But this isn't really meant for desktops, as of now any way. Think of it as a competitor to Mx Pro not the Max or
ultra Max uber edition
Right, but that wasn't my point. The point is the laptop version didn't sell because it didn't perform to that (barely-enough) level of performance from the desktop version.
4070 mobile (really more of a low-clocked 4060 Ti Super) more-or-less can/does, depending on which model you buy and how you use it.
This could (and should) be roughly equal (without) and better than all of those (with it), as perf is perf.
This could actually be a chip that hits that sweet-spot of better than most mobile 4070's and much, much, cheaper than a 4080 mobile (which is actually a cut-down 4070 desktop)...literally in the center and good-enough for general laptop (or even general [1080p60] PC) gaming...but it needs the BW....which the current LPDRR5x/cache simply cannot provide.
As I say, they can go at it with low clocks and high efficiency, and that's fine (as there is a market for that), but sub-optimal GPU perf is still sub-optimal GPU perf regardless.
I'm saying there is a market for what they COULD do, which IMO is the only reason you specifically make this chip. I'm sure a vanilla option will still will look nice wrt power/perf.
The thesis of adding GDDR6 clicked everything into place for me, as I had not even considered that possible.
In reality though, it makes perfect sense (for those willing to use a higher power envelope, just as those whom would buy a discrete 80-120w nVIDIA laptop GPU would do).
I'm simply saying before it looked like they were attempting to kill some small birds (other CPU/SoCs) with a very big stone because the it lacked bw to push it into competing with a discrete GPU; maybe take some market share from <4070 laptops...but they aren't for (most, non e-sport) gaming anyway.
Now it would appear they can kill multiple birds with one stone...and some GDDR6. They could/should be able to compete with, if not exceed the performance of 4070 laptops in a tangible way for less money.
People could actually have a decent 1080p60 SoC laptop
DRAM power efficiency is measured in pJ per transferred bit. LPDDR5 and HBM3 are both around 3.5 pJ per bit while GDDR6 is close to 8 pJ per bit. Note that this doesn't account for device power consumption; only transmission power is considered.
I assume you are using 1.35v with your metric. Try using 1.1v. I don't know if any current products use Samsung @ 1.1v? I think most use Hynix @ 1.35v (and sometimes substitute in Samsung at 1.35v).
I'm not saying it's MORE efficient, I'm saying it's (potentially) not nearly as bad as you're implying, and the power/performance trade-off would be worth it for someone that was deciding between a productivity machine and a budget gaming laptop in a similar price range; especially versus something like a laptop with a 4070/4080 mobile inside of it (which would be much more expensive and/or likely use even more power).
I guess we'll just see how it goes?
It will be interesting to see how such setups without (or conceivingly with) GDDR6 match-up against competing solutions (both in productivity and gaming; iGPU/7600/4060/4070 laptops). I guess I'm just more optimistic this will be a low-cost good-enough option for many different kinds of people/markets vs their direct competition regardless of TDP configuration...although it will be interesting to see the power required to achieve parity with 4060/4070 mobile.
Two separate and different memory controllers, LPDDR for the CPU, GDDR for the GPU, each 128 bits wide. I too see it as a possibility, unless we consider all leaks as reliable and accurate (huh). There would be one big downside to that: no unified memory pool.
That is indeed possible; unified pool or not there's always conceivably crossbar/HUMA.
I messed up though thinking it would be 128+128, not 256+128-bit. I don't know why I subtracted from the 'known' 256-bit LPDDR5x controller to add the possible GDDR6 controller. Whoops.
Again, who knows....Like you say: leaks and rumors...maybe it could be 128+128 after-all. My (perhaps wrong) thinking was that 256-bit was known, but it was unknown 128-bit could be wired out to GDDR6.
Just making conversation and attempting conceivable projections and their use-cases. Never trying to proclaim infalability vs what might actually transpire.
The thing I never understood about a 256-bit LPDDR5x controller is...wouldn't that require 4 sticks of ram? That's pretty weird. Not impossible; just unconventional.
