So what happens to the laptop market if... (intel+amd chip related)

Even if the combo makes a decent chip, I will be sticking with dGPU option.
 
Darakian said:
But why?
Click to expand...

So if I was in the market for a gaming laptop I would go all out for anything with Nvidia Max-Q, if guesses/tech specs are correct this supposed joint venture chip cannot compete.

If I was going for something to replace my Surface that is Surface like then I could see myself selecting this option if it was available.
 
DF-1 said:
AMD APUs are pretty much junk. Not ALL that much faster than iris pro. I don't see the big deal here at all. It's gonna be slow

If it's 1050ti+ levels of performance then it might be something.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Xbox One X to see what AMD can do with their APU's if they wanted. 980Ti level GPU with access to more VRAM than a 980Ti
 
Hakaba said:
So if I was in the market for a gaming laptop I would go all out for anything with Nvidia Max-Q, if guesses/tech specs are correct this supposed joint venture chip cannot compete.

If I was going for something to replace my Surface that is Surface like then I could see myself selecting this option if it was available.
Click to expand...

Surface would still use Nvidia if any dGPU ;)
 
RamonGTP said:
Take a look at the Xbox One X to see what AMD can do with their APU's if they wanted. 980Ti level GPU with access to more VRAM than a 980Ti
Click to expand...

GTX980TI performance? The Xbox One X is around a RX480/RX580 card. And last time I checked it was nowhere near GTX980TI performance. Did you mean GTX980 non TI? :)

And more VRAM is a maybe, it depends on the distribution for the game. Xbox One X games will use around 6-8GB for the graphics part I guess. Remember even today ~3GB goes to the OS etc and isn't even available for game application or graphics. So 12GB is already 9GB in that regard before you even begin. And then you can remove what's used for the actual game application next before you get to the graphics part.

And all that with 28nm vs 16nm and still using a lot of power. The only question for future consoles is if they will be ARM or Atom powered and using Nvidia or by a long shot Intel dGPUs.

Had the Xbox One X used a GTX1060 type GPU with the same performance you could remove 75-100W power usage and start with a "Slim" model.
 
Last edited:
RamonGTP said:
Take a look at the Xbox One X to see what AMD can do with their APU's if they wanted. 980Ti level GPU with access to more VRAM than a 980Ti
Click to expand...

Ehhh... While I could be wrong here it might be better to say “See what the developers can do with standardized hardware.” Most games that are developed for a specific console generally look amazing. It’s when there are ports between consoles or console to pc that things start looking meh,but this does not apply to every game.

Forza and GT almost always looked amazing even on what most pc gamers would consider substandard hardware.

Then again now consoles are fragmenting between generations.
 
Shintai said:
GTX980TI performance? The Xbox One X is around a RX480/RX580 card. And last time I checked it was nowhere near GTX980TI performance. Did you mean GTX980 non TI? :)

And more VRAM is a maybe, it depends on the distribution for the game. Xbox One X games will use around 6-8GB for the graphics part I guess. Remember even today ~3GB goes to the OS etc and isn't even available for game application or graphics. So 12GB is already 9GB in that regard before you even begin. And then you can remove what's used for the actual game application next before you get to the graphics part.

And all that with 28nm vs 16nm and still using a lot of power. The only question for future consoles is if they will be ARM or Atom powered and using Nvidia or by a long shot Intel dGPUs.

Had the Xbox One X used a GTX1060 type GPU with the same performance you could remove 75-100W power usage and start with a "Slim" model.
Click to expand...

No, I meant 980Ti. Both are right around 6 Teraflop GPU's
 
RamonGTP said:
No, I meant 980Ti. Both are right around 6 Teraflop GPU's
Click to expand...
TF isn't a great metric to compare different vendors. Like a Fury X is 8.6 TF but does about the same as a 980ti. That's held true for a few gens now.

Find the 4TF nVidia card and it's closer to the console.
 
Dayaks said:
TF isn't a great metric to compare different vendors. Like a Fury X is 8.6 TF but does about the same as a 980ti. That's held true for a few gens now.

Find the 4TF nVidia card and it's closer to the console.
Click to expand...

^^ This. Theoretical numbers and practical usage isn't the same.

Not to mention a GPU contains a lot more than just tflop numbers that affects performance.
 
It’s good indication of The computing power of the actual GPU is, it may ir may not directly translate to in game performance but it’s a valid comparison for raw processing power. For an integrated solution, it’s a beast. Imagine how many people wouldn’t even bother with a video card? Hopefully enough that nvidia’s stratospheric priding falls a bit closer to earth.
 
RamonGTP said:
It’s good indication of The computing power of the actual GPU is, it may ir may not directly translate to in game performance but it’s a valid comparison for raw processing power. For an integrated solution, it’s a beast. Imagine how many people wouldn’t even bother with a video card? Hopefully enough that nvidia’s stratospheric priding falls a bit closer to earth.
Click to expand...

The PS3 was what, 1.84Tflops? Using theoretical paper numbers is useless. Specially when they are just one of many in terms of performance metrics.

And integrated its a dud. Its hot, costly, slow and inefficient. And only one company is willing to buy it, and its called Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top