"They don't have a power efficiency advantage on desktop for idle power" - True, but who cares. It's not determinant and it's not completely out of school. Nobody buys a highest-end laptop for the fricking battery life lol. It's a consideration down like second to last.
I'd be much more concerned about my brand new flagship laptop CPU speculatively leaking Ring-0 access before I even plug it in. Intel chips are right now flawed until they prove otherwise.
As someone else pointed out, these won't have power hungry PCIe 4.0 chipsets nor separate I/O dies. Everything is very likely integrated and ultra low power. They're a mobile-first monolithic design, and thus their design doesn't have all that much in common with their desktop brethren (aside from core architecture).
Heck even the big X570 chipsets don't IDLE at 11-15W. OEMs can configure them however they want (hence the range of TDPs), but 11-15W is would be if you have the chipset I/O pretty well pegged.
With that being said I wouldn't swear they've caught up to Intel on idle power, and a lot of it is up to the OEM boards and firmware. But if they can get even close, and they beat them on performance, they'll make great machines. Especially interested to see how many gaming laptop wins they can get with those 45W octacore models!
You mean like the single-core where they're absolutely, where they're equal (at best), but AMD is still promoting it as a "4%" win? If they had made great strides in efficiency, clearly they would have shown it, no? It's literally the biggest issue with current APUs of theirs. Not saying it hasn't improved, but it still needs to improve by around 40% to catch up to Ice Lake, and with doubling of cores and even higher turbo frequency, it's difficult to see how much more room they have left.
Are you even serious? They can't test power efficiency until the entire machine is built. Testing chips ex-situ of their platform and chipset and defaults and all that, it proves nothing.
Unless intel is substantially, amazingly better than before (and they aren't) the difference between the two in power consumption isn't going to be more than it was before and it's probably less.
But if you're really trying to pretend someone interested in buying the highest performing laptop platform is going to quibble over 10-20% more power consumption for 20-100% more performance, your speculative execution is scheduled for the moment you open your eyes.
You can't list battery life when you have no battery specs, especially when it's a CPU article. Battery specs will go with the individual laptop designs, in size and weight.
It'll be interesting to see the individual wins and how they compare with Intel laptops. The number of design wins suggest AMD is winning mind-share with the OEM's. Given the cheaper price AMD might make some good progress in laptop sales this year.
Agreed. I'm eager to see what gains they've made on idle power draw this time around, as the Ryzen 2000/3000 mobile series were quite a disappointment in that regard.
I have yet to get anywhere close to the advertised battery life on any modern Intel laptop anyways. I think its all marketing BS. They are certainly longer than they used to be but the only way I get a full work day out of an Intel laptop is if it spends most of the day asleep.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
406 Comments
View All Comments
Jugotta Bichokink - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
"They don't have a power efficiency advantage on desktop for idle power" - True, but who cares.It's not determinant and it's not completely out of school. Nobody buys a highest-end laptop for the fricking battery life lol. It's a consideration down like second to last.
I'd be much more concerned about my brand new flagship laptop CPU speculatively leaking Ring-0 access before I even plug it in. Intel chips are right now flawed until they prove otherwise.
Orange_Swan - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
i do, my next build will be a mini-ITX buildwilsonkf - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link
You can equip a mobile APU without FCH in a laptop, since many years ago.Alexvrb - Wednesday, January 8, 2020 - link
As someone else pointed out, these won't have power hungry PCIe 4.0 chipsets nor separate I/O dies. Everything is very likely integrated and ultra low power. They're a mobile-first monolithic design, and thus their design doesn't have all that much in common with their desktop brethren (aside from core architecture).Heck even the big X570 chipsets don't IDLE at 11-15W. OEMs can configure them however they want (hence the range of TDPs), but 11-15W is would be if you have the chipset I/O pretty well pegged.
With that being said I wouldn't swear they've caught up to Intel on idle power, and a lot of it is up to the OEM boards and firmware. But if they can get even close, and they beat them on performance, they'll make great machines. Especially interested to see how many gaming laptop wins they can get with those 45W octacore models!
generalako - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
You mean like the single-core where they're absolutely, where they're equal (at best), but AMD is still promoting it as a "4%" win? If they had made great strides in efficiency, clearly they would have shown it, no? It's literally the biggest issue with current APUs of theirs. Not saying it hasn't improved, but it still needs to improve by around 40% to catch up to Ice Lake, and with doubling of cores and even higher turbo frequency, it's difficult to see how much more room they have left.Jugotta Bichokink - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
AMD actually does beat Intel in single core now, you are smoking crack to say otherwise.4% is 4%. Intel fangirls wanted to play the metric game when it suited them, now you run from it?
Jugotta Bichokink - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
Are you even serious? They can't test power efficiency until the entire machine is built.Testing chips ex-situ of their platform and chipset and defaults and all that, it proves nothing.
Unless intel is substantially, amazingly better than before (and they aren't) the difference between the two in power consumption isn't going to be more than it was before and it's probably less.
But if you're really trying to pretend someone interested in buying the highest performing laptop platform is going to quibble over 10-20% more power consumption for 20-100% more performance, your speculative execution is scheduled for the moment you open your eyes.
rahvin - Monday, January 6, 2020 - link
You can't list battery life when you have no battery specs, especially when it's a CPU article. Battery specs will go with the individual laptop designs, in size and weight.It'll be interesting to see the individual wins and how they compare with Intel laptops. The number of design wins suggest AMD is winning mind-share with the OEM's. Given the cheaper price AMD might make some good progress in laptop sales this year.
Spunjji - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
Agreed. I'm eager to see what gains they've made on idle power draw this time around, as the Ryzen 2000/3000 mobile series were quite a disappointment in that regard.zmatt - Tuesday, January 7, 2020 - link
I have yet to get anywhere close to the advertised battery life on any modern Intel laptop anyways. I think its all marketing BS. They are certainly longer than they used to be but the only way I get a full work day out of an Intel laptop is if it spends most of the day asleep.