It doesn't appear that 15w Mullins beats Broadwell Y at that load, at least based on the stress tests (although I'm not sure that really means anything).
Also, in that case Carrizo has to beat the Y models at continuous loads, right? Otherwise it's really embarrasing.
I mean... it isn't really saying much when Dell is offering those models only with either Carrizo or Braswell. AMD is still in the value products, with the Core series sitting alone in the high end. Nice to see AMD get back in the mix, but I don't think Dell's product offerings support your statement that Carrizo will crush Skylake. It seems to do the opposite. Atom Braswell is the competitor of Carrizo, not Skylake.
Furmark is a burn test for a reason of course. Consume as much as possible and break my gpu so I can abuse the RMA system kind of thing...AVX2 Prime and Furmark are extremely atypical workloads. Don't think cherry trail does much better.
I know but it's not a marketing graph it's a concrete number with high number of significant figures. It should give a good indication I wonder if those are lowest or max or avg idle numbers though. i5 5200u can certainly hit idle consumption temporarily as low as 2W. So I guess those are averages since the max would be like 6W.Just to be clear, those are AMD internal benchmarks, not independent tests by notebookcheck.
I know but it's not a marketing graph it's a concrete number with high number of significant figures. It should give a good indication I wonder if those are lowest or max or avg idle numbers though. i5 5200u can certainly hit idle consumption temporarily as low as 2W. So I guess those are averages since the max would be like 6W.
Excited for the E3, "Fiji" and Carrizo too bad I won't have that much time to see it all as my examination month is coming up. Damm you Hague University planning those things parallel to the E3!
That either Carrizo sucks or Intel lied big time about their power consumption which they by the way do all the time. 9W power consumption when just watching 1080P video I really do doubt the screen, ram, speakers were consuming the 6 additional J/s(W)
Or do you think it should be fully loaded when playing video even then that makes 4,5W.
The review's max at basically a small load (watching video) was 9W. Memory and HDD/SSD in those scenarios use in the order of 200mW and I find it unlikely that they used the world's poorest screen in terms of power consumption. Anyways Core M has 2 options stay withing said power consumption and have the world's worst performance + can not do GPU and CPU at the same time. Or go over and perform decently.Actually, it can.
The idle power with screen on on an efficient Haswell system is about 3-4W. The rest of the system is not inactive on HD playback, so they'll consume power on top of that. Even the SSD/HDD will be using power. Intel improved a lot with Haswell but don't expect others to be zero.
It shows right there on the review you linked how much power the SoC is consuming, which is 6W, which is at max.
No, I am not excusing for the Core M, which is a poor excuse for a product paraded as next "Conroe". But you should do more research as well.
Regarding Carrizo, I do expect nice surprises from the product, and probably get the closest to Intel products in years. Their 15W product I am expecting 2.4 points in Cinebench R11.5, which makes it competitive with Broadwell 15W. Their graphics will be quite fantastic for the price, on the 35W part pratically bringing Iris Pro 6200 performance without the price(and without the eDRAM which tells how horrible Intel GPU architecture is).
Just to be clear, those are AMD internal benchmarks, not independent tests by notebookcheck.
So when will we get actual products in our hands? I have some friends and family looking for new laptops that can also do "some gaming".
The review's max at basically a small load (watching video) was 9W. Memory and HDD/SSD in those scenarios use in the order of 200mW and I find it unlikely that they used the world's poorest screen in terms of power consumption. Anyways Core M has 2 options stay withing said power consumption and have the world's worst performance + can not do GPU and CPU at the same time. Or go over and perform decently.
Carrizo sounds nice thus far.
Good point. I read it very often in such forums. And since we like to use scientific methods, I ask:
What are the usual differences between those internal results and results done by independent*) testers?
*) not only outside AMD, but really independent
You don't remember being awash in BS marketing slides like this?
You don't remember being awash in BS marketing slides like this?
AMD fans tend to have a very short memory when regarding the sins of AMD marketing department.
You don't remember being awash in BS marketing slides like this?
You don't remember being awash in BS marketing slides like this?
AMD fans tend to have a very short memory when regarding the sins of AMD marketing department.
Marketing can be bad - or even worse. But I didn't talk about the quality but about the validity of numbers (I'm engineer and not marketeer - although my mother company is quite good at marketing).
New Carrizo laptops incoming!
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-carrizo-notebooks-coming-sort-of,29309.html
Let's hope some (most) are under $500.
New Carrizo laptops incoming!
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-carrizo-notebooks-coming-sort-of,29309.html
Let's hope some (most) are under $500.
Actually if you read the entire article, some models are already cancelled. Nothing very definite there at all.
Nope, you asked: "What are the usual differences between those internal results and results done by independent*) testers?". No mention to validity at all.
But I think your post pretty much sums up the issue with AMD numbers: Quality. Can we expect AMD processors to perform across the board the way AMD portraits them in their marketing slides? No, we can't. Usually it is a bunch of cherry picked numbers that do not correspond to the overall performance of their processors. That AMD information would only be of any use if having quality enough to help users to make a better acquisition, but as it is stated it does exactly the opposite, it misleads AMD customers.
On that benchmark cases, AMD says that the first Bulldozer was *the* competitor to SNB Core series, and we know that Bulldozer only matches Sandy Bridge in very specific cases, or on AMD resellers advertising.
It's rather interesting to see you mentioning an agenda of reducing selective misinformation out there when you are giving credibility for a company that has been using the expedient of providing selective misinformation to both consumers and investors, and using an AMD reseller/agitprop to prove your point. Maybe you are being too selective.