AMD plans for high performance APUs

[NumLock21]

Leaked images showing AMD is preparing an high performance apu for laptops. The unreleased apu is a quad core with SMT, runs at 3.3 and boost to 3.6GHz. TDP is still unknown at this point, probably 45 to 65W?  While they say it's a high performance APU, Intel's high performance mobile CPUs are 6 cores with HT and these are only quad cores. AMD needs to match Intel's core count if they really want to call these APUs high performance.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/8vsxwk/amd_eng_sample_zm3301c3t4mfb_3633_n_spotted_in/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7s2rvj/vega_11_mobile_graphics/

 

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

AMD needs to match Intel's core count if they really want to call these APUs high performance

They don't, really.

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Intel's high performance mobile CPUs are 6 cores with HT and these are only quad cores. AMD needs to match Intel's core count if they really want to call these APUs high performance.

Maybe AMD is trying to compete with Intel's i7-8809G (4c/8t) and i5-8305G (4c/8t)

[NumLock21]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They don't, really.

IMO they do if they want to call it their APUs high performance.

6 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Maybe AMD is trying to compete with Intel's i7-8809G (4c/8t) and i5-8305G (4c/8t)

Their current APUs like the 2500U and 2700U is already doing that, why would they need another one to compete. VEGA 11 won't come close to the VEGA on those Intel chips.

[captain_to_fire]

8 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Their current APUs like the 2500U and 2700U is already doing that, why would they need another one to compete. VEGA 11 won't come close to the VEGA on those Intel chips.

Wait? The Vega GPUs on those Intel chips are better than the ones AMD uses for their mobile Ryzen chips?

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, captain_to_fire said:

Wait? The Vega GPUs on those Intel chips are better than the ones AMD uses for their mobile Ryzen chips?

Yes, they're way better than them VEGA used on those AMD Ryzen chips. The VEGA on them Intel uses HBM2 and can produce a bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s to 204.8 GB/s.

[schwellmo92]

8 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Wait? The Vega GPUs on those Intel chips are better than the ones AMD uses for their mobile Ryzen chips?

The Intel/Vega hybrids have 20 CU’s and 4GB of HBM2 on-chip so yeah they will be faster than these APUs (remember the TDP is also way higher). I honestly don’t think these Ryzen chips would be considered “high performance” they’re ok and will probably slot in the mainstream market where laptops ship with MX150/GTX 1050 and a Intel U processor.

[Enderman]

45-65W CPUs in a laptop sounds horrible.

[AskTJ]

What would their dedicated GPU counterparts be?

[Sakkura]

43 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

IMO they do if they want to call it their APUs high performance.

 

Their current APUs like the 2500U and 2700U is already doing that, why would they need another one to compete. VEGA 11 won't come close to the VEGA on those Intel chips.

If AMD beats Intel on the iGPU side, while having competitive singlethreaded CPU performance (check the clocks), then calling it a high performance APU is fine IMO.

 

There's no Vega on Intel chips, just dedicated Vega graphics on the same interposer with an Intel CPU. That's not comparable to an APU, it's an in-between category above APUs but below regular dedicated GPUs.

 

By the way, those Intel chips with Vega graphics on the side... yeah they're quad cores.

 

28 minutes ago, Enderman said:

45-65W CPUs in a laptop sounds horrible.

It's not that bad. Most Kaby Lake (and some Coffee Lake) laptop CPUs have a 45W TDP, and the Core i7-8809G has a 100W TDP.

[Jurrunio]

Does AMD really need to give the GP108 GPU such a hard time without touching the larger Nvidia cores? dekstop vega 8, desktop and mobile V10 and V11 are all targeted at this place, while there's nothing competing with cres like the GP107. I know AMD cant build Vega dGPUs into gaming laptops because that means using expensive HBM2 memory and losing out the price competition, but why even bother?

 

I would rather have a 6 or even 8 core Ryzen inside laptops (Remember Asus GL702?),. then pair it with Polaris graphics. AMD released their mobile RX550, RX 560, RX 560X, RX 570 and RX 580 already. Could be a strong competitor in the mobile workstation market, though AMD have to first make overclocking SODIMM on a laptop a thing while facing the problem of not supporting CUDA acceleration (not like they can even if they want to)

[Enderman]

41 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's not that bad. Most Kaby Lake (and some Coffee Lake) laptop CPUs have a 45W TDP, and the Core i7-8809G has a 100W TDP.

Most laptop intel cpus are 15W tdp.

Only high end gaming laptops with a gpu and something like a 7700hq are 45W.

And I'm sure you're aware of how crap the battery life is on those laptops.

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

If AMD beats Intel on the iGPU side, while having competitive singlethreaded CPU performance (check the clocks), then calling it a high performance APU is fine IMO.

 

There's no Vega on Intel chips, just dedicated Vega graphics on the same interposer with an Intel CPU. That's not comparable to an APU, it's an in-between category above APUs but below regular dedicated GPUs.

 

By the way, those Intel chips with Vega graphics on the side... yeah they're quad cores.

 

The consumer may look at performance, but physical core count sells and this AMD APU lacks the extra cores them Intel Coffee Lake mobile have. Intel with VEGA M is on a class of its own and those laptops cost at a minimum of $1,500. This put it out of reach for many. Them Intel 6 cores can be bought for around $1K or so. 

Dell G5 with Core i7 8750H 6C/12T @2.2GHz turbo up to 4.1GHz, 8GB, 120GB SSD+1TB HDD, and GTX 1050Ti is $950.

 

48 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

I would rather have a 6 or even 8 core Ryzen inside laptops (Remember Asus GL702?)

That was a desktop Ryzen shoved into a laptop. Not a great idea imo.

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

That was a desktop Ryzen shoved into a laptop. Not a great idea imo.

they could drop TDP limits. Ryzen desktop can do that already (2nd gen for sure), they only need to do the same to mobile stuff.

[NumLock21]

10 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

they could drop TDP limits. Ryzen desktop can do that already (2nd gen for sure), they only need to do the same to mobile stuff.

If the TDP is within the acceptable range, they won't need to lower it.

[Jurrunio]

18 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

If the TDP is within the acceptable range, they won't need to lower it.

but that's the problem with the GL702, it runs hot while the 1700 is still set to 65w. Of course it's Asus laptop after all so cooling isnt its strength, but 90C all the time at 3ghz isnt good for daily usage either.

[schwellmo92]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

Most laptop intel cpus are 15W tdp.

Only high end gaming laptops with a gpu and something like a 7700hq are 45W.

And I'm sure you're aware of how crap the battery life is on those laptops.

The Intel 15w CPUs turbo boost well over 15w, the same can be said for the new coffee lake mobile chips, the 8950HK for examples boosts up to 150w. Quote from Intel: "Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload".

 

And on the battery life, my laptop has a 7700HQ, GTX 1050 and 4K screen and I get 9 hours battery life.

[schwellmo92]

22 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

but that's the problem with the GL702, it runs hot while the 1700 is still set to 65w. Of course it's Asus laptop after all so cooling isnt its strength, but 90C all the time at 3ghz isnt good for daily usage either.

You'll find that's how hot most laptop CPUs run under load and it's completely fine.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

 Intel's high performance mobile CPUs are 6 cores with HT and these are only quad cores. AMD needs to match Intel's core count if they really want to call these APUs high performance.

 

 

Intel HD Graphics are cabbage. It doesn't take much to be considered high performance APUs compared to Intel LOL - AMD even provide integrated graphics now for Intel. 

[Jurrunio]

6 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

You'll find that's how hot most laptop CPUs run under load and it's completely fine.

that's why this norm has to change. Laptop CPUs are running too hot.

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

Most laptop intel cpus are 15W tdp.

Only high end gaming laptops with a gpu and something like a 7700hq are 45W.

And I'm sure you're aware of how crap the battery life is on those laptops.

2 hours of battery life for a HP Pavilion 3010AX (upgraded to a Phenom II N970+HD5650 overclocked by 140MHz) was nice. That laptop had a combined TDP well over 45W when gaming and for a 6 cell battery, that was excellent.

[Linus_torvalds]

5 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Wait? The Vega GPUs on those Intel chips are better than the ones AMD uses for their mobile Ryzen chips?

That VEGA on that intel chip has GTX 1060 performance and sometimes even beats it in some titles. So yeah it's way better then VEGAs found in AMDs own APUs.

[Enderman]

2 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

The Intel 15w CPUs turbo boost well over 15w, the same can be said for the new coffee lake mobile chips, the 8950HK for examples boosts up to 150w. Quote from Intel: "Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload".

 

And on the battery life, my laptop has a 7700HQ, GTX 1050 and 4K screen and I get 9 hours battery life.

 

9 hours of which 7 are probably asleep or idle.

 

Almost all laptops use 15W intel CPUs.

I am not talking about the 1 in a million exception super thick gaming laptop with a 150W CPU.

 

And fyi, turbo boost does not turbo up all cores. The more cores that get turbo, the lower the frequency on them is.

Look up the techquickie on intel turbo boost.

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Enderman said:

And fyi, turbo boost does not turbo up all cores. The more cores that get turbo, the lower the frequency on them is.

Look up the techquickie on intel turbo boost.

It's also worth noting that unlike most gaming motherboards that lock and sync all cores, essentially an OC, laptops actually follow the Intel tubro boost spec as you describe.

[schwellmo92]

2 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

that's why this norm has to change. Laptop CPUs are running too hot.

But they’re only too hot by your definition, they’re within specification by Intels definition.