24GB/s.

 

At first i thought it was due to Hyper-Transport being too slow. But at 1800, it is equal to 32GB/s bandwidth. So i should hit 32GB/s memory bandwidth. So i overclocked the HT to 2200, effectively hitting somewhere around 40GB/s, in hope that it was the GTX950 sitting in my system that was stealing bandwidth.

No change. Still maxing out 24GB/s.

 

OK, fast forward. I work on my Girlfriends PC, a 7850k APU system running on a ASRock board (i have Gigabyte FM2+ board). She has a 2400Mhz 16GB kingston kit (damn i got that one cheap). She cannot break 24GB/s either. Take the Kingston kit home. Slap it into my i7 setup. Bam 32GB/s.

 

Ok... weird right? Maybe its just Kaveri?...

 

Next step. Buy a Excavator based Athlon X4 845.

Same shit.

 

Next "maybe its just AMD".

 

Dig out the old FX 8320 + Sabertooth 990FX board. Said board's hypertransport has 51GB/s bandwidth. PLENTY enough to hit around 32-36GB/s bandwith.

Maxes out at 26GB/s....

 

Ok, so current gen AMD IMC is shit.

[Jim Bryant]

An AMD APU against Intel HD 520 graphics?  Why not the Intel 15W counterparts that have Iris 540 graphics?  Three of the Intel chips are shipping, two are on the way.  One is a 28W, the rest are 15W.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Jim Bryant said:

An AMD APU against Intel HD 520 graphics?  Why not the Intel 15W counterparts that have Iris 540 graphics?  Three of the Intel chips are shipping, two are on the way.  One is a 28W, the rest are 15W.

They do.

 

The Iris 540 models cost like 30-50% more.....

 

And often battery life is worse.

[Jim Bryant]

34 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They do.

 

The Iris 540 models cost like 30-50% more.....

 

And often battery life is worse.

 

The video AMD put out wasn't about price, it was about performance.  What's next?  Benchmarking the RX480 against the GTX 950?  Would you consider that a fair comparison?

[Jim Bryant]

35 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

They do.

 

The Iris 540 models cost like 30-50% more.....

 

And often battery life is worse.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88194,91163,91497,91169,91167

 

Closer to 5% price difference between the one they tested against.