RX460m

[Dackzy]

11 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

CPUs don't NEED to be any more powerful than where they're at right now.

um what? What are you talking about? Just because YOU don't need more power doesn't mean that other people don't need more power. I can push a 6850k to the MAX for hours with no problem and now you are telling me that a 6700HQ is as powerful as it needs to be, heck no. Sometimes I need a laptop that is powerful on the go and I can tell you that a 6700HQ is going to do jack shit for me. A 6820k is also not gonna do me much, if I were to buy a laptop that had all the power I needed, I would need a ThinkPad P50 with a Xeon E3-1535M and a Quadro M2000M, luckily I have a friend that owns such a laptop that I can borrow when I need that power on the go or I do remote control to my desktop or a workstation. So no you are wrong

 

11 hours 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.

You know why they are selling well? Because that is basically the only thing the companies put in their laptops and most people look at the 6820k and think heck no, that is not worth 100-200$ more and most people know jack shit about CPUs and a lot of people do not need very powerful CPUs.

 

11 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

Go elsewhere if you wanna hate. Not everyone NEEDs fuckin' 980s in SLI in a 5" thick 15 pound thing you call a laptop.

You are hating on people who need more power and people who knows that a 6300HQ and 6700HQ is not very powerful. So this is awkward huh, because I could say the same thing to you. 

 

A i5 6300HQ or i7 6700HQ with a 960m is not good enough for everyone. You see not everyone has the same needs, so it is just plain stupid to say that CPUs are as powerful as they need to be.

CPUs are evolving much slower than GPUs and it is clear to see with Pascal.

[Dackzy]

Okay back to topic  

 

I hope that AMD does well and I do hope that the 460m, 470m and 480m is going to kick ass. AMD kinda needs more than just the APU marked  

 

If they could add 3D program support like the A12pro has for autocad then I would be really happy, because then I might be able to get a fairly small laptop and cheap laptop that I can use for school and still do fairly simple 3D drawings and such. (Not anything special)

[Pendragon]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

I hope that AMD does well and I do hope that the 460m, 470m and 480m is going to kick ass.

Ugh. I feel like the 480m will be like a 980m. Which would be fine if the released it last year, but 1060s are coming out. And after D2 pointed out that the 1070 laptop has more cores than the desktop 1070 my mind is still blown. 

[Dackzy]

4 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Ugh. I feel like the 480m will be like a 980m. Which would be fine if the released it last year, but 1060s are coming out. And after D2 pointed out that the 1070 laptop has more cores than the desktop 1070 my mind is still blown. 

oh did you not know that? That is old news  

My gut is saying that a 470m would be something between a 970m and a 980m, but remember we still have Vega, dunno if they will make mobile versions of that,

[Pendragon]

2 hours ago, Dackzy said:

oh did you not know that? That is old news  

 

Nah I didn't know this and I was like what the actual fuck. Well, lets see what they can do. 

[D2ultima]

4 hours ago, Dackzy said:

oh did you not know that? That is old news  

My gut is saying that a 470m would be something between a 970m and a 980m, but remember we still have Vega, dunno if they will make mobile versions of that,

If Vega is on GCN like Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 is, then it ain't seeing mobile. It'll draw way too much power. If you unlock power limits and heat limits on a RX 480 (with the 6-pin power connector, no less) and let it play Witcher 3 at 1440p, it pulls about 192W at max. Vega is going to pull quite a bit more by default. It won't scale to laptops well. Besides, even if they did scale it down, it'd still need to beat single 1080 to turn any heads (for less $$ to boot). Because I know of two laptops that can hold 1080 SLI and a total of FIVE that can hold a single 1080 at least.

 

AMD needs to discard GCN badly.

 

[Imglidinhere]

Okay okay... backing up a bit about the i7s currently out.

 

Would you say, given the lackluster performance that these i7s have that its unwise to get anything more than a 980M at best? I did a metric fuckton of research just to humor you guys and I'm finding pretty much everything to be true. I'm still on the edge with calling anything that's got the i7 name a "shitty CPU" but that's person preference.

 

Is the 6700HQ enough for a 980M?

[Pendragon]

24 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Is the 6700HQ enough for a 980M?

No. Maybe when the game is heavily gpu focused you'll find minimal bottleneck. But most of the time you'll find much better results with 6820HQ or 6820HK. Let alone games like Civ or Cities Skyline where the 6700HQ goes to shit. 

[D2ultima]

13 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Okay okay... backing up a bit about the i7s currently out.

 

Would you say, given the lackluster performance that these i7s have that its unwise to get anything more than a 980M at best? I did a metric fuckton of research just to humor you guys and I'm finding pretty much everything to be true. I'm still on the edge with calling anything that's got the i7 name a "shitty CPU" but that's person preference.

 

Is the 6700HQ enough for a 980M?

Finally eh.

 

I would say if you're playing for 60Hz, a 6700HQ will... mostly suffice with a single 980M, IF you get very good RAM. I would still at the minimum take a 6820HK and set it to 3.5-3.8GHz. GTA V, Witcher 3, some instances in Crysis 3, etc all need plenty of CPU usage. And RAM helps so much it's an absolute JOKE. I swapped 1600MHz 11-11-11-27 RAM out for 2133MHz 11-11-11-31 RAM three days ago and I legit got about a 30FPS boost in Evolve, and varying other boosts in other games without changing any other settings. Even old DX9 games like CoD: Black Ops 1 suddenly start sitting at 125fps rather than with FPS drops like I thought was just "normal" for the game. The garbage 2133MHz 15-15-15-35 RAM that DDR4 is at its base is pretty bad too, I would look for 2400MHz 14-14-14-36 at the minimum (Kingston offers those, but G.Skill offers some faster DDR4 RAM as well).

 

If you're using a 1060/980 or above, then it isn't even worth considering. 6920HQ or 6820HK at minimum, and overclock them. Intel used huge reject chips for their current mobile skylake, which is why they're clocked so low. And even the 6820HK can barely hit 4GHz or above without ridiculous voltages like 1.35v to over 1.4v, even. A 6700K runs 4GHz easily under 1.05v a lot of the time; a 6820HK needs 1.3v basically for that. Real inefficient.

[Pendragon]

4 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

I swapped 1600MHz 11-11-11-27 RAM out for 2133MHz 11-11-11-31 RAM three days ago and I legit got about a 30FPS boost in Evolve

@Imglidinhere There's some Hyperx Impact 2400mhz, Corsair Vengeance 2666mhz and GSkill Ripjaws 3000mhz to choose from for DDR4, and skylake scales much better with RAM than haswell for whatever reason.

[Imglidinhere]

2 hours ago, Pendragon said:

@Imglidinhere There's some Hyperx Impact 2400mhz, Corsair Vengeance 2666mhz and GSkill Ripjaws 3000mhz to choose from for DDR4, and skylake scales much better with RAM than haswell for whatever reason.

I do not have the money for such a machine at the moment. However, I will likely just do the jump from the 960M to the 980M in the next year or so. No game out there, that I play at least, will require anything more than a 980M. There just isn't for me. I don't play most of the super high requirement AAA titles out there. A 980M will completely suffice for any and all of my needs.

2 hours ago, D2ultima said:

Finally eh.

 

I would say if you're playing for 60Hz, a 6700HQ will... mostly suffice with a single 980M, IF you get very good RAM. I would still at the minimum take a 6820HK and set it to 3.5-3.8GHz. GTA V, Witcher 3, some instances in Crysis 3, etc all need plenty of CPU usage. And RAM helps so much it's an absolute JOKE. I swapped 1600MHz 11-11-11-27 RAM out for 2133MHz 11-11-11-31 RAM three days ago and I legit got about a 30FPS boost in Evolve, and varying other boosts in other games without changing any other settings. Even old DX9 games like CoD: Black Ops 1 suddenly start sitting at 125fps rather than with FPS drops like I thought was just "normal" for the game. The garbage 2133MHz 15-15-15-35 RAM that DDR4 is at its base is pretty bad too, I would look for 2400MHz 14-14-14-36 at the minimum (Kingston offers those, but G.Skill offers some faster DDR4 RAM as well).

 

If you're using a 1060/980 or above, then it isn't even worth considering. 6920HQ or 6820HK at minimum, and overclock them. Intel used huge reject chips for their current mobile skylake, which is why they're clocked so low. And even the 6820HK can barely hit 4GHz or above without ridiculous voltages like 1.35v to over 1.4v, even. A 6700K runs 4GHz easily under 1.05v a lot of the time; a 6820HK needs 1.3v basically for that. Real inefficient.

So is there a machine that can handle temperatures and manage 4Ghz without being a freakin' furnace AND weighing a crazy amount? I've heard amazing things about the GT72 line. Any merit to those?

 

 

Said machine will probably be a refurbished machine at best, unless I can find one new that is, or if I find a laptop that can actively handle pascal.  We'll see I suppose, but it's not for at least half a year when I'll start saving up. Hopefully by then we'll see some serious changes and hopefully it's for the better... temps-wise at least.  

[Pendragon]

39 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

GT72 line

This weighs a crazy amount. LOL. It's a 17inch behemoth. Two of the better 15inch laptops are P650RG (and the pascal upgrade) and the P750DM (and the pascal upgrade). One's a bga, one's socketed and mxm. 

[D2ultima]

1 minute ago, Imglidinhere said:

So is there a machine that can handle temperatures and manage 4Ghz without being a freakin' furnace AND weighing a crazy amount? I've heard amazing things about the GT72 line. Any merit to those?

 

 

Said machine will probably be a refurbished machine at best, unless I can find one new that is, or if I find a laptop that can actively handle pascal.  We'll see I suppose, but it's not for at least half a year when I'll start saving up. Hopefully by then we'll see some serious changes and hopefully it's for the better... temps-wise at least.  

GT72 is a good machine, but it uses mobile CPUs. Since there is no MUX switch, there is no benefit to the mobile chipset. I would suggest a P770DM2 or P750DM2 instead. They weigh about the same and are about the same size. There's no reason for a P870DM- or GT80- sized machine to get a decent CPU. A stock 4GHz 6700K would be rather cool in those scenarios, especially with a big undervolt.

 

As for smaller machines, the P65x and P67x line are the way to go. I don't know how they'll hold Pascal chips with overclocking skylake though.

[Imglidinhere]

2 hours ago, D2ultima said:

GT72 is a good machine, but it uses mobile CPUs. Since there is no MUX switch, there is no benefit to the mobile chipset. I would suggest a P770DM2 or P750DM2 instead. They weigh about the same and are about the same size. There's no reason for a P870DM- or GT80- sized machine to get a decent CPU. A stock 4GHz 6700K would be rather cool in those scenarios, especially with a big undervolt.

 

As for smaller machines, the P65x and P67x line are the way to go. I don't know how they'll hold Pascal chips with overclocking skylake though.

Fair point about the GT72, did forget how freakishly huge they are.  I blanked on the fact that they were 17" machines and I'd prefer to stick to a 15" laptop.

 

So you say the P65X is a good machine to look at hmm? <.< Most reviews I've seen show that the CPU throttles under load full 100% load. Is there any merit to that point? NotebookCheck.net did a review some time ago and it throttled really badly with Haswell, is it any better with Skylake now?

[D2ultima]

7 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

So you say the P65X is a good machine to look at hmm? <.< Most reviews I've seen show that the CPU throttles under load full 100% load. Is there any merit to that point? NotebookCheck.net did a review some time ago and it throttled really badly with Haswell, is it any better with Skylake now?

P65xSx throttled because Haswell throttled. Because it was the HQ chips. They ALL throttle under heavy load because they can't pull more than 47W over 2.5 minutes of usage. It would happen in any laptop you ever found, ever. Skylake has no such power issue. Read my mobile CPU guide.

 

The cooling on them is fine for the CPU and some OCing, but it isn't exactly designed for 4.2GHz or anything. In that respect you want something like a GT72 or P7xxDM size, but that's what it's always been like.

[Mr. Fox]

On 8/9/2016 at 11:40 PM, octiceps said:

Which it is LMAO

LMAO x2

 

All BGA turdbooks use shitty CPUs because that's the only kind of BGA there is, LOL.