AMD Putting FreeSync Technology Into HP Laptops

Status
Not open for further replies.

hst101rox

Reputable
Aug 28, 2014
436
0
4,810
14
I hope the clockspeed of the new CPUs are decent! AMD's laptop chips are weak. Make some 45W and 57W TDP laptop chips, AMD! 35w is not enough to compete against Intel, it's not better than maybe a 2.2GHZ Skylake i3 i would guesstimate.
 

heffeque

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2002
180
0
18,680
0
The problem is that most companies cripple the laptops that have AMD APUs by using single channel RAM, by putting crappy screens, by putting small batteries...

AMD Carrizo (not Carrizo-L) APUs are quite good, but laptop companies need to seriously stop crippling them.
 
I hope the clockspeed of the new CPUs are decent! AMD's laptop chips are weak. Make some 45W and 57W TDP laptop chips, AMD! 35w is not enough to compete against Intel, it's not better than maybe a 2.2GHZ Skylake i3 i would guesstimate.
I hope the clockspeed of the new CPUs are decent! AMD's laptop chips are weak. Make some 45W and 57W TDP laptop chips, AMD! 35w is not enough to compete against Intel, it's not better than maybe a 2.2GHZ Skylake i3 i would guesstimate.
Free-Sync only requires an AMD GPU. These laptops could very well use Intel processors.
 
Benchmarks made on AMD A12-8800B show them to be VERY capable - when running at 35W with dual channel DDR3 2100. However, when crippled with a 15W envelope and single channel DDR3-1600, they sure don't look as appealing...

The CPU part was never anything to write home about, although it does compare favourably to those dual-core HT-enabled processors Intel sales as mobile chips (several productivity tasks do enjoy a real quad core - especially native 64-bit ones when running on Linux)

Where those chips shine (if provided with enough memory bandwidth), is on games - while playing anything more than Starcraft 2 (at very low details level) on an Intel IGP results in nothing more than a slideshow, you can actually play some games on an AMD!
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


Most lower end laptops come with single channel RAM setup and can be upgraded to use dual channel. Even Intel laptops. Hell our work laptops we got a few years ago all had 4GB single sticks in single channel.

AMD needs to produce more powerful parts to compete in the high end but is focusing on the low power, low end market.



Not sure what era you are living in but Intels current IGPs have become very capable parts. In fact they compete quite well with AMDs offerings.
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
The problem is that most companies cripple the laptops that have AMD APUs by using single channel RAM, by putting crappy screens, by putting small batteries...

AMD Carrizo (not Carrizo-L) APUs are quite good, but laptop companies need to seriously stop crippling them.
Spot ON! Finally, someone else who understands... I got nothing against recent AMD laptop chips but I cannot recommend laptops with them. Take Asus: they offer great multimedia laptops with their N series. Metal body, IPS screens, SSDs if you pay extra. AMD version gets made, suddenly it's TN, HDD, less RAM and has no better configs even if you want to pay more. GGWP, that will show Intel... AMD has GOT to fix this mess by partnering up with a high-quality vendor (so not HP) to deliver high-tier multimedia machines enthusiasts like us could actually buy or recommend to others. No Zen or another fancy name will help them otherwise.

AMD needs to produce more powerful parts to compete in the high end but is focusing on the low power, low end market.
Yeah no, they are FORCED into this market by cowardly laptop vendors who are too chicken to make a prominent product with an AMD inside. See the first half of my comment. RAM is about the only shortcoming of these crippled variants that an average buyer can fix - no one is going to bother changing screens or even messing with storage since most users are just too scared to touch anything that works. It's a dead end for AMD, Intel wrecks them in low-end thanks to 14-22 nm parts and their superior efficiency (you yourself mentioned how good their IGPs got, which is true, I can run Civ5 on 1080p/high on an HD 4400 and it's not bad at all) so until they got 16 nm or whatever out, it's a lost cause. High-end, however...
 

jkhoward

Distinguished
Nov 24, 2011
1,225
15
19,665
158
We all know that these laptops will run the chip at 15W, slow hard drive, single channel RAM..... don't even bother. OEM's hate AMD sadly. They have much to offer but no one is giving them the respect they deserve.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


AMD controls what it produces, not the laptop manufactures. AMD has been focusing on the low power mobile sector for quite a while, not saying they don;t perform but that their focus is low power draw/longer battery life.

Their IGPs are their best part TBH and I feel they get held back by their weaker CPUs.



If the chip is a 15w chip it is a 15w chip as AMD designs it to be that way.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA8S13KD6256

That looks like a pretty high end AMD based laptop to me. SSD, IPS screen, 16GB of memory (most likely in dual channel) and a dGPU to boot.
 

hst101rox

Reputable
Aug 28, 2014
436
0
4,810
14
1.8GHZ base, 3.2GHZ turbo is sad. And according to notebookcheck, can barely run Metro last night on low/medium graphics. Single core turbo isn't bad but should clock close to 3.8GHZ to even compete with an i3. 1.8GHZ when the cores are loaded down, slow!
If it was a 45w TDp maybe 2.4 base, 3.8 turbo who knows. 57w tdp, 3ghz base, 4ghz turbo? They need to at least match the clockspeed of Intel's mobile high end chips in order to compete with Intel's low end. Unless their new chips coming out soon has significantly x86 performance.
Intel says Kaby lake will have more x86 performance, probably not much improvement really but AMD will never catch up so they need to match the clockspeed of intel's high end mobile chips (~3GHZ base, 4GHZ turbo) IMHO.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
Most lower end laptops come with single channel RAM setup and can be upgraded to use dual channel. Even Intel laptops. Hell our work laptops we got a few years ago all had 4GB single sticks in single channel.
Actually if they use a board design meant to run either Carrizo or Carrizo-L, it's single channel only. Period. OEMs save money by using the same board design for both. Those systems that are designed with only Carrizo in mind can later be upgraded.
If the chip is a 15w chip it is a 15w chip as AMD designs it to be that way.
The TDP is configurable. The manufacturer chooses what they want to run it at. Guess what? Most went for 15W. They can save money by using the same cooling setup they use on all AMD systems (shared with Carrizo-L, like many of the motherboard designs). They can also save money by using a smaller battery. AMD is supplying the OEMs with what they are demanding, and much of the final experience is out of AMD's hands. There's a good article on the main page of Anandtech right now. All of the Carrizo systems tested were single channel with cheap slow RAM, IIRC. Many of them can not even be upgraded to dual channel.
 

heffeque

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2002
180
0
18,680
0


Actually... that looks like good benchmark material (even if it's HP and 17"). It's the first laptop I've seen that's not crippled. Great find!
 

Chris Droste

Honorable
May 29, 2013
275
0
10,810
14
...maybe if they ever decide to pair their A-series laptop chips with better than R7 graphics at best will this actually become useful IF the OEM doesn't strap on a cheap 60Hz panel. this would require AMD and their chosen OEM to actually put up some effort and up their game while actually collaborating on something

...yeah i didn't think that was going to happen either.
 
Better be 30Hz to 75Hz range.
Asynchronous mode for Freesync doesn't work properly (on the low end) if you don't have at least 2.5X the ration of max to min.

(the reason is the driver simply tells the GPU to put out the same frame if you drop below handling 30FPS. So 20FPS becomes "40 FPS" which is still twenty frames but you don't have asynchronous mode disabled so it's smoother.)
 

In a world where my wife's mobile i5 with a 4200 IGP cannot run StarCraft 2 at anything better than "lowest details" without becoming a slideshow?
 
The current is the Skylake (6xxx series). The IGPs in those chips are very powerful; actually matching a decent entry level discrete card.

The I5 4200 is a haswell chip, which is 2-3 generations old depending on how you want to look at it.
 

Chris Droste

Honorable
May 29, 2013
275
0
10,810
14
actually they went back a step; Broadwell (read i5/i7 5xxx series mobile chips) sport Iris and Iris Pro graphics, and with Skylake they dialed back to Intel 520/530 graphics; which at least according to toms is equivalent to an R7 250(on DDR3) or a 7750. apparently also equivalent to my now-ancient HD 3870 X2 and that wouldn't even make a decent build 5 years ago. Apparently even with the Iris graphics would be on the same tier as an R7 360, which is still a tier under my HTPC's 7790. so no; Intel still does not make a viable budget gaming graphics solution. I would not, in good conscience recc anything under a GTX 960M in the mobile segment; even the "R9 M275X" AMD mobile graphics don't stack up to a reasonable experience for games; and when im thinking reasonable; I'm thinking A-rated Title less than 5 years old; Not xxxCraft and Counter-strike. GuildWars2 and World of Warships runs decently with medium details on my 7790 2Gig, and that is where i think the threshold lay for a "gamer laptop" is. nothing intel integrated has yet to match/surpass that threshold afaik.
 
I don't know why you're comparing the new HD to the old Iris...there is a new Iris as well.

Iris was only on upper end broadwell parts, the rest used an older HD graphics chip.

Skylake chips with Iris use a newer version (Iris 540) which is even more powerful.
 

Chris Droste

Honorable
May 29, 2013
275
0
10,810
14
yeah but you're not getting a skylake i7-6890HQ with an Iris 580 IGP in a 'budget' laptop. Chances are when you get a laptop with that chip instead you're getting 17.3" Desktop replacement workstation that aready comes with a GTX 970M or 980M that costs $2-3k dollars. almost any SKU with a Skylake i7 out there right now is an i7-6700; and even those are paired with better dedicated solutions. Not saying you can't get a laptop that way but none of the major OEMs will build you a $799 14.1" 1080p laptop with "good" integrated Intel graphics. this is where AMD's APUs spank them all day long.
 
You didn't get iris in old budget laptops, either. So i still don't know why you're comparing new HD to old iris.

Your idea of a viable budget gaming gpu is far above most others, including the authors of this site.

I can't think of an apu with graphics as strong as the r7 250. You can get the 530 on an i3 6100 for $122. This annihilates any apu in the price range.

How you say you wouldn't recommend anything lower than a 960m, then go on to praise apu's gaming ability is baffling to me, Btw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY