Read more.Quote:
New model uses 6-inch IPS screen, Intel Core M3-7Y30 chip, 8GB RAM, and a 128GB M.2 SSD.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
New model uses 6-inch IPS screen, Intel Core M3-7Y30 chip, 8GB RAM, and a 128GB M.2 SSD.
Really impressive performance, but still would have preferred some kind of low end ryzen apu or even a 150MX
wouldn't the power usage be too high with ryzen?
It's got a 4.5 W CPU - ryzen has a way to go before it'll fit in that chassis, and any dedicated GPU is out. Could work with a mobile phone SoC running windows, but those are the only real competition at this TDP
I think there are two issues with AMD chips here - firstly they're unproven and have some compatibility issues which would likely mean extended R&D to flush these out. Then you have the high TDP which means they're just not suited to something this small. Intel may be more expensive but it's a more mature platform, the bugs and nuances are better known. Counter to this, use of the Intel chip rather than AMD will mean that you won't be able to fry an egg on it which does mean losing a potential feature.
I think the issue with a mobile SoC is that you'll be limited to either emulating or games that are compiled for ARM. Isn't the idea here that the whole thing is x86 games compatible on the move? Frankly if you want to play mobile phone games, just use your phone and a portable charger.
As AMD have an ARM license, and Windows 10 will run in semi-emulation on upcoming hardware, that may be the route they go down (with AMD graphics). AMDs x86 chips in this power envelope topped out with A10 Micro-6700T Mullins I think, which is a long way behind this. Don't think they have anything else close in this power envelope.
Mobile Ryzen can work with a TDP of 9W, so double what we have here but that is with twice the cores and usable graphics so cutting Ryzen down to 2 core 4 thread and halving the clock speeds would probably get AMD a 4.5W part without too much hassle. A genuine 2 core and reduced SP die would be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
But I have to wonder what people actually play on these things? I have had problems gaming at 1366x768 so I imagine 1280x720 is way worse, and having heard my kids complain about their Atom 2 in 1 machines (with way better 10" screens) being unable to run anything interesting because they are Windows 10 and all the interesting games are Android I find this baffling.
Spend less, get a Nintendo Switch.
I love the idea of these things, especially if they can run games like Skyrim and potentially serve as UMPC type things. I still miss my Psions and such.
If it were that simple then AMD would have launched it already (together with Raven Ridge) and not in the official roadmaps yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Guess you never heard of GPD Win 2's highly successful predecessor GPD Win which features an Intel Atom SoC. Look around Youtube for numerous reviews and gameplays of the original GPD Win. Some even managed to install Android on it. Quite capable of running most games especially indie ones on Steam. Using emulators are also popular. GPD Win 2's much faster SoC with high single thread performance, emulators would benefit the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Cheaper, yes but closed ecosystem (limited to games published for the system). That is why the original GPD Win despite higher prices was still popular because of open ecosystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Looks nice enough. Might make a good replacement for my portable diagnostic computer.
Understandably this is slightly besides the point, but with Ryzen AMD's CPU's are running cooler and use less juice than their corresponding Intel counterparts overall. So that meme is slowly dying out.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
That said AMD doesn't have anything in such a small factor that can currently compete as far as I know.
AMD had planned ARM based SoCs like Amur and Lanner Falcon although both were scrapped. Intel also had ARM license from legacy XScale (which was sold to Marvell) and acquisitions (like Infineon and Altera). For example, Intel's Altera FPGAs uses ARM cores. But Intel still stuck to x86 for their mobile SoCs because there are too many competing ARM based SoCs (from Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, HiSilicon, Rockchip, Broadcom, etc) saturating the market. Perhaps AMD also saw this (and subsequently cancelled both Amur and Lanner Falcon). Emulation will always have performance penalties, especially if single thread performance not strong enough. Check out UltrabookReview preview of Asus NovaGo TP370QL (with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 835 running Windows 10 on ARM) as they managed to get some benchmark results (Cinebench R11.5, Passmark, Octane v2, etc). Early indications points to Intel's Atom level of CPU performance and sometimes worse (in Cinebench R11.5 MT, Passmark, Octane v2, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by 3s-gtech
The only mobile device using A10 Micro-6700T was AMD's Discovery reference tablet. BungBungame Photon 2 tablet was supposed to use A10 Micro-6700T, but instead used a slower A6 Micro-6500T (which strangely was missing in AMD's tablet APUs product list). Thus big question mark about A10 Micro-6700T usage in small mobile devices like tablets (perhaps unforseen problems encountered such as heat and battery life). Handheld devices like GPD Win is much smaller than AMD's Discovery reference tablet.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3s-gtech
It's not on the consumer roadmaps, but the embedded/industrial roadmap has always had a 2C/3CU SKU on, and the corresponding engineering sample has been seen in the wild. The only question is whether they'll produce mainstream consumer products using that die or keep it for embedded/industrial/semi-custom. But either way, AMD are making a 2 core, 4 thread, 192 shader APU die, which is less than half the silicon of 4C Raven Ridge, and could therefore reasonably be expected to work in half the TDP of 4C Raven Ridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
AMD have previously gone after the tablet market with really nice chips that couldn't compete with Intel giving the Atoms away. Once burnt, I can't see them trying again any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
Is/was the similar Pandora device any good?
As far as I know, those AMD engineering samples were actually Stoney Ridge and Merlin Falcon which were still using AMD's older Excavator cores. The lowest TDP for Stoney Ridge is 6W (for AMD E2-9000e only) and for Merlin Falcon is 12W. These are still in production and no replacements have been forthcoming yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Quite unlikely to see those 2 core 4 thread APUs anytime soon, since even the current Raven Ridge chip looks to be in short supply (possibly due to slow product ramp). That is why there are so few notebooks using AMD's Raven Ridge, at last count three only. Also currently HP's Envy x360 is the only one available although Acer's Swift 3 could be coming soon while Lenovo's IdeaPad has yet to emerge.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Lets not forget HP which had a chance to use AMD's Mullins chips for a tablet product (such as the ElitePad series), but instead ended up in low end notebooks like HP Stream 14 series (which used A4 Micro-6400T). Should be noted that HP never used A10 Micro-6700T in any of their notebook products either. For some reason, most of AMD's A10 Micro-6700T chips ended up at Compulab. Thus after numerous delays, BungBungame Photon 2 remains the only production tablet that uses AMD's (A6 Micro-6500T) Mullins chip, which was made obselete by the time it finally launched due to its high price and competition from more powerful tablets powered by Intel's Core M series chips (which were also in the same price range). Also BungBungame Photon 2's high price meant that its not competing in the same sector as much cheaper tablets powered by Intel's Atom chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Yes, similar but GPD Win 2 is much more powerful (especially in the CPU department).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I was thinking more of the old 40nm products: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bobcat...es%20Z-03.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
I still use my 11" HP laptop with an E350 in it as it is the right size, those later HP laptops all seemed to be 15.6" panels so of no interest to me.
Then let me enlighten you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
https://videocardz.com/69428/amd-sno...eat-horned-owl
That's slides from a Feb 2016 presentation about AMD's industrial/embedded roadmap. The last but one slide is for "Banded Kestrel", an APU with 2 Zen cores and 3 'GFX9' (i.e. Vega) CUs. As I said, been on the embedded roadmap a long time. It may not make it to consumer, but the silicon is planned.
https://forums.hexus.net/cpus/371038...ml#post3873746
where hexus' own leak-sniffer CAT-THE-FIFTH posted a link to this tweet:
https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/statu...08001536307200
which details a dual core APU ES with Vega 3 graphics.
Note that I never said we'd see it soon, or indeed that we'd see it at all in mainstream consumer devices. That's kind of irrelevant to this thread. A handheld gaming console is exactly the kind of device that you'd expect an embedded or semi-custom chip to end up in, which means it'd be a perfect target for a 2C/3CU part that's not on the consumer roadmap but is already in production as ES. AMD are already making that chip, so if someone wanted to put it in a device it *would* be that simple.
There aren't any on the mobile roadmap for notebooks. As for the embedded ones, I saw the news long ago. Aren't those (both Horned Owl and Banded Kestrel) supposed to be launched somewhere in 2H 2017 (as the chart shows)? In few days time, already near the end of 2017. Like I've said earlier, "no replacements have been forthcoming yet."Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I would not call that a leak nor an engineering sample at all, especially when looking at the only source (that twitter post) with no indications of where it came from. Only valid leaks always happens at Geekbench, SiSoft Sandra and GFXBench databases. Other valid leaks happens in far east places like China and Taiwan, where major ODMs resides. Wake me up when that happens, otherwise this is a non-leak for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Well, Intel's Core m3-7Y30 is not considered an embedded part and neither was Intel's Atom x7-Z8700 used in the original GPD Win. Others like Vastking G800 and LinX Vision 8 gaming tablets also used Intel's mobile SoCs. In other words, does not need to be "embedded" type. Should be noted we hardly see any of AMD's embedded chips in devices like tablets and handhelds (that includes AMD's current generation embedded SoCs). As for chip manufacture, unlikely to start yet until the slow ramp gets sorted out at Global Foundries (which is perhaps why both Horned Owl and Banded Kestrel never made it in 2017 at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
You're not actually listening to what I'm saying, are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
The whole question at the start of this was whether it would be possible to use a Ryzen APU in a 4.5W TDP. That's the conversation from posts 2, 3, 4 and 7. Not whether you could stick an existing Ryzen APU in there, but just generally whether a low-end Ryzen was possible and would be a better fit.
I think there's enough beef behind the rumours I've linked above (videocardz are actually pretty damn reliable when it comes to this kind of thing - they've leaked plenty of of ES details which were confirmed later) to believe that AMD already have working silicon of a 2C/3CU APU. And we can deduce - given that it has half the CPU cores and less than 1/3 the GPU cores - that it will fit in TDPs that are half or less of the launched Raven Ridge APUs.
That means that it would, in fact, be simple for AMD to release a suitable Ryzen APU in a 4.5W TDP. Just because something would be simple doesn't mean it happens. Ryzen 3 Mobile hasn't released yet, although that would be simple. It would've been simple for all the Ryzen CPUs to launch at once, since they're all based on the same silicon, but again AMD chose to release them in a staggered fashion. And I can't actually remember Threadripper being on the consumer roadmap ahead of launch, despite being a real product that launched.
The question isn't "Is there a launched AMD product that matches this description?". It's "Would it be possible, or even simple, for AMD to launch a product that meets this description, if they wanted to?". And given what we know, I'd say the answer to that second question is a resounding yes.
You have to look at the lowest TDP of AMD's current Raven Ridge APUs (which is nowhere near as low as 4.5W). Any dual core AMD Raven Ridge mobile chip would be harvested from AMD's current quad core Raven Ridge chips. Similar pattern as AMD's Bristol Ridge and Stoney Ridge. Basically AMD's dual core Stoney Ridge is the same chip as AMD's quad core Bristol Ridge, only half the number of cores enabled and less graphical cores to reduce power.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Again, you have not shown any real leaks (no "beef" there). Here is an example of a real leak at Passmark database https://www.passmark.com/baselines/V...id=94512522319 Real leak means there is real silicon being tested, not some model number on a random Twitter post not by any Taiwanese nor Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
If it were that simple (as I have mentioned earlier) then AMD would have released them simultaneously with Raven Ridge or heard about them in AMD's future official roadmaps (around the same time as mobile Ryzen launch). Also AMD's Threadripper is basically the same as Epyc (since the existing MCM package contains the same 4 dies), thus easier to release as a HEDT product line. Thats is similar to Intel's HEDT line which were basically Intel's Xeon chips rebranded (which is why Intel's Xeons can be used in the same HEDT motherboard).Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Huh. I thought you'd let this one go, but apparently not.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRetroGamer
Your entire premise is wrong, on two factors.
First up, I thought Stoney Ridge and its embedded counter-parts were separate silicon, but even if they're not, they drop as low as 6W TDP for the embedded versions (Prairie Falcon). The quad-core versions of those chips only drop as low as 12W (Merlin Falcon). Whether it's a cut down version or a separate die, the 2 core versions can work at as low as half the TDP of the 4 core versions. 4 core Raven Ridge is configurable down to a 9W TDP, so whether a 2C APU was a salvaged part or a separate die, it's reasonable to assume it could have half the TDP - which gets us down to the 4.5W TDP we're discussing. Whether it's a separate die or not is, I admit, a little moot.
Secondly, your claim that if AMD could make a 4.5W APU they'd have released it already is - to be blunt - utter nonsense. They didn't even release the Ryzen 3 mobile APUs at the same time as the 5 and 7, despite them being cut straight from the same die, so I don't see how you can justify that claim.
Bottom line - it's reasonable to think AMD could produce a Zen/Vega APU in a 4.5W TDP, and it's reasonable to think they might not have released it even if they could. It apparently doesn't even need a separate 2C die to get there - perhaps that was just wishful thinking on my part. So really, I don't get what you're arguing about?
In a world where even smart TVs are advertised as "quad core" let alone £100 Atom based tablets, dual core would seem an increasingly hard sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Current top-end intel competition is a 3.6/1.3 GHz 2c4t part with an HD 615 for graphics - a pretty low bar for AMD to match, and it goes it some very pricey laptops (+£1k for the acer swift 7)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
The GPD Win 2 Handheld gaming PC is now on IndieGogo
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/g...games-laptop#/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtos2G44gTQ
Has anyone bought one of these, yet?