An HDD consumes much more power than an SSD especially on continuous reading as would happen during video playback so that's not that farfetched.
An HDD consumes much more power than an SSD especially on continuous reading as would happen during video playback so that's not that farfetched.
That explains a lot.Ok, I found some data- I guess ~1W could be saved in video playback by using SSD vs average HDD:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/ssd-charts-2014/Power-Requirement-HD-Video-Playback,2812.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/chart...Power-Requirement-HD-Video-Playback,3001.html
56Wh/9h= 6.2W
56Wh/7.25h= 7.7W - so I guess using a SSD and single channel RAM could save those 1.5W and extend battery life a lot.
Seems like an SSD would have the system at idle quicker and for longer periods, since file transfers and moves happen so much faster? I would think an SSD would be idling more than a HDD, and therefore the CPU would be idling more?Battery life differences aren't that clear. It depends heavily on the SSD whether you actually get a battery life benefit over a regular HDD.
SSD's faster performance also means the system is idling less so in that sense it might increase power consumption in some cases.
Wait for reviews.
Battery life differences aren't that clear. It depends heavily on the SSD whether you actually get a battery life benefit over a regular HDD.
SSD's faster performance also means the system is idling less so in that sense it might increase power consumption in some cases.
Wait for reviews.
Seems like an SSD would have the system at idle quicker and for longer periods, since file transfers and moves happen so much faster? I would think an SSD would be idling more than a HDD, and therefore the CPU would be idling more?
We also have to factor in Windows power settings.
Early SSDs did not focus on significantly lowering idle power consumption, especially considering DEVSLP was implemented with SSDs in mind and it took a while to be widely adopted. In the early days some SSDs were using more than 500-600mW in active idle which is about how much a 2.5" 5400rpm with 1 platter uses, and some SSDs used more than 800-1000mW which is more than a 2.5" 7200rpm drive uses. So battery life wasn't better because early SSD did not have lower idle and load power than mobile HDDs.Early SSD reviews had battery life comparisons and very few of the SSDs have shown small benefit, most being none, or even worse. Since then reviews barely compare the battery life differences anymore and just assume SSDs are by default, low power, and must save battery life. They measure Idle power and Load power and assume because those two numbers are lower it'll translate into lower for everything. Funny, because early SSDs had lower Idle and Load power than SSDs too but battery life wasn't better. Like I said, it often was on par or worse.
You should really make a longer break after working for 8h. Take a walk, make a coffe/some food, maybe even sleep a little bit... and your laptop will re-charge in that time.Now the same laptop with Ryzen mobile is also available for sale in Czech Republic.
http://www.hpmarket.cz/productOpt.asp?konfId=2PH18EA
2x4GB RAM, 256GB SSD- and also claiming 10h15 minute battery life/ 9h video playback. On the other hand- same model and parts with Intel i7 8550U lists up to 12h/12h battery life. This is really important for positioning one or the other brand as the very best for high-end ultrabooks. Better iGPU on Raven Ridge being less important feature.
Why are there no official reviews for these laptops? Is AMD waiting for updated VEGA drivers to seed the devices to the reviewers?
Since the CEO of AMD had to go to Best Buy to get one, I think it's safe to say AMD didn't get any to send out to reviewers.
And Best Buy as well.I think it's safe to say you know the CEO of AMD didn't have to go to Best Buy to get one. At least I hope that was just spin and not sheer stupidity. HP would have given Su one without hesitation.
But let's use facts instead of FUD. The CEO of AMD went to Best Buy to purchase a laptop because it is good PR and marketing for both AMD and HP.
You missed his point though. It isn't about Lisa Su getting one, it's about the maybe 80-100 units, or even more, for reviewers.I think it's safe to say you know the CEO of AMD didn't have to go to Best Buy to get one. At least I hope that was just spin and not sheer stupidity. HP would have given Su one without hesitation.
But let's use facts instead of FUD. The CEO of AMD went to Best Buy to purchase a laptop because it is good PR and marketing for both AMD and HP.
You missed his point though. It isn't about Lisa Su getting one, it's about the maybe 80-100 units, or even more, for reviewers.
I don't see how this is a positive move. AMD does have the clout with HP to have them send review units to showcase their new, awesome product. This move doesn't inspire confidence. I suspect something is amiss. Maybe power consumption?The problem is AMD in the past when sending out review units of a new arch on laptop they have actually had a company produce specific ES laptops for them. It's really up HP and other OEM's to send out review laptops if they wish to have them tested by popular sites. This kind of changed with Ryzen and certainly Threadripper as those were build your own systems with Retail components. But they still haven't as far as I have know had an OEM send out finished retail systems as review systems.
But let's use facts instead of FUD.
The CEO of AMD went to Best Buy to purchase a laptop because it is good PR and marketing for both AMD and HP.
You missed his point though. It isn't about Lisa Su getting one, it's about the maybe 80-100 units, or even more, for reviewers.
It's not a showcase piece. It's one thing to send 1K worth of Hardware with your 1k CPU, as a halo product. It's another thing another thing to convince your partner whom you are still rebuilding a relationship with to send out $1,500 kits for so people can review a sub $200 CPU in less than perfect setting (since HP is using a 15w and not a 25w chassis).I don't see how this is a positive move. AMD does have the clout with HP to have them send review units to showcase their new, awesome product. This move doesn't inspire confidence. I suspect something is amiss. Maybe power consumption?
So, if you're in the market for a 15W 'book, you wouldn't want to see how the AMD compares to Intel's offerings?It's not a showcase piece. It's one thing to send 1K worth of Hardware with your 1k CPU, as a halo product. It's another thing another thing to convince your partner whom you are still rebuilding a relationship with to send out $1,500 kits for so people can review a sub $200 CPU in less than perfect setting (since HP is using a 15w and not a 25w chassis).
No, nor did I imply anything close to that. What I said was it doesn't make sense for AMD to put pressure on HP to supply reviewers with laptops, Laptops that are a sub optimal implementations of the CPU. That's also part of the problem. Unlike desktop systems that offer pretty static results across multiple configurations. Laptops are widely different. Is it a 9/15/25w implementation? Does it throttle? How soon does it throttle? Does the it seem to get hotter than normal? How long does the battery last? All of these are based on the OEM's choices and not AMD's design. Most of them affect performance. So the only thing that matters is what the performance is when you have already set those filters (trying to compare one 360 against another or very similar system). For example as far the 2500u or 2700u applies I only care about the performance of it inside a Surface like tablet with removable keyboard.So, if you're in the market for a 15W 'book, you wouldn't want to see how the AMD compares to Intel's offerings?
Since the CEO of AMD had to go to Best Buy to get one, I think it's safe to say AMD didn't get any to send out to reviewers.