Asus unveils 8 core ryzen notebook with RX 580 4GB GPU

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

I'm sure it'll be an option to get a higher tier model with 8GB of VRAM, that way people with a little less money can still afford the laptop, just with the 4GB model of the card.

if that's the case I have no issue with it

[Doobeedoo]

Great to see AMD back on in mobile market.

This is one great laptop for sure, 8 core Ryzen in laptop is just amazing. I'm sure they'll have a Vega model also soon!

And having Freesync 2 display too, can't wait to see Freesync 2 monitors also!

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Doobeedoo said:

Great to see AMD back on in mobile market.

This is one great laptop for sure, 8 core Ryzen in laptop is just amazing. I'm sure they'll have a Vega model also soon!

And having Freesync 2 display too, can't wait to see Freesync 2 monitors also!

yea this will be great to see how it does and to see the next gen of laptops which are coming with more cores

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Why not a 580 8GB if it was aimed for gaming?

 

5 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

4GB of vRAM...with a GPU that powerful.....

 

I doubt it's the desktop version, since the OP lists is as "65W TDP", which is much less than the normal 580. I bet this is a somewhat less powerful mobile version. Buying an 8GB card to play at 1080p is already a dubious decision, but you can argue futre upgradeability. But if you nerf it (at the very least thermally) and put it inside a laptop, then definitely 8GB VRAM at 1080p is a marketing gimmick. Rmember, this isn't a desktop we are talking about. You are stuck at 1080p, forever. Even if it has the full desktop GPU inside, I'll take a 4GB 580 rather than an 8GB 570 any day.

[Masada02]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I doubt it's the desktop version, since the OP lists is as "65W TDP", which is much less than the normal 580. I bet this is a somewhat less powerful mobile version. Buying an 8GB card to play at 1080p is already a dubious decision, but you can argue futre upgradeability. But if you nerf it (at the very least thermally) and put it inside a laptop, then definitely 8GB VRAM at 1080p is a marketing gimmick. Rmember, this isn't a desktop we are talking about. You are stuck at 1080p, forever. Even if it has the full desktop GPU inside, I'll take a 4GB 580 rather than an 8GB 570 any day.

4GB is fine at 1080p until you start modding games. For example, in Civ VI one of the best maps REQUIRES 6GB of VRAM just to play, no matter the resolution. I'd rather have more than I need than not have enough.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 minutes ago, Masada02 said:

4GB is fine at 1080p until you start modding games. For example, in Civ VI one of the best maps REQUIRES 6GB of VRAM just to play, no matter the resolution. I'd rather have more than I need than not have enough.

By modding you mean messing uo with the graphics or actually modding the game? I don't think any relevant "mod" of civilization can be related to graphics... unless they moved AI to GPGPU or something like that...

Now, if by modding you mean a bunch of amateurs took the game and gave it hair physics from the Witcher 3 to all the units in a highly inefficient way, well... I guess I am indeed sticking to 4GB then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Now, when it comes to Civilization VI and vram usage, there are specific problems with this game: for isntance, it uses 6GB of VRAM in my PC... with a 3GB GPU  I have no clue how Civ VI counts VRAM, but I obviously don't trust it much. In any case, it's Civilization, a freaking strategy game... I can justify a strong CPU for that game, but it's at the bottom of my excuses for stronger GPUs. If GPU power ever becomes a problem to play it, the solution is to fire the entire development team because they obviously don't understand which game they are coding for...

[captain cactus]

55 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

I doubt it's the desktop version, since the OP lists is as "65W TDP", which is much less than the normal 580. I bet this is a somewhat less powerful mobile version. Buying an 8GB card to play at 1080p is already a dubious decision, but you can argue futre upgradeability. But if you nerf it (at the very least thermally) and put it inside a laptop, then definitely 8GB VRAM at 1080p is a marketing gimmick. Rmember, this isn't a desktop we are talking about. You are stuck at 1080p, forever. Even if it has the full desktop GPU inside, I'll take a 4GB 580 rather than an 8GB 570 any day.

It might just be the desktop card, heavily binned and undervolted. Dell/Alienware put an RX470 in the Alienware 15/17 at full clocks, no reason to not have an improved node which undervolts better be the full fat RX580.

[grimreeper132]

Just now, lots of unexplainable lag said:

It might just be the desktop card, heavily binned and undervolted. Dell/Alienware put an RX470 in the Alienware 15/17 at full clocks, no reason to not have an improved node which undervolts better be the full fat RX580.

aye it quite possible is that is the case we will need to wait and see. I can't imagine linus not having a video going out about this thing

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, lots of unexplainable lag said:

It might just be the desktop card, heavily binned and undervolted. Dell/Alienware put an RX470 in the Alienware 15/17 at full clocks, no reason to not have an improved node which undervolts better be the full fat RX580.

It could be like you say. I think I should have expressed myself differently: it may be the desktop GPU, but not necessarily the desktop performance (assuming undervolt+underclock, disabled cores, or any combination). All that jsut to say that if it doesn't match the 580 desktop performance, there may be less scope to exploit 8GB of VRAM.

 

Now, maybe it does...

[Clanscorpia]

6 hours ago, grimreeper132 said:

it's a shame yes, but still 8 cores so you can only dis it so much.

 

Im yet to hit 4GB on my 480 which is clocked the same as an overclocked 580

[grimreeper132]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Im yet to hit 4GB on my 480 which is clocked the same as an overclocked 580

aye you should be fine with 4GB but 8GB is always better

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

aye you should be fine with 4GB but 8GB is always better

Honestly its basically useless considering the 480/580 isnt meant to do things requiring more than 4

[grimreeper132]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Honestly its basically useless considering the 480/580 isnt meant to do things requiring more than 4

to a point yes, but there is some cases where it can use more than 4

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

to a point yes, but there is some cases where it can use more than 4

Only time I was ever close was on R6:Siege with 4K textures, max Anti-Aliasing, and max quality

[grimreeper132]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Only time I was ever close was on R6:Siege with 4K textures, max Anti-Aliasing, and max quality

aye but you will need more VRAM in the future that and higher res etc. need more VRAM as well

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

aye but you will need more VRAM in the future that and higher res etc. need more VRAM as well

It'd be stupid to push more than 1080p on a 480

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

It'd be stupid to push more than 1080p on a 480

1440P??? thats a normal res for a 580

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

1440P??? thats a normal res for a 580

Considering Ive topped the limit with my 480 a 580 wont be able to push it at PCMR frames

[Bouzoo]

2 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

If I recall it has a clock 2.8-3.8, not sure it can run all cores at 3.8 though. So the R7 1700 sounds promising. 

It is not all about GHz as we know though. Asus managed to run my 4700HQ on all 4 cores at 3.4, so with die shrink they probably managed full prequency, which I'm sure depends on the laptop as well. 

[grimreeper132]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

It is not all about GHz as we know though. Asus managed to run my 4700HQ on all 4 cores at 3.4, so with die shrink they probably managed full prequency, which I'm sure depends on the laptop as well. 

that is true, but a 1700 with more cores and a higher base, and from benchmarks I have seen better in almost everyway there isn't much you can complain about

[Masada02]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

By modding you mean messing uo with the graphics or actually modding the game? I don't think any relevant "mod" of civilization can be related to graphics... unless they moved AI to GPGPU or something like that...

Now, if by modding you mean a bunch of amateurs took the game and gave it hair physics from the Witcher 3 to all the units in a highly inefficient way, well... I guess I am indeed sticking to 4GB then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Now, when it comes to Civilization VI and vram usage, there are specific problems with this game: for isntance, it uses 6GB of VRAM in my PC... with a 3GB GPU  I have no clue how Civ VI counts VRAM, but I obviously don't trust it much. In any case, it's Civilization, a freaking strategy game... I can justify a strong CPU for that game, but it's at the bottom of my excuses for stronger GPUs. If GPU power ever becomes a problem to play it, the solution is to fire the entire development team because they obviously don't understand which game they are coding for...

Somehow the map itself that I recently downloaded requires 6GB of VRAM. It is a massive map though.

 

But ya, just an example. I thought it was weird that a strategy game like Civ could require so much memory, but it at least hints at 4GB being too little in some situations. 

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, grimreeper132 said:

that is true, but a 1700 with more cores and a higher base, and from benchmarks I have seen better in almost everyway there isn't much you can complain about

There isn't true, with fair pricing that is. But as I said, I would be more happy with 1600/X as well. Not that I've been waiting for this for a long time mind you.

[grimreeper132]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

There isn't true, with fair pricing that is. But as I said, I would be more happy with 1600/X as well. Not that I've been waiting for this for a long time mind you.

I would of been happy with any ryzen CPU with more than 4 cores, the fact it's a 1700, an already brilliant CPU in a desktop which has been put in this laptop makes this thing amazing

[Energycore]

I'd like to see anyone try to cram an Intel 8-core into a laptop. Good luck. A win for AMD and ASUS here as they have provided a laptop that's unmatched in its power for video editing and other workloads "on the go" (because well it's still probably really big). It's a new market niche if you ask me

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

I'd like to see anyone try to cram an Intel 8-core into a laptop. Good luck. A win for AMD and ASUS here as they have provided a laptop that's unmatched in its power for video editing and other workloads "on the go" (because well it's still probably really big). It's a new market niche if you ask me

aye especially considering then new 8 core is 140W. AMD will destroy in the High End Laptop I recon considering it's now possible to put 8 cores in them thanks to them. And also it's dimensions are 412 (W) by 275 (H) by 34 (D) (all sizes in mm) and weighs in at 3Kg it isn't actually a massive machine and is very portable