First Hybrid Intel-AMD Chip Benchmarks Show Vega M Obliterating Intel UHD and MX 150

The GTX 1050 is expected to match the performance of this thing. Of course it's destroying the GT1030.

GTX 1050 > GT 1030 > Raven Ridge > Intel HD.

GTX 1050 is around the same performance as these G chips. Which is why Nvidia is pushing new

And GTX 1050 notebooks with a quad core start at $700. There's still no official price for these things, just hype.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...e=gtx_1050_laptops-_-9SIADG36RJ8128-_-Product

The only thing the G release changes is now Nvidia is getting off their ass and making a Max Q version of the 1050.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
The GTX 1050 is expected to match the performance of this thing. Of course it's destroying the GT1030.

And GTX 1050 notebooks with a quad core start at $700. There's still no official price released for these things, just hype.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...e=gtx_1050_laptops-_-9SIADG36RJ8128-_-Product
Click to expand...

The price is in the article $1299, and you're comparing a 6lb "gaming" notebook, to a 4.5 lb thin convertible, with a newer faster processor, twice the RAM, 1TB NVME SSD vs a spinner, and a 4k screen vs 1080,

Not exactly apples to apples my man.
 
defaultluser said:
The GTX 1050 is expected to match the performance of this thing. Of course it's destroying the GT1030.

GTX 1050 > GT 1030 > Raven Ridge > Intel HD.

GTX 1050 is around the same performance as these G chips. Which is why Nvidia is pushing new

And GTX 1050 notebooks with a quad core start at $700. There's still no official price for these things, just hype.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...e=gtx_1050_laptops-_-9SIADG36RJ8128-_-Product

The only thing the G release changes is now Nvidia is getting off their ass and making a Max Q version of the 1050.
Click to expand...

I really don't know how this Vega M slots in, its sort of like integrated, but its not really. This is why I am so curious about the price. For arguments sake lets call this integrated. Integrated graphics keep pushing discreet graphics further away. Remember the old days when you could by discreet GPUs that ended in XX10, or 20, or 30? Now days till you get to a XX50 you don't even have a reason to exist because integrated has pushed low end discreet out of the market and there's no point in the power draw or cost till you get a significant difference in performance.. This is the next step. However not sure if it is a good step or not given that it wont be shipping to everyone, far from it. I would love to see integrated graphics that ship on every laptop just keep getting better. The greatest era in PC gaming would be when you could guarantee that almost ever single laptop sold had a GPU capable of pushing 60 fps in new released games. Not at max settings but just enough to pull it off at whatever the displays native resolution was. It would introduce millions more gamers to PC gaming every year.
 
rgMekanic said:
The price is in the article $1299, and you're comparing a 6lb "gaming" notebook, to a 4.5 lb thin convertible, with a newer faster processor, twice the RAM, 1TB NVME SSD vs a spinner, and a 4k screen vs 1080,

Not exactly apples to apples my man.
Click to expand...

This class of convertible is a much different animal compared to a conventional mid-range laptop, even one capable of gaming. There's much more emphasis on weight, physical dimensions, screen quality and battery life plus the conversion and tablet experience.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
Long list of competition reasons but the big one is that most of Intel's GPU patent licensing was with amd anyways so both sides win. Amd gets more access to the mobile market and apple while Intel probably gets to save money on patent licensing.
Click to expand...

No patent licensing is going down. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1222...-core-with-radeon-rx-vega-m-graphics-launched

Intel is buying the graphics processor from AMD, much like any other silicon purchase, and as a result, AMD’s involvement is strictly business. The graphics processor part is designed by AMD’s semi-custom division that deals with custom designs, such as the chips that go into Sony’s PlayStation 4 and Microsoft’s Xbox line.
Click to expand...

As for why? For AMD, a chance to sneak some GPU marketshare through Radeon graphics (and $) made it a easy decision i bet considering the absurd hill for everything else AMD. For Intel, I guess "Fuck Nvidia" and I assume the shift from AMD to Intel graphics (when Intel finally manages the feat) will be easier than Nvidia to Intel graphics.
 
KazeoHin said:
All the usual suspects are so confused right now...
Click to expand...

Maybe so...

Personally, I'm kind of excited by the prospect. In theory, we could get any HBM-supporting GPU hooked up to the CPU on the same substrate this way, and since I have no doubt that AMD could use this connection on their CPUs too, we could have said GPU hooked up to potentially any CPU.

Mobile Ryzen R7 with 1060-class graphics in a thin-and-light, anyone?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Maybe so...

Personally, I'm kind of excited by the prospect. In theory, we could get any HBM-supporting GPU hooked up to the CPU on the same substrate this way, and since I have no doubt that AMD could use this connection on their CPUs too, we could have said GPU hooked up to potentially any CPU.

Mobile Ryzen R7 with 1060-class graphics in a thin-and-light, anyone?
Click to expand...

So where does AMD stand in the mobile CPU market these days? They've got no presence in higher-end convertibles and I don't know of much they have in conventional ultrabooks.
 
heatlesssun said:
So where does AMD stand in the mobile CPU market these days? They've got no presence in higher-end convertibles and I don't know of much they have in conventional ultrabooks.
Click to expand...

That's honestly unknown- I'd say it's damn near zero, but they may or may not have the potential with mobile Ryzen variants to increase that.

I don't think they really bring anything new performance wise (in terms of raw performance or battery life), however, they most certainly have a moderately competitive product and can compete on price.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
That's honestly unknown- I'd say it's damn near zero, but they may or may not have the potential with mobile Ryzen variants to increase that.

I don't think they really bring anything new performance wise (in terms of raw performance or battery life), however, they most certainly have a moderately competitive product and can compete on price.
Click to expand...

Intel has done a pretty good job with power with is mobile chips. The 8000Us are quite impressive. I would like to see AMD be more aggressive in this market.
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
Intel has good a pretty good job with power with is mobile chips. The 8000Us are quite impressive. I would like to see AMD be more aggressive in this market.
Click to expand...

...so good I just picked up a Zenbook with the 8550U (13.3" 2-in-1) to replace a 7500U-equipped ultrabook, so I do know what you're saying :).

I think if AMD can get close in terms of battery life and performance, they can certainly compete on price. I don't think that they're quite ready to push performance envelopes with their CPUs below say the DTR level where Clevo and the like might release six- and eight-core R7 mobile workstations.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
...so good I just picked up a Zenbook with the 8550U (13.3" 2-in-1) to replace a 7500U-equipped ultrabook, so I do know what you're saying :).

I think if AMD can get close in terms of battery life and performance, they can certainly compete on price. I don't think that they're quite ready to push performance envelopes with their CPUs below say the DTR level where Clevo and the like might release six- and eight-core R7 mobile workstations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got a 15" Surface Book 2 for Christmas and it smokes the original SB 1 I got two years ago. The SB2 is so much quieter and cooler and faster and really only heats up with doing things like gaming which it does very well at 1080/1200P with the GTX 1060. I think these kinds of thin and convertible devices have a bright future as they are finally starting to pack a lot of punch in their size, along with solid battery life.
 
Jim Kim said:
I wonder why the did not partner w/Nvidia?
Click to expand...

I have not heard an official answer but that does warrant some digging. My guess is politics and cash. It doesn't make any sense to partner with nVidia even though it makes perfect sense to stave off AMD getting to big for their britches. nVidia can't survive by itself as it stands and they know it, so they have to play nice with amd and intel. it's kind of a mexican standoff as in if they go for another player, the other will take them down. nVidia is in the worst position in the long run since they don't build their own cpu's.

It could just be someone doesn't like someone else. Simple politics.
 
Why not Nvidia?

Politics almost certainly factored in, but like the current console generation, my bet is that it had more to do with price. AMD is poor and really cannot afford to turn down business, and it's also in Intel's interest to keep AMD afloat in order to keep the regulators happy.

Further, given that Nvidia knows that they have the better product, they very likely would not have accepted any offer Intel was willing to put up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top