I'm excited for Tiger Lake, but I'll take my performance claims from somebody who isn't the amateur Intel shill turned Intel's official shill.

For a second I thought the iGPU's AI is smart enough to play the game itself.

SandboFor a second I thought the iGPU's AI is smart enough to play the game itself.

Not the only one :laugh:

Asus Vivobook.
My partner just bought the current model for herself and it appears identical.
The good thing is they come in 17.3" as well.

SandboFor a second I thought the iGPU's AI is smart enough to play the game itself.

Me too

While this is certainly a great leap in performance from its current UHD6xx and 9xx, I am still skeptical about it taking on dedicated graphics. It could come closer to say a MX150/250, but under sustained load in games, the limited power and shared resources will limit its performance.

There's probably a chiller under the table lol.

I see Ryan do better than Intel last attempt :laugh:

[Youtube]

Always happy with moar IGP power.

is this the same one that crashes ?

and what does the editor mean by 1080p 30Hz ? 30 fps ?

Once a liar, always a liar.

cucker tarlson30 fps ?

You know it.

With Intel still singlethreaded performance is more important, four cores more than enough and now 30fps ultra smooth.

Anyway, good to see them pushing iGPU graphics. AMD is not going to do it by themselves, because they also need to sell graphics cards. So, if Intel starts pushing in the iGPU and low end graphics cards market, it will be good for the consumer. Nvidia is pushing prices up to stratosphere, AMD follows because it is also in it's own interest, it's funny that all hopes are on Intel.

cucker tarlsonis this the same one that crashes ?

and what does the editor mean by 1080p 30Hz ? 30 fps ?

If V Sync/ adaptive sync is on, then I reckoned that it is 30 FPS. Will be interesting to know what is the specs of this laptop (memory speed in particular), and what is the settings they are playing the game.

watzupkenIf V Sync/ adaptive sync is on, then I reckoned that it is 30 FPS. Will be interesting to know what is the specs of this laptop (memory speed in particular), and what is the settings they are playing the game. I believe it should be 1080p @ low settings.

High settings, as for the memory, probably the fastest memory the CPU can handle.

john_With Intel still singlethreaded performance is more important, four cores more than enough and now 30fps ultra smooth.

Anyway, good to see them pushing iGPU graphics. AMD is not going to do it by themselves, because they also need to sell graphics cards. So, if Intel starts pushing in the iGPU and low end graphics cards market, it will be good for the consumer. Nvidia is pushing prices up to stratosphere, AMD follows because it is also in it's own interest, it's funny that all hopes are on Intel.

But the sales of integrated and non-integrated graphics cards are not related in this way.

For example, the iGPU Vega Enhanced 10 in the Renoir based Ryzen 9 4900HS is faster than GF MX 250 by a considerable margin, if graphics heavy loads it is 50% of the performance of GTX 1650 Max-Q, while in more CPU-limited scnarios it can be even faster in the min FPS.
www.techspot.com/review/2003-amd-ryzen-4000/#:~:text=The%20Ryzen%209%204900HS%20is,with%20some%20of%20this%20workload

AMD is about to launch a new lineup of Navi 2X chips, Navi 23, Navi 22 and Navi 21.

If Navi 23 is as fast as RTX 2080 or even RTX 2080 Ti, you would expect very high iGPU performance jump, too.

ARFBut the sales of integrated and non-integrated graphics cards are not related in this way.

For example, the iGPU Vega Enhanced 10 in the Renoir based Ryzen 9 4900HS is faster than GF MX 250 by a considerable margin, if graphics heavy loads it is 50% of the performance of GTX 1650 Max-Q, while in more CPU-limited scnarios it can be even faster in the min FPS.
www.techspot.com/review/2003-amd-ryzen-4000/#:~:text=The%20Ryzen%209%204900HS%20is,with%20some%20of%20this%20workload

AMD is about to launch a new lineup of Navi 2X chips, Navi 23, Navi 22 and Navi 21.

If Navi 23 is as fast as RTX 2080 or even RTX 2080 Ti, you would expect very high iGPU performance jump, too.

They are related. We see many examples with laptops that have a good integrated GPU, but also have a discrete GPU. The fastest the iGPU, less examples of this type of configuration we will see in the future. But that's in laptops and in laptops AMD might have a need for a better iGPU because it needs to convince OEMs to use it's products instead of Intel's and Nvidia's. And it is extremelly difficult to convince big OEMs to not stick with the bigger company.

In desktops, AMD doesn't want to push integrated graphics more than it will be necessary, to have the crown of the fastest iGPU and at the same time a safe distance with the lowest of it's discrete cards. So, it's APUs come always with good enough iGPU, that is not enough to reach an RX 550 for example, but they are also gimped elsewhere. With the first APUs you got CPU cores of last gen and with Renoir you lose PCIe 4.0 and also a couple GPU cores.

As for Navi, we will have to wait and see in which market segments AMD will release graphics cards. They might avoid making cheap models for the low-mid range market. And for iGPUs, that move, going from 10-11 GPU cores back to 6-8, it is not something very promising. The next generation of iGPUs could end up Navi based with 6-8 GPU cores, just enough to beat the new Intel iGPUs, but nothing to make us excited.

john_They are related. We see many examples with laptops that have a good integrated GPU, but also have a discrete GPU. The fastest the iGPU, less examples of this type of configuration we will see in the future. But that's in laptops and in laptops AMD might have a need for a better iGPU because it needs to convince OEMs to use it's products instead of Intel's and Nvidia's. And it is extremelly difficult to convince big OEMs to not stick with the bigger company.

In desktops, AMD doesn't want to push integrated graphics more than it will be necessary, to have the crown of the fastest iGPU and at the same time a safe distance with the lowest of it's discrete cards. So, it's APUs come always with good enough iGPU, that is not enough to reach an RX 550 for example, but they are also gimped elsewhere. With the first APUs you got CPU cores of last gen and with Renoir you lose PCIe 4.0 and also a couple GPU cores.

As for Navi, we will have to wait and see in which market segments AMD will release graphics cards. They might avoid making cheap models for the low-mid range market. And for iGPUs, that move, going from 10-11 GPU cores back to 6-8, it is not something very promising. The next generation of iGPUs could end up Navi based with 6-8 GPU cores, just enough to beat the new Intel iGPUs, but nothing to make us excited.

You do know that the new iGPUs based on Vega have better performance with less CUs, right? CU count in and of itself means nothing, it only matters as it relates to performance, and the new Vega iGPU has better performance, so as long as that's the case, what does it matter how many CUs it has?

Also, AMD could have made really powerful APUs already, but here's the thing, there's not as much money in it as Intel thinks. Anyone who actually cares about graphical performance (e.g. Looks at benchmarks and knows a thing or two about hardware) is going to get a laptop with a discrete GPU, meaning the people who are buying laptops with iGPUs only are probably not going to be playing AAA games on it, you understand what I'm saying? Basically, these increased iGPU power will be in laptops typically purchased by a demographic who won't even care about the iGPU power. This is why APUs haven't been pushed harder graphically, and in order for them to be pushed hard, they really need their own VRAM, like embedded HBM, this is why the SoCs/APUs in the new consoles are so powerful, dedicated GDDR6, and that need for high performance memory WON'T be solved by DDR5, which does bring the memory bandwidth closer, but nowhere close enough.

Go Google AMD patents, AMD has plenty of IP directed at APUs with integrated HBM, etc etc, they can do it, I just believe there's very little financial incentive for doing it.

Remember, in our capitalist reality, what gets created or not isn't necessarily based on capability (which AMD obviously has the capability to make GPU powerhouse APUs), but on profitability, if someone can't make money off of it, it's not likely to get made.

An iGPU guarantees low prices which is exactly what many users try to get. If they get high iGPU performance for less money, they will stick with it.

The users are simply forced to avoid the iGPUs because they are very poor for all gaming.

You can't force the user to choose one game and not another.

Many children don't have money for RTX 2080 Ti, but they will be more than happy if you give them that performance in low power envelope and in a $300 or $400 notebook or desktop PC.

AnarchoPrimitivRemember, in our capitalist reality, what gets created or not isn't necessarily based on capability (which AMD obviously has the capability to make GPU powerhouse APUs), but on profitability, if someone can't make money off of it, it's not likely to get made.

Profitability doesn't necessarily equal cash in the bank account. But also the market share, reputation and name of the corporation which AMD still has a lot of work to put onto. With this 20% market share in a duopoly environment, they are nowhere.

AnarchoPrimitivYou do know that the new iGPUs based on Vega have better performance with less CUs, right? CU count in and of itself means nothing, it only matters as it relates to performance, and the new Vega iGPU has better performance, so as long as that's the case, what does it matter how many CUs it has?

That's my point. Because of better CPU cores and support for faster memory, they had the option to cut CUs, while offering equivalent performance and they did that. Which is bad for us consumers. If they wanted to offer the best, they would have kept the 8-10 CUs in the new APUs. Now, if you like to see stagnation the type Intel fans ate in their faces for years, then let's cut CUs to 5-6 max, if Navi architecture can offer the same performance with less CUs. Right? A couple of new features and better power efficincy will be more than enough, right?

Also, AMD could have made really powerful APUs already, but here's the thing, there's not as much money in it as Intel thinks. Anyone who actually cares about graphical performance (e.g. Looks at benchmarks and knows a thing or two about hardware) is going to get a laptop with a discrete GPU, meaning the people who are buying laptops with iGPUs only are probably not going to be playing AAA games on it, you understand what I'm saying?

Yes I see what you are doing. You are throwing at me a gazillion of excuses of why I should be happy with less. Good luck with that.

Basically, these increased iGPU power will be in laptops typically purchased by a demographic who won't even care about the iGPU power. This is why APUs haven't been pushed harder graphically, and in order for them to be pushed hard, they really need their own VRAM, like embedded HBM, this is why the SoCs/APUs in the new consoles are so powerful, dedicated GDDR6, and that need for high performance memory WON'T be solved by DDR5, which does bring the memory bandwidth closer, but nowhere close enough.

That's your opinion, but not a fact. For example. Even people who buy systems for casual usage could try someday to run a game or two. If they see that this game is unplayable, they will ask someone and get informed that they need a laptop with a better GPU. But if that laptop can play that game good enough, their next laptop will be an AMD laptop. The opposite is one of the reasons AMD can't penetrate OEMs. With bulldozer CPUs AMD managed to get a very bad reputation. They need to fix that reputation and even go further and build a positive reputation. As for memory bandwidth. If 10 CUs could play ball in the past with 2400 MHz dual channel RAM, then 10 CUs would have loved 3200MHz or faster RAM. Going down to 8 CUs, it's not a good sign. And yes the memory bandwidth isn't difficult to be solved. 10+ years ago on really cheap motherboards you had a nice featured that was called "sideport memory".

Go Google AMD patents, AMD has plenty of IP directed at APUs with integrated HBM, etc etc, they can do it, I just believe there's very little financial incentive for doing it.

Look, you are mixing things up. We are not in a financial forum talking as two AMD investors about what will push the share price up. We are in TechPowerUp and we are talking as consumers and computer users. As a consumer, I really don't give a <<beep>> about their number of patterns or why they don't want to offer me the product I expect from them.

Remember, in our capitalist reality, what gets created or not isn't necessarily based on capability (which AMD obviously has the capability to make GPU powerhouse APUs), but on profitability, if someone can't make money off of it, it's not likely to get made.

Remember that in a capitalist reality you don't need to be a voluntary victim. AMD is trying to increase it's profit margins. That's fine with me as long as it offers the options and at the same time doesn't shoot it's feet while trying to increase that profit margin. Consumers who turn to AMD after a decade or more of being familiar with Intel, only need an excuse to go back to Intel. AMD made that mistake 14 years ago, by downgrading over time products that where beating the competition.

john_Remember that in a capitalist reality you don't need to be a voluntary victim. AMD is trying to increase it's profit margins. That's fine with me as long as it offers the options and at the same time doesn't shoot it's feet while trying to increase that profit margin. Consumers who turn to AMD after a decade or more of being familiar with Intel, only need an excuse to go back to Intel. AMD made that mistake 14 years ago, by downgrading over time products that where beating the competition.

Increased profit margins also has a cost and it's the declining sales themselves.
And when they rebrand so bad performance like an RX 530 or RX 550 for half a decade, nothing good will happen.

Why Apple is the largest corporation with a trillion and a half $ market cap? Because it has gigantic profits but also large sales which AMD hasn't got.

1d10tI see Ryan do better than Intel last attempt :laugh:

[Youtube]

He was at least a good presenter. I've sat through quite a few of his Computex presentations and they were at least not dead boring.

ARFIncreased profit margins also has a cost and it's the declining sales themselves.
And when they rebrand so bad performance like an RX 530 or RX 550 for half a decade, nothing good will happen.

Why Apple is the largest corporation with a trillion and a half $ market cap? Because it has gigantic profits but also large sales which AMD hasn't got.

They had done more stupid in the past while trying to keep or increase profits, only to lose market share.
Three examples that comes in my mind.
1) Bulldozer CPUs. The day after I read the first review of the 8120, I gone out and bought a Thuban 1055T.
2) Sempron. When it came out it was much faster than Celeron. Year after year it was starting to lose that advantage. In the end Intel's Celeron was a better option.
3) The replacement of HD 7730, 7750 and 7770 with slower models, the R7 240 and R7 250.

P.S. RX 550 is Polaris, 530 is a rebrand.

john_Remember that in a capitalist reality you don't need to be a voluntary victim.

Remember that's not always a choice. Got Covid but no insurance, or govt backed insurance ~ well sucks for you because that's how the Capitalist construct works! Enjoy coughing your lungs out for a week or two, if you survive you'll probably never be the same ever again :shadedshu:

john_They had done more stupid in the past while trying to keep or increase profits, only to lose market share.
Three examples that comes in my mind.
1) Bulldozer CPUs. The day after I read the first review of the 8120, I gone out and bought a Thuban 1055T.
2) Sempron. When it came out it was much faster than Celeron. Year after year it was starting to lose that advantage. In the end Intel's Celeron was a better option.
3) The replacement of HD 7730, 7750 and 7770 with slower models, the R7 240 and R7 250.

P.S. RX 550 is Polaris, 530 is a rebrand.

So the problem is that AMD forgets to update its products and pricings.