The article specifically stated the manufacturers said some models were probably not coming to market at all and others would not be coming to the US.
Computex is an international event. Those models were most likely not canceled, just planned exclusively for Europe or Asia to begin with, since AMD has no presence or marketability in the US laptop market.
The Asus X555D looks like an okay laptop. Too bad it isn't coming to the US.
Why does there seem to be a soft embargo on AMD laptops in the United States? It's fun to speculate/point fingers/make baseless accusations, but actual facts are rather short on the subject.
It seems like all the existing X555 models (all Intel as far as I can tell) have 37Whr batteries. Battery life is typically thoroughly mediocre, maybe even bad considering it's 2015. I wish AMD would just release their reference laptops as a consumer model, maybe toss in a 1080p IPS display.
Personally i would like a 14" 1366x768 IPS panel, FX-8800P at 20W max TDP, DDR-4 2400MHz and 256GB M2 SSD at 400-500 euro price range.
Personally i would like a 14" 1366x768 IPS panel, FX-8800P at 20W max TDP, DDR-4 2400MHz and 256GB M2 SSD at 400-500 euro price range.
I need:
1080p panel ips/similar tech with freesync
8gb ram
64gb ssd
2x2 wifi ac, bt and 4g
$499-699 price tag
Sd card slot not usd dammit!
Atleast a 50whr battery
I want:
Minimalist metal chassis
4x usb3
Backlit keys
Webcam
Speakers
Are you trying to take that out of context? We discussed specific test results (just to be clear: with given resolution, settings, drivers, device, processor resulting in some FPS number) in this thread before.Nope, you asked: "What are the usual differences between those internal results and results done by independent*) testers?". No mention to validity at all.
I don't know, if there are many big companies out there, which do it differently in their marketing campaigns. But for the more objective view we have review sites like AT, don't we?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.
For Bulldozer AMD surely did even more cherry pick (they had to), because it was a throughput oriented design, while many applications and games still relied on single core performance.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.
Are you trying to take that out of context? We discussed specific test results (just to be clear: with given resolution, settings, drivers, device, processor resulting in some FPS number) in this thread before.
I don't know, if there are many big companies out there, which do it differently in their marketing campaigns. But for the more objective view we have review sites like AT, don't we?
For Bulldozer AMD surely did even more cherry pick (they had to), because it was a throughput oriented design, while many applications and games still relied on single core performance.
And I wasn't giving credibility, but just asking a question. Which sets you into an interesting light regarding my last point about forums...
There is a difference between painting your product in the most positive light possible and painting your product in a manner completely divorced from reality. Unfortunately AMD leans towards the latter. Take for example the server market, Bulldozer was the ultimate crap on that market, even if processors came for free it wouldn't make sense to build a Bulldozer server, but yet the company failed to acknowledge this and tried to push that dog on the server market. The result was that not only the company server business was wiped out, AMD credibility on that market also was severely damaged.
In fact you claim "even if processors came for free it wouldn't make sense to build a Bulldozer server". And you even try to blame AMD for not acknowledging this? Lulz. I would love to see your numbers.
And you go on to claim [AMD's] "server business was wiped out". Of which your proof is something other than the ongoing server development.
If something was going to be described as "the ultimate crap" on anything... I'm surprised at the level of well thought out, objective, technical, & substantiated discussion going on.
*Snip*
You won't be getting native USB 3.1 from either Intel/AMD till we're well into the second half of 2016, probably even 2017, so third party controllers are the only way to get'em AFAIK.Mate, I'm not here to argue with you. My post was to illuminate how extreme the bias is in some posts around here. There are posts full of ludicrous statements and unsubstantiated claims, and they're made by posters who will troll threads "arguing" with anyone who disagrees.
I made my point pretty clearly, and I have no expectation of a logical discussion with you.
Back on topic and my quest for USB type C full functionality; I found wikipedia says: "The USB Power Delivery revision 2.0 specification has been released as part of the USB 3.1 suite". But from what I can see the Carrizo FCH only has USB 3.0.
So no full type C power for me unless they use a 3rd party controller? D:
Ok, just to recap. Frozentundra answered Maartens post about the Carrizo footnotes citing real numbers. The later presented results of the AT review matched those in the marketing slide brought up by IDC. Would AT test something which is "divorced from reality"?Certainly not. The discussion started with Frozentundra asking for a bit of parsimony since the published benchmarks were AMD internal results, and consequently probably cherry picked.
To explain this we might also call the human factor. This is not only a problem in forums and among sports fans. This also plays a role in companies. And I've learned many interesting things about it's influence. Most of us are no rational machines. That's why marketing ppl or company leaders might hide the complete truth. This happens and it surely wasn't Lisa Su's or Jim Keller's fault.They >>didn't<< have to. They just had to tell what Bulldozer really was in a marketing language and nobody would complain. It was extremely incompetent to portray Bulldozer as something it wasn't because the moment the reviewers got the chip, AMD fairy tale was dispelled.
You see, what I mean? Look above. Numbers shown, numbers matched, sites using the same benchmarks, etc. Especially in the given sample there were no heavy problems with quality. Instead I cited other cases, where this was the case.Let's see, we have a company with a history of plainly lying to customers and investors, a forum user ask for parsimony in dealing with leaked numbers and then you come asking what's possibly wrong with AMD numbers. Maybe I was mistaken but I understood you were saying that AMD numbers were fine, when in fact, there's an usual quality issue with them.
I guess that also sets you into an interesting light.
Mate, I'm not here to argue with you. My post was to illuminate how extreme the bias is in some posts around here. There are posts full of ludicrous statements and unsubstantiated claims, and they're made by posters who will troll threads "arguing" with anyone who disagrees.
I made my point pretty clearly, and I have no expectation of a logical discussion with you.
Back on topic and my quest for USB type C full functionality; I found wikipedia says: "The USB Power Delivery revision 2.0 specification has been released as part of the USB 3.1 suite". But from what I can see the Carrizo FCH only has USB 3.0.
So no full type C power for me unless they use a 3rd party controller? D:
Pretty much 0 chance of either occurring at that budget.
So AMD leans towards being "divorced from reality"? I knew engineers were a queer folk.
And Bulldozer was "the ultimate crap" on the server market? I think I need a definition...
In fact you claim "even if processors came for free it wouldn't make sense to build a Bulldozer server". And you even try to blame AMD for not acknowledging this? Lulz. I would love to see your numbers.
And you go on to claim [AMD's] "server business was wiped out". Of which your proof is something other than the ongoing server development.
If something was going to be described as "the ultimate crap" on anything... I'm surprised at the level of well thought out, objective, technical, & substantiated discussion going on.
I have every intention of buying a Carrizo laptop as my portable system, but only if they make the right one. And I don't mind getting towards the top of (or over) the $400-700 target segment.
<14 inch IPS, minimal bezel
1600x900 or more
freesync
fastest RAM supported
no dGPU
ssd (or options)
Importantly I want USB type C ports for power and connectivity. I've decided that I'm not going to buy new gear until we're in the type C era.
Edit: the FCH can support type C right? I don't know much about it. But I assumed it uses the regular controller, adds some power circuitry and a new port? Otherwise they'll just have to use a 3rd party controller, because I'm pretty stuck on type C ports...
They even doesn't do somewhat decent with Intel up the higher tier....I wouldn't count on it. I think you'd have a better chance of constructing your own laptop than OEMs making a decent laptop with those specs.