well yeah Intel has never shipped desirable extended gfx configs, and the last one was in 2018 anyway.
It's basically a new swimlane made from scratch.
well yeah Intel has never shipped desirable extended gfx configs, and the last one was in 2018 anyway.But the OEMs have to buy into it, and it seems to be a "process".
Yeah but only do much they can do with memory on board.
They always have the nuclear option tho.
Not mainstream enough solutions.AMD may have to aim higher, at apple.
Neither are x86 or run video games. too bad!In 2026, it is possible that the principal competitors of AMD in client space will be Apple and NVidia.
Yeah. N4C.and half can be on cheaper node (N6)
I don't see the presence of a low power core on that IO die... that's a shame.Annotated SOC.
It looks like roughly half of the die needs advanced node (GPU, NPU) and half can be on cheaper node (N6). Seems like a perfect setup for SoIC stacking.
Well, when the 14" macbook with the same SoC and a simliar battery size beat the Strix Halo I would say yes.
Also why do you ignore the resolution difference? Thats the biggest
I found that weird too, but I did also check for lighter loads.Does that sound reasonable? This large difference in power consumption doesn't show up in any lighter load tests so I don't know how it could be legitimate.
I found that weird too, but I did also check for lighter loads.
Here:
Page 19 - Discussion - AMD SoC Halo series GPU discussion
Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
It's a bigger platform. Twice the mem etc.The Max CPUs take more power, especially with additional cores. Just compare the M4 Max 14 core and M4 Pro 14 core.
It's a bigger platform. Twice the mem etc.
Gamers aren't the ones who decided the first product with Strix Halo would be the Republic of Gamers Flow Z13. Asus did.
Gamers also didn't create this slide with gaming performance to announce Strix Halo:
View attachment 117559
That would be AMD, the company who developed the chip.
I don’t believe that either the CPU or GPU alone is maxed out at 70W. I expect desktop Strix Halos to cross far past 100W on workloads for each one. I also expect performance that the Z13 is not capable of. A 200 billion parameter will require the GPU and the memory bus to be fully energized for many minutes at a time. i expect the Z13 to fall far behind a desktop.Yeah it can, 60-70W is all the thing needs.
What was wrong with Just Josh numbers? I think thats the confusion here.don't know what the difference is, but the fully loaded result I shared makes way more sense than Just Josh's numbers and it's not that hard to do a sanity check on it as at full load, the CPU power consumption will be the dominant factor by far. My guess, as I said earlier, is that it most likely comes down to a difference in power profiles used for the different tests.
The Max CPUs take more power, especially with additional cores. Just compare the M4 Max 14 core and M4 Pro 14 core.
Edit: I don't know what the difference is, but the fully loaded result I shared makes way more sense than Just Josh's numbers and it's not that hard to do a sanity check on it as at full load, the CPU power consumption will be the dominant factor by far. My guess, as I said earlier, is that it most likely comes down to a difference in power profiles used for the different tests.
What was wrong with Just Josh numbers? I think thats the confusion here.
EDIT: Is this referring to the Strix Halo numbers and/or the numbers I shared for the video playback battery test?
You don't have to "max it out".I don’t believe that either the CPU or GPU alone is maxed out at 70W
no.I expect desktop Strix Halos to cross far past 100W on workloads for each one
It's a membw benchmark.A 200 billion parameter will require the GPU and the memory bus to be fully energized for many minutes at a time
most BL claims are about them being amazing facebook machines (which they are!).Don't get me wrong, they are efficient and I was happy to use them, but not quite the champs that some claim them to be.
That’s the thing it’s impressive when you find out they don’t throttle on battery. You get the full CPU performance.I've been disappointed in quite a few of the Apple products. I've used M1 and M2 based Macbook Pros for work, and I've found they don't quite live up to the hype. Both of the laptops I had used significantly more power for combination loads involving heavy usage of disk, IO, and CPU, and none of it was GPU related. When I was working, they'd last 4 hours with a mix heavy/light workload and enough screen brightness to get things done without straining eyes. Don't get me wrong, they are efficient and I was happy to use them, but not quite the champs that some claim them to be.
Have you ever seen a Dell Precision or Lenovo Thinkpad or HP Zbook?Gaming is the one Windows segment where there's been some success above 1k.
Other than that... pretty much all Apple.
Yeah in the real world this isn't really true ( atleast on every Lenovo AMD laptop I've owned, 3 ), you loose a touch of ST sure , but the total number of "P" cores means you just chew modern workloads at low power anyway. like my Zen3 will hold mid 3ghz on 16threads at 100% cpu in 15watts where that is 8 threads for sql and 8 threads for processing.That’s the thing it’s impressive when you find out they don’t throttle on battery. You get the full CPU performance.
The default for x86 laptops when unplugged is they throttle CPU performance in exchange for better battery life.
So you might get similar battery life under heavy load with an x86 laptop but at the cost of performance whereas with an M* laptop you get similar battery life to an x86 laptop under heavy load but you don’t lose performance.
use them as netflix machines and the lead will be even bigger.
1 cpu core can pull more than 20 wattsI don’t believe that either the CPU or GPU alone is maxed out at 70W.
Windows has different performance profiles for battery vs. plugged. If you really want more performance on battery, it can be done with a button switch and it will stay that way indefinitely. You could argue the Apple way is better user experience by using a different default option, I can certainly argue Microsoft has made a mess by keeping both "power plans" and "power modes" while allowing OEMs to introduce their own power management on top.That’s the thing it’s impressive when you find out they don’t throttle on battery. You get the full CPU performance.
The default for x86 laptops when unplugged is they throttle CPU performance in exchange for better battery life.
It's cool, but only long term will prove whether it'll be a lasting product or not.
The appeal for iGPUs are:
-Battery life
-Form factor
-Cost, of which can greatly justify the above two
You go high end, and you lose the battery life advantage, even against dGPU systems, and the since the manufacturer of the SoC isn't doing it for charity but an opportunity for more revenue, it's no longer a free one like iGPUs are but whether you are actually saving money over a dGPU.
You are losing the flexibility of a dGPU, and it isn't all about savings either as you need to start putting dedicated VRAM, most likely with exotic packaging techniques.
If it's say $500 cheaper on that Asus system, then you must consider how much of that $500 is artificial tax by both Nvidia and the system manufacturer versus actual cost of production. Remember Nvidia has absolutely monopoly on laptops, even more lopsided than on desktops. Will it even be $100 cheaper on a <$1500 system?
Trying to get their money and designed it for them are two separate things. Viagra was not developed for erectile dysfunction, but they are taking all that money. Companies will take anybody’s money if they are giving it away.
You are losing the flexibility of a dGPU