Diffrence between desktop processors and laptop processors for Amd?

[Matthewv1998]

Alright so this has been a bit of a curious thought I had. So when it comes to laptops you have to have something that doesn't run too hot and is not a power hog and will last longer then a few minutes on a battery. Now with Intel it's been rather simple, a dual core that's hyperthreaded for 4 threads, knock two cores off will yield lower tdp and power consumption. But on the other hand is Amd that has always offered Apus with 4 true cores and with a heafty igpu to match. Now what got me thinking about this is my own laptop, wich has a amd a10 5745m quad core chip with a Radeon 8610g with a tdp of 25w (I will be upgrading soon, just torn between a Bristol ridge laptop or zen) now the 5745m is a Richland chip, which it's desktop breatheren reached tdps up to 100w! Now a 75% tdp reduction is quite a bit, I know that the desktop versions were locked higher (5745m at base is 2.1 but boosts up to 2.9 and it's igpu is clocked lower, 566 I believe.) I know taking clocks down will reduce heat output and all but is that all they really do just to get that low tdp and power usage on the chips to clock them down? Or are there just a lot of cherry picked processors for this? 

[incarnate]

Intel has true quad cores in laptops, anything that ends in a q qm or x.

 

AMD doesn't have a true quad core in laptops or desktops. They are designed around modules with two logic processors, a single floating point processor and a shared cache. A true core is 1 logic 1 floating point and 1 cache.

 

Having said that. Voltage needed to stay stable goes up quicker the higher the clock speed. That's why you don't see clockspeeds as high as desktops.

 

I'm sure there is some level of cherry picking involved, but the lower clockspeeds are a big factor as well.

[WereCat]

Desktop - old architecture, power hungry, not very powerful, no upgrade path, cheap but not worth it really. Wait for Zen.

 

Laptop - quite decent APUs (some) with big BUT. Good luck finding laptop that has good APU in it and doesn't use freaking single channel memory because laptop manufactures are being retarded. That hinders the performance of APU quite a bit which makes it useless compared to similarly priced Intel laptops.

[SLAYR]

They will bin them so the chips run at lower voltages at the same frequancy reducing the power needed to run then by a lot since P=(V^2)/R.

 

Clockspeed is actually independent of heat and temperature, voltage is what matters.

 

With AMD apus the tdp of the cpu also includes the igpu as well so it is 25w for the quadcore, and the igpu.

 

Also the mobile apus have more diference in the normal/boost clocks I have an amd 5750m that goes from 2.5 stock and has a 3.5GHz boost.

 

Also the igpu multiplier is unlocked for every amd apu igpu, as well as intels hd graphics so lower clocks don't matter too much.

[manikyath]

in short, the differences are pretty simple. this is for both sides by the way, intel does much more than knock off two cores to make a laptop part.

 

- they can either remove silicon, in the form of taking away functionality like having a less powerful iGPU clock for clock, or cut corners on the CPU resulting in slightly lower IPC (instructions per clock).

- they lower the clock speed of the processor, and/or make it run on lower voltage (these go hand in hand mostly, since less voltage means the transistors switch slower.)

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, incarnate said:

Intel has true quad cores in laptops, anything that ends in a q qm or x.

 

AMD doesn't have a true quad core in laptops or desktops. They are designed around modules with two logic processors, a single floating point processor and a shared cache. A true core is 1 logic 1 floating point and 1 cache.

 

Having said that. Voltage needed to stay stable goes up quicker the higher the clock speed. That's why you don't see clockspeeds as high as desktops.

 

I'm sure there is some level of cherry picking involved, but the lower clockspeeds are a big factor as well.

Actually - there is no real definition of "true core" - and as far as performance is concerned - A10 APUs outperform anything Intel that is not quad-core

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, WereCat said:

laptop manufactures are being retarded.

my feeling every time i need to shop for a new laptop...

 

i'm at the point of probably 3D printing a new case for my samsung RC530 when it falls apart

[SLAYR]

1 minute ago, incarnate said:

AMD doesn't have a true quad core in laptops or desktops. They are designed around modules with two logic processors, a single floating point processor and a shared cache. A true core is 1 logic 1 floating point and 1 cache.

Please don't start this debate, point is amd cpus have 4 cores, whether or not they are "true" cores doesn't matter there are 4 of them on the die.

 

4 minutes ago, incarnate said:

Having said that. Voltage needed to stay stable goes up quicker the higher the clock speed. That's why you don't see clockspeeds as high as desktops.

I have amd amd 5750m that has a 2.5-3.5Ghz frequency range, well within what amd had put out for desktop cpus.

[incarnate]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Actually - there is no real definition of "true core" - and as far as performance is concerned - A10 APUs outperform anything Intel that is not quad-core

True. I should have said what I intended, traditional. Smt, not cmt. Either way, the bulldozer cmt arch is designed around modules, not cores.

 

Wasn't even gonna open the performance can of worms though

[don_svetlio]

Just now, incarnate said:

True. I should have said what I intended, traditional. Smt, not cmt. Either way, the bulldozer cmt arch is designed around modules, not cores.

 

Wasn't even gonna open the performance can of worms though

Well - thing is - Intel use shitty ULVs and even things like the i7 6500U pale in comparison to the 8800P

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

my feeling every time i need to shop for a new laptop...

 

i'm at the point of probably 3D printing a new case for my samsung RC530 when it falls apart

Few days ago I was browsing eshops for laptop and there is still so many expensive laptops with TN 1333x768 resolution. I mean...what's the point of this resolution in this day and age? And you ask €500-€600 for it? The hell?!

[Matthewv1998]

5 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Desktop - old architecture, power hungry, not very powerful, no upgrade path, cheap but not worth it really. Wait for Zen.

 

Laptop - quite decent APUs (some) with big BUT. Good luck finding laptop that has good APU in it and doesn't use freaking single channel memory because laptop manufactures are being retarded. That hinders the performance of APU quite a bit which makes it useless compared to similarly priced Intel laptops.

Well when I do get a new laptop I usually upgrade the ram and I'll most likely go for something maybe more gaming grade, Fx for sure, I just probably won't be getting something with a dgpu because I would like to keep the weight down and not to spend like $1,800 on a laptop 

[incarnate]

1 minute ago, SLAYR said:

Please don't start this debate, point is amd cpus have 4 cores, whether or not they are "true" cores doesn't matter there are 4 of them on the die.

 

I have amd amd 5750m that has a 2.5-3.5Ghz frequency range, well within what amd had put out for desktop cpus.

You can consider it a quad core if you'd like. I don't. Put 4 threads of floating point calculations through it and 2 of them have to wait. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

Few days ago I was browsing eshops for laptop and there is still so many expensive laptops with TN 1333x768 resolution. I mean...what's the point of this resolution in this day and age? And you ask €500-€600 for it? The hell?!

the point of 1366x768 is that for 15 inch laptops, it is the same PPI as a 21 inch 1080p display, which however you turn it, is still the standard for desktops.

[WereCat]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

the point of 1366x768 is that for 15 inch laptops, it is the same PPI as a 21 inch 1080p display, which however you turn it, is still the standard for desktops.

True, however working with that resolution is pain. You can't even see the entire page of word document without using scaling.

[incarnate]

9 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Well - thing is - Intel use shitty ULVs and even things like the i7 6500U pale in comparison to the 8800P

I never said anything about performance. Mostly because I couldn't care less about laptop performance. So I know nothing About the subject

[don_svetlio]

9 minutes ago, incarnate said:

I never said anything about performance. Mostly because I couldn't care less about laptop performance. So I know nothing About the subject

But that's the most important factor - at the end of the day - it doesn't matter what tech is used as long as you get the most for your cash

[incarnate]

1 hour ago, don_svetlio said:

But that's the most important factor - at the end of the day - it doesn't matter what tech is used as long as you get the most for your cash

I agree completely. But then again the only thing I'd use a laptop for is streaming video and browsing. Maybe the odd emulator (up to 16 bit would be fine with me) or light indie game, so pretty much any laptop could handle that. I had an asus transformer book with a quad core atom cpu, it did more than I needed lol. So yeah, battery life would be the most important performance metric for me. Not everything is so cut and dry

 

I do recognize that processing performance matters for a lot of ppl, but since I never cared, I never learned.

 

Have a good one man. I'm gonna stop derailing the thread starting.....

 

Now.

[don_svetlio]

9 hours ago, incarnate said:

I agree completely. But then again the only thing I'd use a laptop for is streaming video and browsing. Maybe the odd emulator (up to 16 bit would be fine with me) or light indie game, so pretty much any laptop could handle that. I had an asus transformer book with a quad core atom cpu, it did more than I needed lol. So yeah, battery life would be the most important performance metric for me. Not everything is so cut and dry

 

I do recognize that processing performance matters for a lot of ppl, but since I never cared, I never learned.

 

Have a good one man. I'm gonna stop derailing the thread starting.....

 

Now.

One last thing - take a look at the ThinkPad X260 - average 18.5 hours of battery life seems like something you'd enjoy

[LeStringMan]

16 hours ago, incarnate said:

Intel has true quad cores in laptops, anything that ends in a q qm or x.

 

AMD doesn't have a true quad core in laptops or desktops. They are designed around modules with two logic processors, a single floating point processor and a shared cache. A true core is 1 logic 1 floating point and 1 cache.

 

Having said that. Voltage needed to stay stable goes up quicker the higher the clock speed. That's why you don't see clockspeeds as high as desktops.

 

I'm sure there is some level of cherry picking involved, but the lower clockspeeds are a big factor as well.

Just want to point out that AMD does still have "true quad core" the Bobcat family and it subsequent derivatives (Jaguar, Puma, and Puma+) are "true quad cores" with 1 fpu and 1 alu per core.

[incarnate]

1 hour ago, LeStringMan said:

Just want to point out that AMD does still have "true quad core" the Bobcat family and it subsequent derivatives (Jaguar, Puma, and Puma+) are "true quad cores" with 1 fpu and 1 alu per core.

Didn't know that. Thanks