By: Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com), April 20, 2020 2:18 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Alberto (git.delete@this.git.it) on April 20, 2020 9:07 am wrote:
> The problem having more of them is heat.
When active.
> Ask to yourself why AMD don't manufacture a serious 4C/8T Renoir, pretty perfect in small designs
> like convertibles, yes there is a 4C/8T but with bad clock speed....pretty useless.
Because their chip have 8 cores, they have no reason to disable 4 cores on best bins.
> Unfortunately AMD was a liar, their 15W 8C/16T SKUS are 25 W definitively not 15W.
Which is industry standard, and the configurable TDP is clearly listed on their web site as 10W to 25W, Intel does the same, BTW.
> In fact in their slides they say 15W BUT the clock speed are not nominal but "UP TO".
And the measured clock speed is actually 100MHz higher, rather than 300MHz lower which was the case for the Intel in the Anantech review:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15708/amds-mobile-revival-redefining-the-notebook-business-with-the-ryzen-9-4900hs-a-review/2
> Obviously AMD can not pack 8 cores and a powerful GPU in only 15W, even on 7nm.
They can do in 10W, if the laptop manufacturer configure it's configurable TDP to it, but the clock speeds will be lower.
Intel allow this kind of configuration too.
> On CB they are neck to neck.
"neck to neck"
> The battery live at the same capacity is similar.
Sure, both are listed as 45W TDP.
> There is a downside, AMD Laptops for gamers are very noisy, because the power density of
> 7nm is much whorse of 14nm SKUs, and the cooling solution is in a disasvantage state.
Bullshit.
Laptops don't even have coolers on top of the CPU, rather there is heat pipe to a better positioned cooler, the power density of the chip makes no difference.
> About the number of cores for a U Laptop, obviously 4C/8T are a far better solution, it gives higher
> base clocks
And what the hell base clocks matter for CPUs capable of turbo?
> and turbo
What's the evidence that turbo clock would be higher if there was less cores? The 4.2GHz of the U series is achieved when 7 of the cores are inactive, how exactly inactive cores affects the clock of the active cores?
According to Anandtech review of Ryzen 3700X, the power of inactive cores are in the order of 0.1W, how exactly this compromises the active core?
> in a situation of Windows 10 Home that is not a marvel over 8 Threads.
More bullshit with no evidence, now against an unrelated company just because you think you are defending Intel by bombing "civilians".
> Not to mention responsitiveness, clearly a fast single core turbo
> at +5GHz makes the Laptop more snappy on average workloads.
More bullshit, and double bullshit this time, where are those +5GHz laptops? What's the actual performance of them? What's the evidence relating the subjective concept of responsiveness to GHz?
> Still the Intel decision to stay on 14nm is all about volume
Intel decision to stay on 14nm is because their 10nm is crappy, confirmed by their own executives and their 7nm isn't ready yet.
> Intel can supply a pile of SKUs to OEMs,
Have you been in a cave for the last two years and didn't hear anything about Intel's supply issues?
> The problem having more of them is heat.
When active.
> Ask to yourself why AMD don't manufacture a serious 4C/8T Renoir, pretty perfect in small designs
> like convertibles, yes there is a 4C/8T but with bad clock speed....pretty useless.
Because their chip have 8 cores, they have no reason to disable 4 cores on best bins.
> Unfortunately AMD was a liar, their 15W 8C/16T SKUS are 25 W definitively not 15W.
Which is industry standard, and the configurable TDP is clearly listed on their web site as 10W to 25W, Intel does the same, BTW.
> In fact in their slides they say 15W BUT the clock speed are not nominal but "UP TO".
And the measured clock speed is actually 100MHz higher, rather than 300MHz lower which was the case for the Intel in the Anantech review:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15708/amds-mobile-revival-redefining-the-notebook-business-with-the-ryzen-9-4900hs-a-review/2
> Obviously AMD can not pack 8 cores and a powerful GPU in only 15W, even on 7nm.
They can do in 10W, if the laptop manufacturer configure it's configurable TDP to it, but the clock speeds will be lower.
Intel allow this kind of configuration too.
> On CB they are neck to neck.
"neck to neck"
> The battery live at the same capacity is similar.
Sure, both are listed as 45W TDP.
> There is a downside, AMD Laptops for gamers are very noisy, because the power density of
> 7nm is much whorse of 14nm SKUs, and the cooling solution is in a disasvantage state.
Bullshit.
Laptops don't even have coolers on top of the CPU, rather there is heat pipe to a better positioned cooler, the power density of the chip makes no difference.
> About the number of cores for a U Laptop, obviously 4C/8T are a far better solution, it gives higher
> base clocks
And what the hell base clocks matter for CPUs capable of turbo?
> and turbo
What's the evidence that turbo clock would be higher if there was less cores? The 4.2GHz of the U series is achieved when 7 of the cores are inactive, how exactly inactive cores affects the clock of the active cores?
According to Anandtech review of Ryzen 3700X, the power of inactive cores are in the order of 0.1W, how exactly this compromises the active core?
> in a situation of Windows 10 Home that is not a marvel over 8 Threads.
More bullshit with no evidence, now against an unrelated company just because you think you are defending Intel by bombing "civilians".
> Not to mention responsitiveness, clearly a fast single core turbo
> at +5GHz makes the Laptop more snappy on average workloads.
More bullshit, and double bullshit this time, where are those +5GHz laptops? What's the actual performance of them? What's the evidence relating the subjective concept of responsiveness to GHz?
> Still the Intel decision to stay on 14nm is all about volume
Intel decision to stay on 14nm is because their 10nm is crappy, confirmed by their own executives and their 7nm isn't ready yet.
> Intel can supply a pile of SKUs to OEMs,
Have you been in a cave for the last two years and didn't hear anything about Intel's supply issues?
| Topic | Posted By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | Tiger Lake Leaks | 2020/04/14 09:30 AM |
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | anon | 2020/04/14 08:08 PM |
| Tiger lake leak, Intel 10nm fixed? | Wes Felter | 2020/04/15 02:46 PM |
| Keep in mind Intel supposedly fixed their 10nm process at the same time TSMC is ramping up 5nm (NT) | anon | 2020/04/23 10:14 PM |
| 28+ W | me | 2020/04/15 07:42 PM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/17 09:12 AM |
| 28+ W | another anon | 2020/04/17 11:13 PM |
| 28+ W | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/18 09:27 AM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/19 07:27 PM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/19 08:47 PM |
| 28+ W | David Kanter | 2020/04/19 09:50 PM |
| 28+ W | anny | 2020/04/20 05:56 AM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/20 08:03 AM |
| 28+ W | wumpus | 2020/04/20 02:39 PM |
| EPYC F line | Anon | 2020/04/20 05:35 PM |
| 28+ W | gallier2 | 2020/04/19 11:44 PM |
| 28+ W | Alberto | 2020/04/20 09:07 AM |
| 28+ W | Adrian | 2020/04/20 09:55 AM |
| 28+ W | Anon | 2020/04/20 02:18 PM |
| 28+ W | Anon3 | 2020/04/20 04:02 PM |
| 28+ W | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/20 09:05 PM |
| 28+ W | Adrian | 2020/04/20 03:54 AM |
| This was a comparison to put the "high clock" in context | Dummond D. Slow | 2020/04/20 08:55 AM |
