• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Alienware Unleashes the Ultimate AMD Advantage Laptop and Industry-First 480Hz Display Technology

Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,413 (1.00/day)
System Name M3401 notebook
Processor 5600H
Motherboard NA
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) 3050
Storage 500GB SSD
Display(s) 14" OLED screen of the laptop
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores 3050 scores good 15-20% lower than average, despite ASUS's claims that it has uber cooling.
AMD have had the power efficiency advantage for quite some time now.
I still remember Raja time Vega 7, clearly more than just node advantage has bumped AMD's perf/power into top.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
115 (0.02/day)
Location
Brazil
Processor Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard ASRock B650M PG Riptide
Cooling Wraith Max + 2x Noctua Redux NF-P12
Memory 2x16GB ADATA XPG Lancer Blade DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) Powercolor RX 7800 XT Fighter OC
Storage ADATA Legend 970 2TB PCIe 5.0
Display(s) Dell 32" S3222DGM - 1440P 165Hz + P2422H
Case HYTE Y40
Audio Device(s) Microsoft Xbox TLL-00008
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE 750 V2
Mouse Alienware AW320M
Keyboard Alienware AW510K
Software Windows 11 Pro
A 480Hz display is more of a marketing gimmick to me. As far as performance is concerned, it's on par with the 3080Ti mobile.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
8,179 (3.93/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
I still remember Raja time Vega 7, clearly more than just node advantage has bumped AMD's perf/power into top.
Raja's Vega was all 14nm apart from the Radeon VII which launched 18 months or so after he'd left AMD for Intel. The Radeon VII was actually damn competitive in terms of performance/Watt despite being an almost exact port of the older Vega64 over to TSMC 7nm.

1658436859001.png


Not only was it almost 50% more efficient, it did that despite being a flagship part clocked 250MHz higher than Vega64 and powering twice the amount of HBM2.

In case my point isn't clear, TSMC 7 handed AMD (or rather, it's fairer to say that AMD paid the premium for) a huge advantage that Nvidia didn't take. RTX 2000-series was TSMC 12 and RTX 3000-series is Samsung 8nm. Even now, the latest and greatest Nvidia 3090Ti is still using a process node that's behind the 2019 TSMC 7FF of Radeon VII and all of the RX 5000-series.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,413 (1.00/day)
System Name M3401 notebook
Processor 5600H
Motherboard NA
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) 3050
Storage 500GB SSD
Display(s) 14" OLED screen of the laptop
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores 3050 scores good 15-20% lower than average, despite ASUS's claims that it has uber cooling.
Raja's Vega was all 14nm apart from the Radeon VII which launched 18 months or so after he'd left AMD for Intel. The Radeon VII was actually damn competitive in terms of performance/Watt despite being an almost exact port of the older Vega64 over to TSMC 7nm
You have conveniently skipped 2080 that was on a way inferior process node AND more power hungry memory, but had 37-45% more perf/watt.


Oh yeah, and nor was there performance:



The point being made is that is more of an architecture gains, than just process improvements, that got AMD to it's top position.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
8,179 (3.93/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
You have conveniently skipped 2080 that was on a way inferior process node AND more power hungry memory, but had 37-45% more perf/watt.
I didn't skip it. AMD on GloFo 14 were way behind Nvidia on TSMC12. The fact that TSMC 7nm brought AMD from way behind to "vaguely competitive" speaks volumes.

A like-for-like copy of dated Vega architecture gained >50% just by moving to a new process says a lot about the advantage of TSMC 7nm back in 2019.

You seem to be arguing that Nvidia were ahead on flagship performance but I'm not even trying to claim that. Firstly, AMD haven't had that in forever! Secondly, they didn't have anything to compete with the 2080 either from a performance or a transistor count. The TU102 was massive at 545mm2 that dwarfed even Vega64 on GloFo 14nm. It also had hardware raytracing to skew the performance metrics in any suite that included raytracing. The Radeon VII, on the other hand was just a tired old Vega64 being used as a test-run for TSMC 7nm. Radeon VII was architecture from 2017 and should be compared to the 2017 Pascal 1000-series GTX cards in terms of technical prowess. By that metric AMD simply gained a victory over Pascal Geforces, simply because of TSMC's new process.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,413 (1.00/day)
System Name M3401 notebook
Processor 5600H
Motherboard NA
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) 3050
Storage 500GB SSD
Display(s) 14" OLED screen of the laptop
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores 3050 scores good 15-20% lower than average, despite ASUS's claims that it has uber cooling.
The fact that TSMC 7nm brought AMD from way behind to "vaguely competitive" speaks volumes.
How waas Vega 7, that was running on 7nm process, but could not even dream of 2080Ti levels of performance, on top of being 1.5 times behind on perf/watt front, "vaguely competitive"?

Only architectural changes, RDNA1&2 allowed AMD to first close the gap and then beat NV.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
8,179 (3.93/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
How waas Vega 7, that was running on 7nm process, but could not even dream of 2080Ti levels of performance, on top of being 1.5 times behind on perf/watt front, "vaguely competitive"?

Only architectural changes, RDNA1&2 allowed AMD to first close the gap and then beat NV.
Is "within 10%" not vaguely competitive to you? Vega64 went from being 30% behind a 2080 to a Radeon VII being just 9% behind a 2080 through the move to TSMC:

1658588414699.png


You're still also comparing a 2017 architecture designed for GloFo 14nm (not TSMC 7nm) to a 2018 architecture designed for the outset for the TSMC 12nm mode it was mode on. If you've followed any CPU/GPU design in the last decade or so, you should know well that porting a design from one process node to another is not the best way to make a chip and gets far less from the new node than a new design made for that node specifically. AMD, Intel, and Nvidia have all experienced die shrinks with less than ideal gains over the years, which is why the rather significant improvements between Vega64 and Radeon VII were so noteworthy.

I'm not really sure why you're even focusing on the Radeon VII, it was a low-volume part that didn't have any product stack underneath it, lacked many of the features that Nvidia was offering, and simply served to provide something as a placeholder whilst RDNA was being worked on as the designed-for-7nm part, not a 2-year-old port from a different process node and foundry altogether. GPUs are also only half the equation here - TSMC 7nm is also responsible for giving AMD an advantage over Intel in the CPU department, With Zen2 offering significant leaps over Intel at the time, and being a massive step up from the Zen/Zen+ on GloFo 14 again.

Architecture played a part in it, of course, but the big jump in clocks and efficiency was credited to TSMC 7nm.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,413 (1.00/day)
System Name M3401 notebook
Processor 5600H
Motherboard NA
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) 3050
Storage 500GB SSD
Display(s) 14" OLED screen of the laptop
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores 3050 scores good 15-20% lower than average, despite ASUS's claims that it has uber cooling.
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
8,179 (3.93/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
No, as the target is 2080Ti and not 2080.
Your target perhaps; You're now moving goalposts on a tangent of argument that you brought up, not me; AMD themselves and all independent reviews compare it to the 2080 because that's the closest equivalent cost, size, transistor count, and performance comparison.

The VII was barely half the price of a 2080Ti despite having much more expensive HBM2, and 5GB more of it as well.
The VII wasn't anywhere near as large as the TU102, almost 6 billion fewer transistors and less than half the physical size. That size comparison isn't down to TSMC7 vs TSMC12, either - Vega64 which was on the larger, older GloFo14 process node was still 40% smaller than TU102 on the denser TSMC12 process.

If you're trying to make an argument based on a 2080Ti vs a Radeon VII, then that's just dumb. That's like saying a 12900KF is better than a Ryzen 5 5600X because it's a grossly imbalanced matchup.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
227 (0.15/day)
Location
Hungary
System Name Main rig
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700 @ 3.5 GHz/1.18750 V|SoC 0.9 V
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty B450 Gaming-ITX/ac |BIOS 3.80
Cooling Noctua NH-D9L
Memory 2 x 8 GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 @ 3200/C18-18-18-36|1T /1.25 V
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 950 SC+ ACX 2.0 2 GB GDDR5
Storage 500 GB Crucial MX500|1 TB Crucial MX500|250 GB Intel 510|128 GB Netac N600S|6+2 TB WD Purple
Display(s) 2 x LG 24GM77-B @ 144 Hz, DAS on, Motion 240 off | 1 x Icy Box VESA arm @ pivot
Case Fractal Design Define Nano S (no window, 1 x Noctua A14 PWM + 1 x Noctua NF-S12B redux-1200 PWM)
Audio Device(s) Edifier R1700 BTs
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Fanless PX-500
Mouse HSK|Hati S|Hati M Ace|Skoll SK-S|Pulsar Xlite|MM710|MM730|NP-01|Viper M.|Krait|MX300|MX500 etc
Keyboard Ducky One 3 TKL |One 3 SF|One 2 Horizon|Miya Pro|Akko 3068B Plus|Huntsman TE|K70 Pro Mini WL etc
VR HMD 3xShidenkai XS|Zero Classic XS|Hien XS|Raiden XS|P-51|Turbulence Teal SE|Talent L|2xAllsop XL etc
Software MS Windows 10 Home x64
Benchmark Scores over 9000
even older games... i dont see what would run a whopping 480 fps.

i mean even on a good computer CS 1.6 with a 5950x+3090 gets 1400-1500fps, but you need servers with unlocked fps because over 1000 it just bugs out.

and cs 1.6 is not old... its old AS FUCK

even with my 5600x+6800xt some older games don't go super high in fps.

like i replayed Dragon Age origins a few weeks ago which is a 2009 game, and i had what ... 160-180fps ? using Rashade with raytracing i had 60fps, same-ish for Mass Effect.

in reality you have very little games capable or reaching that much fps in game even with the best hardware available 20 years later.

QuakeWorld (most people play it with fixated 500 or 1000 fps), classic Doom, Doom 2016, Doom Eternal, Half-Life 2, Portal 2 and Minecraft comes to mind. There are also CoD: Warzone, Rainbow Six Siege, CS: GO, Valorant and Fornite AFAIK, but I don't play these, so can't confirm first hand.
 
Top