Why is it a mess? Their test unit is the pavilion 17 which has a large chassis and is probably easier to cool.Based on the 3dmark11 scores it could be a 35W cTDP which I think it is. This is what I meant, with AMDs huge cTDP variance this is a mess.
Why is it a mess? Their test unit is the pavilion 17 which has a large chassis and is probably easier to cool.
This is not the point.
So HP laptop chip seems to be configured at 15W PPT, wich means 20W for short periods and 15W the rest of the time; ST tests are not correct and indeed NBC has made a same mistake when they first measured Kaveri s CB scores, seems a carbon copy of said test that they updated later...15W = 0.95
20W = 0.98
At 20W the frequency stays at static 3.4GHz in ST workloads.
Meaning in this test the IPC is 9.1% greater than on Steamroller.
Based on the 3dmark11 scores it could be a 35W cTDP which I think it is. This is what I meant, with AMDs huge cTDP variance this is a mess.
Is the point that even Intel uses a ctdp and does the exact same thing yet it is a mess for amd?
Trying not to be passive aggressive but what do you think is the point?
.Intel doesn't do the exact same thing. Did you see a 15W ULV SKU turning into a 35W SKU? Or a 37W SKU turning into a 15W ULV SKU? On Intel this is much more restricted.
The point is you have a notebook and don't know how is it running/configured, as 15W or 35W. Nobody told 35W is a mess for a big 17" notebook assuming it is running at 35W which we don't know.
.
And a big lol about your post that show being total non sense in respect of reality, all you are posting are myths.
Once again, on Intel this is much more restricted. Calling this a myth is a big lol. You will do yourself a favour by doing a reality check. I'm sure it would help you a bit sometimes.
Now provide us the numbers for Intel, although i already know them, but it s for the curiosity..12W TDP = 20W (PPT xC Min)
15W TDP = 25W (PPT xC Min)
25W TDP = 42W (PPT xC Min)
35W TDP = 42W (PPT xC Min)
PPT is package power tracking
I compared results of Cinebench 11.5 from A12-8800p ( https://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=240581&postcount=911 ) and concluded, that a10-8700p was configured to 15 W (even not 15W PPT).
Also, being compared to Kaveri's results, they are closer to FX-7500p (19 Wt) rather than FX-7600p (35W).
Finally, testers says, that " E.g., the GPU can score between 1764 points (15 Watts) to 2359 points (+34% with 35 Watt cTDP) in 3DMark 11 (P). ", and the tested sample scored 1510.
And thank you for graphical results - it was too hard to find them for me )))
A10-8700p FX-7500 3-5005U
TDP 15 W 19 W+ 15 W + SB
Carrizo Kaveri Broadwell Carrizo/Kaveri Carrizo/Broadwell
Octane V2 - Total Score
Points 8324 8302 9551 100,26% 87,15%
Cinebench R15 - CPU Single 64Bit
Points 69 55 82 125,45% 84,15%
Cinebench R15 - CPU Multi 64Bit
Points 194 153 208 126,80% 93,27%
Mozilla Kraken 1,1 - Total Score
ms 3488,1 4430 3339,4
127,00% 95,74%
Geekbench 3 - 32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Points 4775 4116 4016 116,01% 118,90%
Geekbench 3 - 32 Bit Single-Core Score
Points 2006 1769 1912 113,40% 104,92%
Geekbench 3 - 64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Points 5105 4193 4113 121,75% 124,12%
Geekbench 3 - 64 Bit Single-Core Score
Points 2170 1720 1976 126,16% 109,82%
3DMark (2013) - Fire Strike Standard Physics 1920x1080
Points 2685 2365,5 3250 113,51% 82,62%
3DMark (2013) - Cloud Gate Standard Physics 1280x720
Points 2007 1721 2289 116,62% 87,68%
3DMark (2013) - Ice Storm Unlimited Physics 1280x720 offscreen (Kaveri = estimate)
Points 22946 20016,8 29332 114,63% 78,23%
3DMark (2013) - Ice Storm Extreme Physics 1920x1080 (Kaveri = estimate)
Points 22721 19820,6 25796 114,63% 88,08%
3DMark (2013) - Ice Storm Standard Physics 1280x720
Points 22740 19978 25552 113,83% 88,99%
Sunspider - 1,0 Total Score
ms 164,3 177 151,1
107,73% 91,97%
TrueCrypt - Serpent Mean 100MB
GB/s 0,188 0,148 0,112 127,03% 167,86%
TrueCrypt - Twofish Mean 100MB
GB/s 0,303 0,227 0,192 133,48% 157,81%
TrueCrypt - AES Mean 100MB
GB/s 1,5 1,1 1,2 136,36% 125,00%
X264 HD Benchmark 4,0 - Pass 2
fps 15,2 13,9 12,96 109,35% 117,28%
X264 HD Benchmark 4,0 - Pass 1
fps 74,4 68,5 69,7 108,61% 106,74%
WinRAR - Result
KB/s 1328 1478,5 1952 89,82% 68,03%
3DMark 11 - Performance Physics 1280x720
points 2181 2236,5 2704 97,52% 80,66%
3DMark Vantage - P CPU no PhysX 1280x1024
Points 6586 5569,5 7264 118,25% 90,67%
3DMark 06 - CPU -
Points 2843 2770,5 2713 102,62% 104,79%
Cinebench R11,5 - CPU Single 64Bit
Points 0,9 0,61 0,96 147,54% 93,75%
Cinebench R11,5 - CPU Multi 64Bit
Points 2,4 1,7 2,3 141,18% 104,35%
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
Points 3264 2166 4183 150,69% 78,03%
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
Points 8949 6453 8966 138,68% 99,81%
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Single 32Bit
Points 2343 2060 3116 113,74% 75,19%
Cinebench R10 - Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Points 6443 5482 6837 117,53% 94,24%
Super Pi mod 1,5 XS 1M -
Seconds 19,9 26,3 19,3
132,16% 96,98%
Super Pi mod 1,5 XS 2M -
Seconds 44,4 60 43,5
135,14% 97,97%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M -
Seconds 954 1517 962
159,01% 100,84%
Median: 117,9% 95,0%
Average: 121,8% 99,9%
Average advantage of A10-8700p over FX-7500 is 20%. But as compared to Broadwell i3-5005U, new APU is ~2,5% slower.
After short peaks of up to 35.6 watts, the load power consumption drops to the class average of almost 30 watts.
I think it should be the 15W part though but with dual graphics enabled so probably that same ball park of total consumption. According to AMD's own information the dual gpu config only works when configuring the A10-8700p as 15W chip. (This laptop has a R7 M360 btw)Based on the 3dmark11 scores it could be a 35W cTDP which I think it is. This is what I meant, with AMDs huge cTDP variance this is a mess.
Nice. Here is the gpu http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R6-Carrizo-Benchmarks.144290.0.html
@abwx can you compare the marketing slides to these results?
Despite of this, if you look at the results that actually matter in real world (cryptography and x264) you will notice that Carrizo absolutely destroys the competition and last year's mobile Kaveri platform.
Just one point. Cryptography isn't a good measure of CPU architecture enhancement, because only recently CPUs have started implementing it in hardware and the gains are enormous. It's also certainly not relevant in terms of the "whole picture".
A dissaster.... the previous generation the i4-4003U was losing against the Beema A8 6410.Average advantage of A10-8700p over FX-7500 is 20%. But as compared to Broadwell i3-5005U, new APU is ~2,5% slower.
Mikk, you got them p.... down!Intel doesn't do the exact same thing. Did you see a 15W ULV SKU turning into a 35W SKU? Or a 37W SKU turning into a 15W ULV SKU? On Intel this is much more restricted.
The point is you have a notebook and don't know how is it running/configured, as 15W or 35W. Nobody told 35W is a mess for a big 17" notebook assuming it is running at 35W which we don't know.
ULV Ivy Bridge parts will be rated at 17W, similar to the ULV SNB CPUs that are used in Ultrabooks and the new MacBook Air. Intel will also guarantee these chips at a higher frequency with a TDP of 33W. If the Ivy Bridge MacBook Air could dissipate 17W of heat normally but when placed on a docking station with additional cooling capabilities could remove 33W of heat, the CPU would simply run at a much higher frequency when docked.
The same applies in reverse. If you want the chip to behave as if it were a 13W part instead of a 17W part, that will be possible as well.
The extreme edition IVB parts will also support configurable TDP. 55W parts will be able to go up to 65W or go down to 45W.
The problem is people try to compare 35W chips, with or without cTDP down with 15W chips, with or without cTDP down.
One can just claim the 15W 5200U Broadwell-U chips run at 7.5W.
But as seen with a few posters, nice way to use 35W numbers against 15W or sub 15W numbers to distort reality.
We won't compare chips, we'll compare products. Just like we do in Intel's case.The problem is people try to compare 35W chips, with or without cTDP down with 15W chips, with or without cTDP down.