Read more.Quote:
Leaked benchmarks show graphics perf on a par with the Nvidia GeForce MX150 GPU.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Leaked benchmarks show graphics perf on a par with the Nvidia GeForce MX150 GPU.
Slow single channel DRAM with a GPU that shares the memory bandwidth with the CPU? Seriously? Is this supposed to be a budget laptop?
2400Mhz isn't slow for SO-DIMM and I'm guessing they choose to go with a single 8GB stick because adding another would've added £150 odd to the price, probably not something they wanted to do for what i guess will be a low to mid-range notebook (£600-700).
It's the 2nd slowest speed available and 8GB DDR4 2400Mhz SO-DIMM are available for around 70 GBP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Source? As when i looked on HP's own site the fastest DDR4 SO-DIMM they sell are 2400Mhz and cost around £150 for a single 8GB stick.
But since mainstream DDR4 SO-DIMMs only come in 2 speeds*, that also makes it the fastest...? :O_o1: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nifl
Yes, a retail sourced 8GB DDR4 2400 SO-DIMM will set you back around £70. But there's no testing or compatibility guarantees with those. So you pay a premium for the fact that HP have "specially" sourced the RAM and guarantee it in conjunction with their laptop. Another 8GB of DDR4 fitted at factory is likely to slap at least a £100 premium on the retail price.
That said, I totally agree that they're essentially cobbling performance on the platform, but it's been an issue for AMD for years with their laptop chips. The last couple of generations of APUs were actually pretty good at 35W, but there was no demand for AMD laptops, which meant prices had to be - to an extent artificially - depressed, which meant lots of corner cutting: hence single channel RAM. Apparently that habit is dying hard for HP...
*EDIT: to be fair, I've just looked on Scan and they do have some SO-DIMMs at 2666 and 3000; but currently the mainstream options are only 2133 and 2400, and I'd put a small wager on AMD stating that 2400MHz is the fastest supported memory for the mobile APUs anyway...
As I mentioned previously in the Zen thread,the BR version of the X360 had two RAM slots:Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/images/HP_E...45-2462031.pdf
Its most likely only one slot is populated and also another consideration is if these are low voltage DDR4 SODIMMs or not.
People also need to consider this:
https://static.techspot.com/articles...nch/Memory.png
https://static.techspot.com/articles...nch/Memory.png
The BR memory controller is not that efficient. Looking at the graph,I would argue Ryzen 5 running one single DIMM at 2400MHZ is probably still getting more bandwidth than BR using a pair of them!! :shocked2:
Is it known if the supposed 6GB of HBM is shared with the CPU, i would assume it is but IDK much about Raven Ridge.
No HBM this time, although it's likely to come later. 6MB of cache though, which I believe is only referring to the CPU cacheQuote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Would on chip HBM negate the need for separate system RAM? Pretty cool if so...
Yes, see consoles :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
Any plug in dimms would be much slower than HBM so it would make a system with plugged in system ram a sort of NUMA architecture. Don't know if/how Windows would cope with that, so I can imagine DIMM slots being left off to avoid support calls of "I plugged in more ram and now my machine is slower".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
I saw this mentioned on AT forums:
https://i.redd.it/srv6b6fmgdsz.png
https://i.redd.it/srv6b6fmgdsz.png
I just realised something - bristol ridge doesn't support DDR3.
http://products.amd.com/en-us/search...-9830B-APU/221
Maybe we'll finally see the end of 'premium' laptops cheaping out on the RAM?
Not while Apple is still around!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
I'm really suspect about that review/benchmark, CAT. Kaveri pulled down > 20 GB/s with dual channel DDR3-2133. I just can't see AMD's memory controller going back that hard. That's *got* to be a single channel result to be that low, whether that's a processor limitation or a platform issue. I just don't buy BR having a much worse memory controller than its immediate predecessor and successor...Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH