AMD Increases Notebook Market Traction

[geon2k2]

But apparently a 35W cooling system is deemed too expensive.

And yet some managed to put 200W+, desktop GTX 980, in a laptop ...

 

[Frick]

And yet some managed to put 200W+, desktop GTX 980, in a laptop ...

Those aren't cheap stuff tho. Which is the problem.

 

[MrMilli]

I don't know what the numbers are now, but I remember AMD selling 80% of retail desktop PCs a few years ago, even with all of 2-4 models on display, hidden in the back, while many intel models were front center. They've ALWAYS done the same thing with laptops, too.

Well, for only two quarters AMD had a big share in the U.S. retail desktop market. Q1 and Q2 2006 (77 and 76%). Closer to 50% before it and quickly dropping below 50% shortly after it.
That's such a short period of time, in a very narrow segment of the market, that I don't think it's worth talking about. AMD had lowered its Athlon X2 prices a lot in preparation of the release Core 2 Duo, which caused a temporary surge in sales.
After the release of the Core 2 Duo, AMD has had nothing good enough to be competitive. I can tell you as a shop owner that it's not just Intel's tactics but also the people. If a product is not faster than Intel's then they will always buy Intel because of name recognition.

 

[geon2k2]

Those aren't cheap stuff tho. Which is the problem.

Yes, to dissipate 10 times more wattage is expensive, however to dissipate 10 times less ... should be piece of cake, and dirty cheap isn't it?

 

[rruff]

Yes, to dissipate 10 times more wattage is expensive, however to dissipate 10 times less ... should be piece of cake, and dirty cheap isn't it?

WAG, it might be as simple as the manufacturers not wanting to design something new just for AMD. Most of the laptops are designed for 15W Intel chips. Only the higher-end laptops have a higher powered cooling system. So they can either stick the AMD chip in a 15W chassis and throttle it, design a new 35W chassis for AMD chips, or put AMD in their high-end chassis that will take 35W. Apparently option 1 is the majority choice.

When running on battery it needs to be throttled anyway. So the added expense of letting it perform as designed is only a benefit when plugged in.

AMD isn't going anywhere on laptops until they can compete with Intel on performance /watt.

 

[geon2k2]

WAG, it might be as simple as the manufacturers not wanting to design something new just for AMD.

no need, they can reuse any of the intel coolers or just reuse any older cooler, which handles 35W.
Even the latest gen intel mobile has plenty of parts which are 35W or over:

1 i3 has 35W, 3 i5's have 45W, 7 i7's have 45W

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/88394/6th-Generation-Intel-Core-i3-Processors#@Mobile
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/88393/6th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@Mobile
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/88392/6th-Generation-Intel-Core-i7-Processors#@Mobile

If you go back in the past you will find many more. 35W is very common and decent wattage, its not ultrabook level, but good power usage.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Well, for only two quarters AMD had a big share in the U.S. retail desktop market. Q1 and Q2 2006 (77 and 76%). Closer to 50% before it and quickly dropping below 50% shortly after it.
That's such a short period of time, in a very narrow segment of the market, that I don't think it's worth talking about. AMD had lowered its Athlon X2 prices a lot in preparation of the release Core 2 Duo, which caused a temporary surge in sales.
After the release of the Core 2 Duo, AMD has had nothing good enough to be competitive. I can tell you as a shop owner that it's not just Intel's tactics but also the people. If a product is not faster than Intel's then they will always buy Intel because of name recognition.

Yes, that is my recollection as well - although as someone who built bespoke systems during that timeframe, I can attest that AMD's aggressive strategy of price cutting to regain market share started around the time the Athlon 64 X2's dropped in mid 2005 (followed by wholesale drops in early 2006, and ~ July when Conroe started decimating sales). I don't have any invoices or memoranda to hand regarding price cutting, but the historic evidence is easy enough to find in the publications of the day

Spoiler

 

[rruff]

35W is very common and decent wattage, its not ultrabook level, but good power usage.

It was, but the i5s and i7s at that wattage are 4 core models that will trounce any AMD processors. The odd one is the i3-6100H which has slow clocks in addition to high power consumption, probably sold cheap. I looked to see if it was actually used in anything and found two laptops:

http://www.pcper.com/category/tags/i3-6100h
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nexoc-M512-III-Clevo-W650RB-i3-940M-Notebook-Review.152723.0.html

Neither of them is cheap, and both are designed for the 4-core i5s and i7s and offer the i3 as a lower cost option. That is a very different situation.

If you can find inexpensive and current 35W Intel laptops then I'll concede that there is something fishy going on. Like a conspiracy to keep AMD out of the market. Otherwise it looks like the higher TDP chassis designs are made for more expensive models. And AMD chips are deemed unworthy of them, and unworthy of investment in new systems just for AMD. In other words manufacturers are only willing to offer AMD laptops if they can be sold cheap and with minimal investment.

 

[geon2k2]

If you can find inexpensive and current 35W Intel laptops then I'll concede that there is something fishy going on. Like a conspiracy to keep AMD out of the market. Otherwise it looks like the higher TDP chassis designs are made for more expensive models. And AMD chips are deemed unworthy of them, and unworthy of investment in new systems just for AMD. In other words manufacturers are only willing to offer AMD laptops if they can be sold cheap and with minimal investment.

I'm not saying about any conspiracy, I'm just saying that to offer 35W instead of 15W wouldn't increase their cost. I never saw the cooler as a main factor in the price of a computer. Higher wattage just prevents you to do ultra slim and slick laptop. That's it, it just influences your design slightly.
I remember in the past some vendors like Fujitsu were putting desktop pentiums in mainstream cheap laptops, and they didn't had any issue with wattage back then.

 

[HumanSmoke]

I'm not saying about any conspiracy, I'm just saying that to offer 35W instead of 15W wouldn't increase their cost.

You have access to OEM's bill of materials?
AFAIK, Most Carrizo laptops seem to be designs with a single heatpipe and single fan, while many Kaveri/Godavari laptops and their Intel brethren in the 35-45W bracket are 2-3 heatpipes and 2-3 fans. Maybe not a huge additional price, but given the entire package sales price and the amortization of service/warranty for laptop parts, I wouldn't think it was insignificant.
There is no small matter of Carrizo seemingly not scaling that well at higher frequencies even when heat isn't a factor, which was very likely a contributing factor.

I remember in the past some vendors like Fujitsu were putting desktop pentiums in mainstream cheap laptops, and they didn't had any issue with wattage back then.

From memory, the only Fujitsu's I ever saw with a desktop Pentium 4's onboard were Lifebooks - which weren't particularly cheap, or particularly thin, and were damn noisy since the fans tended to ramp up very quickly.

 

[Fourstaff]

The disadvantage is that they are 35W chips throttled to 15W by the laptop manufacturers. The APU performance sucks at that point. At 35W they'd beat anything but Iris in graphics, and that would at least be a selling point compared to the Intel chips. But apparently a 35W cooling system is deemed too expensive.

In this day and age, 35w for a mobile processor is very high, unless you are talking about desktop replacements or gaming laptops. Discrete solutions are better for the latter, and the former is dying.

 

[rruff]

There is no small matter of Carrizo seemingly not scaling that well at higher frequencies even when heat isn't a factor, which was very likely a contributing factor.

Didn't know that! But it would only make sense to let the processor run at 35W when plugged in anyway, where the efficiency wouldn't matter.