CPU isn't powerful enough for anything that requires a lot of CPU time.
GPU isn't powerful for larger projects.
Professional applications are increasingly moving to DX (ie autodesk).
luxmark
As a funny side note, a Haswell mobile quad scores 2 in Cinebench 11.5 running at 1Ghz. The reported power usage is hilariously low and just goes to show how much more throughput we could get in a sub 20W TDP quad core ULV part. (at 1.8Ghz it's still under 15W and scores around 5 pts)once thermaly or power constrained Haswell based devices will score around 2 in Cinebench for instance.
As a funny side note, a Haswell mobile quad scores 2 in Cinebench 11.5 running at 1Ghz. The reported power usage is hilariously low and just goes to show how much more throughput we could get in a sub 20W TDP quad core ULV part. (at 1.8Ghz it's still under 15W and scores around 5 pts)
Going back to Kaveri though, do the mobile parts never use more power than their rated TDP? I'm referring to something like the 30 second overshoot that most Intel ULVs use.
The test was done with the CPU limited to 10x multi.If a quad score 2 at 1.0 then a 4670K should score 6.8...
As for power usage they are high otherwise scores are much lower than what is displayed thanks to boosts at 200% of the cores specced power.
They seems to use their full TDP¨for some short time before getting below the official spec, the HP 17" and 14" below manage to sustain 33-34W on long runs while smaller formats like the 12"5 get to 26.4W, wich is obviously well below what a 19W TDP chip should induce at the main.
The test was done with the CPU limited to 10x multi.
Even if power estimates are not accurate at this frequency, take a look at the temps: fans were turned off for the entire test.
If that is the case, than Carrizo might be able to highlight this difference in power consumption approach, since integrating the FCH will lower idle power consumption and provide a more leveled playing field.
Intel CPUs are not capable of providing better perfs, the tests at notebookcheck are done out of normal TDP range, once thermaly or power constrained Haswell based devices will score around 2 in Cinebench for instance.
As for the GPU it can run pro applications like solidworks while the Intel IGP cant, you re forgetting the essential but is it a surprise.?.
I still have no clue as to your actual point.
Want more performance in a bulkier body? Buy a quad.
No offense but if you are making money with the laptop just get a dgpu model.
AMD's OpenGL drivers are not particularly great. System is often power constrained and throttles.
You can argue that nobody seems to be able to touch AMD for a single chip solution (debatable as some may disagree), but it seems that the market doesn't care.
As for the GPU it can run pro applications like solidworks while the Intel IGP cant, you re forgetting the essential but is it a surprise.?.
please guys, dont stop until this thread is locked...
AMD's OpenGL drivers are freaking mindblowing compared to Intel's dismal OpenGL drivers.
The fastest selling game consoles for both Microsoft and Sony that are powered by these APU's, says the market actually does care. Just because Intel is paying/bribing OEM's (with contra-revenue) to take their inferior chips for laptops/tablets, doesn't diminish the fact that APU's are considerably better balanced performing single chip solutions for laptops.
Regarding the current laptop market:
If I was paying someone $20 per chip, to take my product -- I'd probably have a lot of my product on the market right now, too.
More performance in the same format...that is, with the discussed CPUs that are somewhere in the 15-20W TDP range, or supposed to be so, and wich are in the typical laptop that people buy, not your exemple of a semi portable that exhaust 80-100W of the necessary bulkier body...
And my point is that in thoses formats, and hence 15W typical CPUs TDPs, Haswell CPUs offer less performance than Beema for instance, Carrizo will get the same efficency up to 25W or so.
Why are we limiting ourselves to 15-20W? Why this arbitrary distinction?
The average consumer is unlikely to use anything that scales to 4 cores. If you want to bring up graphics, which for some reason is brought up in every other thread, then Haswell U ties or beats Beema.
Carrizio is already behind BW-U. That is its competition.
Why are we limiting ourselves to 15-20W? Why this arbitrary distinction? People buy notebooks to get the job done in a given form factor and battery life. OEMs sell a ton of 17" BT or cat core notebooks. Its the price, not the power consumption that matters as these types of chassis can easily take 35-45W.
You still don't seem to be getting it. The consumer does not normalize to 15W. Say you buy that HP notebook and compare the i3U vs. Beema configuration. Nobody cares about extra turbo power use (which doesn't exist) if they can never detect it and the performance outweighs the power use.
The average consumer is unlikely to use anything that scales to 4 cores. If you want to bring up graphics, which for some reason is brought up in every other thread, then Haswell U ties or beats Beema.
Carrizio is already behind BW-U. That is its competition.
I got several laptops with 35W chips including the T4400 17" i m typing on
The console market (ie sony and MS) are NOT the people who go out and buy a laptop. Completely different markets; you can't point at success in one and say that means success in another, especially when there hasn't been success.
Different markets? It's the same APU. Your right though -- different in the fact that AMD isn't paying $20 a chip to Sony and Microsoft to take the chips off their hands (like Intel is doing for their "jaguar" competitor, the Atom).
Imagine that -- A buyer (Sony/Microsoft) that actually pays the manufacturer (AMD) for the chips its makes. Despite Intel paying OEMs to take their chip off their hands -- x86 marketshare is up for AMD thanks to game console contracts. I really can't imagine how anyone is now arguing that AMD increasing their marketshare = failure..... But I'm enjoying watching you try.
Atom doesn't compete with Jaguar. AMD has zero market share competing with Atom in the tablet space. But you know that and you're just trying to move the goalposts again.
What's jaguar's market share outside of consoles?
Jaguar was designed specifically to compete with Atom. Seriously, you are completely lost.
Different markets? It's the same APU. Your right though -- different in the fact that AMD isn't paying $20 a chip to Sony and Microsoft to take the chips off their hands (like Intel is doing for their "jaguar" competitor, the Atom).
Imagine that -- A buyer (Sony/Microsoft) that actually pays the manufacturer (AMD) for the chips its makes. Despite Intel paying OEMs to take their chip off their hands -- x86 marketshare is up for AMD thanks to game console contracts. I really can't imagine how anyone is now arguing that AMD increasing their marketshare = failure..... But I'm enjoying watching you try.
Nice bump man, very nice improvement from the drivers
Can you run at least 2 games and compare?
Atom doesn't compete with Jaguar. AMD has zero market share competing with Atom in the tablet space. But you know that and you're just trying to move the goalposts again.
What's jaguar's market share outside of consoles?
Jaguar was designed specifically to compete with Atom. Seriously, you are completely lost.
http://www.techpowerup.com/180394/a...he-fight-to-atom-with-avx-sse4-quad-core.html
You really don't seem to know what you're talking about. It was a stated design goal for the Jaguar micro-architecture when it was announced. This is not an opinion, this is a matter of fact. Jaguar (and its predecessor Bobcat) was/is targeting Atom.
At this point, I would just quit while you're ahead (or not).
Their converation started on the wrong foot to begin with. Now it's just spitballing.MiddleOfTheRoad, I have no horse in this race between you and Phynaz, or between Atom and Jaguar, but your post seems to completely miss what Phynaz actually wrote.
Their converation started on the wrong foot to begin with. Now it's just spitballing.