AMD Raven Ridge mobile graphics are faster than the Intel Iris Plus 640

[Okjoek]

Source:

https://diit.cz/clanek/raven-ridge-je-rychlejsi-nez-iris-plus-640

(Czech)

 

Quote from article:

"APU Raven Ridge , whose mobile variant is also known as Ryzen Mobile, is a chip that integrates up to 4 Zen cores (one CCX block) and up to 11 Vega generation NCU (704 SP) graphics blocks."

"We know there will be variants called Ryzen 7 2700U and Ryzen 5 2500U"

"The lower of both models achieves 25% of the performance measured by 3DMark above the Intel Core i7-7660U with the powerful Iris Plus 640 graphics."

 

My opinion:

Glad to see AMD's acquiring of Radeon is giving them what they need to punish intel for their lack of passion. It's also good to see Vega coming to some market where it doesn't have to compete with the juggernaut that is nVIDIA, even if it is mostly for more mainstream devices.

 

 

[Guest]

Can it run Crysis?

 

-every person rn

[Sauron]

That's good but power consumption might be a concern.

 

Also, amd seems particularly passionate about making their naming scheme extra confusing. Aside from the fact that they're taking the "u" denomination straight from intel and that they are basically giving them the same serials as sandy bridge, how on Earth does the "2500u" name tell you it is even in the same generation as the "1700x"?

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Can it run Crysis?

 

-every person rn

 

[Humbug]

Ryzen cores combined with Vega graphics in an APU on infinity fabric.

 

This is an area which if AMD leverages right can make loads of money in, based on being the best product technically.

They need to push things through the laptop channels very cleverly via Dell, HP, Toshiba, Apple etc.

[Humbug]

Just now, Sauron said:

That's good but power consumption might be a concern.

Why?

[Sauron]

On 9/20/2017 at 4:18 PM, Humbug said:

Why?

Because vega draws a lot of power. It may not matter as much on a desktop, but on a laptop it's crucial.

 

-edit- <adding this part so people stop quoting me to say vega is more efficient at low clocks>

YES, I know. But it is nevertheless relatively power hungry compared to intel's solutions. Perhaps on even performance the consumption would be similar, but at a higher performance I fully expect it to require more power. This is a concern for laptops, which need to pay closer attention to battery life than to performance in most cases, particularly when they opt to use the integrated gpu over a dedicated solution. This doesn't necessarily mean it will be a big issue or that it can't be engineered around, but AMD will have to take it into account and so will its partners. Here's hoping they can find a good solution and it turns out to not be a problem, all I'm saying is it will need to be addressed.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

Why?

I think it's more of a concern if they stuff Raven into a laptop, and they likely will, or at least a variant of it.

[Okjoek]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's good but power consumption might be a concern.

 

Also, amd seems particularly passionate about making their naming scheme extra confusing. Aside from the fact that they're taking the "u" denomination straight from intel and that they are basically giving them the same serials as sandy bridge, how on Earth does the "2500u" name tell you it is even in the same generation as the "1700x"?

I like the "Ryzen" name. Much more than "Threadripper" or "Epyc" which sound too gaudy to me. Only thing I hated about the numbering was that they went into the whole 3,5,7 BS.

[captain_to_fire]

I think the best comparison between Intel and AMD would be if an OEM like Dell makes a XPS 13, one with AMD and one with Intel and test the battery life. Too bad only one of them will have Thunderbolt 3. Though I'm betting that for low powered CPUs, Intel will still be better when it comes for power consumption but only time will tell.

[KenjiUmino]

i kind of expected that.

 

when it comes to graphics performance, AMD APUs have been running circles around intel integrated graphics ever since. it was the CPU part of those APUs that was lacking. 

 

i expect this to get a lot better with zen based APUs. 

 

by the way, if we already know the names of mobile APUs (2700U & 2500U) does that mean we will also get zen based desktop APUs any time soon? 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Because vega draws a lot of power. It may not matter as much on a desktop, but on a laptop it's crucial.

vega can draw a lot of power vega 64 is out of the efficient area, when under clocked and under volted it doesn't draw that much 

[System Error Message]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Because vega draws a lot of power. It may not matter as much on a desktop, but on a laptop it's crucial.

at lower clocks vega is actually power efficient. What you see as vega 56 and 64 using lots of power is because AMD had to clock them up enough in order to compete against nvidia (nvidia overclocking their own cards with drivers so you see your cards going past 1800mhz or 1900mhz stock vs their stock rated 1600-1700mhz speeds). At lower frequency amd vega uses way less power and volts in terms of performance/watt.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

vega can draw a lot of power vega 64 is out of the efficient area, when under clocked and under volted it doesn't draw that much 

Even if it were to be 50% more efficient (which is ludicrous) it would still be pretty power hungry for a laptop gpu. They'll have to be very careful with their power management.

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Because vega draws a lot of power. It may not matter as much on a desktop, but on a laptop it's crucial.

I believe @GDRRiley is correct. Vega was so power hungry because they were pushing it farther beyond the point that it would have been most efficient in the name of "we gotta have the fastest!"

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I think the best comparison between Intel and AMD would be if an OEM like Dell makes a XPS 13, one with AMD and one with Intel and test the battery life. Too bad only one of them will have Thunderbolt 3. Though I'm betting that for low powered CPUs, Intel will still be better when it comes for power consumption but only time will tell.

I've never had Thunderbolt 3. What would I use it for?

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Because vega draws a lot of power. It may not matter as much on a desktop, but on a laptop it's crucial.

Vega draws a lot of power when it is configured in desktop form with voltages raised and clocks cranked up in order to reach GTX 1080 performance. Every architecture has a zone where performance per watt is optimal. Desktop Vega is pushed way past that zone in order to compete with Nvidia. It's a valid criticism of desktop Vega. But it has no bearing on Vega perf/watt in an APU.

 

Another example; look at the Polaris architecture.

An RX580 draws almost 200 watts.

An RX550 draws only 48 watts and runs of PCIE power.

Both are Polaris stand alone desktop GPUs...

 

For Raven Ridge we aren't even talking about a standalone GPU anymore, we are talking about an APU. And AMD knows they only need to beat Intel graphics, not Nvidia.

 

It could end up being very efficient, we will just have to wait and see...

 

[System Error Message]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

I think the best comparison between Intel and AMD would be if an OEM like Dell makes a XPS 13, one with AMD and one with Intel and test the battery life. Too bad only one of them will have Thunderbolt 3. Though I'm betting that for low powered CPUs, Intel will still be better when it comes for power consumption but only time will tell.

at lower frequencies, ryzen beats intel in performance/watt. intel laptops are much lower clocked than desktop with kaby lake maxing out at 3.4Ghz for 8 thread loads whereas the desktop variant easily gets above 4Ghz. Power use is hugely different. Also intel chips nerf themselves by locking their power consumption (theres an option in throttlestop to prioritise power to either CPU/IGP). So the AMD APU will be decent in performance for the higher end mobile variants. They'd use more power than intel at load but also give more performance (both CPU+GPU) but at idle both intel and AMD can be equally efficient. However i expect AMD laptops to be cheaper because of coming with a decent IGP so there wont be a need for a dedicated GPU for many laptops.

[mynameisjuan]

Who would have guess that a company that has a dedicated GPU branch has better graphics in their chips than the company that doesnt have a GPU branch.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Source:

https://diit.cz/clanek/raven-ridge-je-rychlejsi-nez-iris-plus-640

(Czech)

 

Quote from article:

"APU Raven Ridge , whose mobile variant is also known as Ryzen Mobile, is a chip that integrates up to 4 Zen cores (one CCX block) and up to 11 Vega generation NCU (704 SP) graphics blocks."

"We know there will be variants called Ryzen 7 2700U and Ryzen 5 2500U"

"The lower of both models achieves 25% of the performance measured by 3DMark above the Intel Core i7-7660U with the powerful Iris Plus 640 graphics."

 

My opinion:

Glad to see AMD's acquiring of Radeon is giving them what they need to punish intel for their lack of passion. It's also good to see Vega coming to some market where it doesn't have to compete with the juggernaut that is nVIDIA, even if it is mostly for more mainstream devices.

 

 

Well this is no suprise, the integrated intel graphics onto their chipset have always been crap when it comes to gaming. I guess the higher power consumption from the desktop versions of vega graphics cards explains its limitations in terms of gaming performance that is limited from the heat output from the higher TDP.

[Humbug]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Who would have guess that a company that has a dedicated GPU branch has better graphics in their chips than the company that doesnt have a GPU branch.

give us a clue

[captain_to_fire]

6 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

I've never had Thunderbolt 3. What would I use it for?

A proprietary I/O developed by Intel and in collaboration with Apple. Enables eGPU's which is good for adding extra graphics for laptops, connect two 4K monitors at 60 Hz, a single 4K monitor at 120 Hz or a single 5K monitor at 60 Hz. At the moment, only Skylake and above uses TB3.

 

6 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

However i expect AMD laptops to be cheaper because of coming with a decent IGP so there wont be a need for a dedicated GPU for many laptops.

The more reason Intel will not license Thunderbolt to AMD

[Taf the Ghost]

In mobile, these are going to be really solid "gaming laptops" in the sub-1k USD range. And they should work great. The 2.0 to 3.2 Ghz range is the efficiency speak for the 14nm process that Ryzen is on. These are going to be monsters in the 35w & 45w laptop range. (AMD's APU plans are finally coming together.)

[System Error Message]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

A proprietary I/O developed by Intel and Apple. Enables eGPU's which is good for adding extra graphics for laptops, connect two 4K monitors at 60 Hz, a single 4K monitor at 120 Hz or a single 5K monitor at 60 Hz. At the moment, only Skylake and above uses TB3.

 

The more reason Intel will not license Thunderbolt to AMD

Thunderbolt was made because apple wanted a high performance compact slot to replace expresscard for better than usb and firewire performance on their macbooks. It can also run display too which is one of the reasons.

 

So intel not licencing thunderbolt to AMD could kill thunderbolt as AMD sales will beat intel in the mobile market. With lack of thunderbolt people wont make thunderbolt devices and just use usb 3 and usb c.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Who would have guess that a company that has a dedicated GPU branch has better graphics in their chips than the company that doesnt have a GPU branch.

I'm pretty sure Intel is significantly bigger than both of AMD's branches combined. AMD's only real advantage in that sense is their more refined drivers (since they've been in the gpu game longer), but technically there's no reason Intel couldn't make a gpu that's at least close to vega.

[S w a t s o n]

Vega is actually very efficient when clocked and volted properly as shown in some of the undervolting videos floating around. I'm hoping they dont need to stretch the vega cores to their max for the APU line.

I do hope to see some bigger APU's too, maybe xbone class graphics in a 15 inch notebook body.