News AMD Ryzen 7040 Phoenix Mobile Specs Show No Sign of PCIe 5.0

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I mean, it's not a power laptop, not too surprising, putting that in does not make sense as it drives the cost and would not make much sense.

My desktop has PCIE 4.0 and I use every bit of it with power use, so it's not like it's an issue at the moment.

Let's hope the power usage vs performance is killer though, that's all everyone wants from a portable laptop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V and bit_user
cknobman said:
Looking forward to the 780m graphics, not much need for dedicated graphics whit that.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and then in a design that is light but not necessarily thin so we can have ports, SO-DIMM, 2 M.2 2280 SSDs and real quiet yet, for a 15-28W CPU, great performance. Imagine that with a 70Wh battery.
 
One thing about the 780M still puzzles me. It is supposed to have 12 CUs. In RDNA3 there are 128 shaders/CU (or 64 shaders with 2 FP Units) which basically doubles the throughput as we saw with the 7900 XTX. That translates into 1536 Shaders for the 780M vs 768 for the 680m, because RDNA2 has only 64FPs/CU.
+Higher Clocks +DDR5
Shouldn't that be more like +125-150% compared to the 680M?
Early leaks were also hinting 3600M like performance for the 780M. 2050Mish is pretty disappointing now.
And that's not only me. Here they also list it as 8,9 FP32 TFLOPs vs 3,4 for the 680M.
 
Why is this article talking about PCI-Express v4.0 like it's ancient tech? IIRC, it was first available (for AM4) on the X470 platform. It's still blazingly fast and I know that because my gaming NVMe drives are just PCI-Express v3.0 and they're more than fast enough to reduce load times to a few seconds. Let's be honest, does anything exist yet that's fast enough to be bottlenecked by PCI-Express v4.0? I really don't think so, at least, not in the consumer market.

It could be that PCI-Express v5.0 would be nothing more than an added expense that pays no dividends so it would be smart not to bother with it yet. It's like, I was personally not the least bit impressed with the fact that the Radeon RX 7000-series has DP2.1 while the GeForce RTX 4000-series doesn't. Since neither series of cards is even remotely potent enough to use that kind of bandwidth, there was no point to it.

If AMD incurred any extra expense in supporting DP2.1, it was nothing more than a dumb marketing stunt that paid no real dividends. If it wasn't more expensive to implement, then it was a mistake for nVidia to not do it.

Now, I may think that Jensen Huang is human garbage but he's not the least bit stupid. If nVidia didn't implement DP2.1, it's probably because it did cost more and wasn't worth it.

Complaining about not using a cutting-edge technology that's probably expensive and has no real added benefit is both childish and stupid so I really don't care.
 
Karl_Schwarzschild said:
One thing about the 780M still puzzles me. It is supposed to have 12 CUs. In RDNA3 there are 128 shaders/CU (or 64 shaders with 2 FP Units) which basically doubles the throughput as we saw with the 7900 XTX. That translates into 1536 Shaders for the 780M vs 768 for the 680m, because RDNA2 has only 64FPs/CU.
+Higher Clocks +DDR5
Shouldn't that be more like +125-150% compared to the 680M?
Early leaks were also hinting 3600M like performance for the 780M. 2050Mish is pretty disappointing now.
And that's not only me. Here they also list it as 8,9 FP32 TFLOPs vs 3,4 for the 680M.
Click to expand...
The GPU Frequency in APU's are very limited for power reasons, so even if you have the hardware, don't expect the clocks to go so high for power saving reasons.
Short of being plugged into the wall, you're only going to get so much performance out of it when in battery mode.
Remember, AMD is focused on "Power Savings", not giving you the maximum performance out of 12 CU's while in battery mode.

Radeon RX 6400 performance built into your APU isn't bad, considering it's a "Budget GPU" built into your APU.

You got to remember that AMD's 12 CU's of RDNA3 for their mobile line is a step up from 8 CU's of VEGA graphics.
 
Avro Arrow said:
Why is this article talking about PCI-Express v4.0 like it's ancient tech? IIRC, it was first available (for AM4) on the X470 platform. It's still blazingly fast and I know that because my gaming NVMe drives are just PCI-Express v3.0 and they're more than fast enough to reduce load times to a few seconds. Let's be honest, does anything exist yet that's fast enough to be bottlenecked by PCI-Express v4.0? I really don't think so, at least, not in the consumer market.

It could be that PCI-Express v5.0 would be nothing more than an added expense that pays no dividends so it would be smart not to bother with it yet. It's like, I was personally not the least bit impressed with the fact that the Radeon RX 7000-series has DP2.1 while the GeForce RTX 4000-series doesn't. Since neither series of cards is even remotely potent enough to use that kind of bandwidth, there was no point to it.

If AMD incurred any extra expense in supporting DP2.1, it was nothing more than a dumb marketing stunt that paid no real dividends. If it wasn't more expensive to implement, then it was a mistake for nVidia to not do it.

Now, I may think that Jensen Huang is human garbage but he's not the least bit stupid. If nVidia didn't implement DP2.1, it's probably because it did cost more and wasn't worth it.

Complaining about not using a cutting-edge technology that's probably expensive and has no real added benefit is both childish and stupid so I really don't care.
Click to expand...
Because they want to "Keep up with the latest tech", even if the application doesn't always make sense like in mobile where higher PCIe spec would sap more energy out of a limited battery.
 
It's a bit weird that AMD changed specs of few products they announced on CES.
This includes Ryzen 780M GPU that I spotted few weeks ago as being the world's first GPU that runs at 3000MHz at stock settings.
I was very impressed. But then later, for some reason, they changed that to 2900MHz. I attached the screenshot that I captured few weeks ago.
df8689b505a8be3b922410eef7fa872bd64ea46993da264da8b563fe26889d49.png
 
Last edited:
"Why is this article talking about PCI-Express v4.0 like it's ancient tech? IIRC, it was first available (for AM4) on the X470 platform. It's still blazingly fast and I know that because my gaming NVMe drives are just PCI-Express v3.0 and they're more than fast enough to reduce load times to a few seconds. Let's be honest, does anything exist yet that's fast enough to be bottlenecked by PCI-Express v4.0? I really don't think so, at least, not in the consumer market.

It could be that PCI-Express v5.0 would be nothing more than an added expense that pays no dividends so it would be smart not to bother with it yet. It's like, I was personally not the least bit impressed with the fact that the Radeon RX 7000-series has DP2.1 while the GeForce RTX 4000-series doesn't. Since neither series of cards is even remotely potent enough to use that kind of bandwidth, there was no point to it.

If AMD incurred any extra expense in supporting DP2.1, it was nothing more than a dumb marketing stunt that paid no real dividends. If it wasn't more expensive to implement, then it was a mistake for nVidia to not do it.

Now, I may think that Jensen Huang is human garbage but he's not the least bit stupid. If nVidia didn't implement DP2.1, it's probably because it did cost more and wasn't worth it.

Complaining about not using a cutting-edge technology that's probably expensive and has no real added benefit is both childish and stupid so I really don't care."

I agree completely on your comments about PCIe 4 vs PCIe 5. There's basically nothing that needs the bandwidth yet that could be fit inside a laptop right now.
Now with DP 2.1, I could see that as being a part that AMD could have decided to engineer now because they had the resources and keep the design stable for a few generations of GPUs, and Nvidia may have decided to put the effort into something else and stick with DP 2.0 instead for the time being. I could see either decision as being correct for either company depending on the situation.
And I will learn how to use quotes in this thing eventually.
 
It's more sensible to use PCIe gen 4 for mobile market. PCI Express 4.0 was released for the consumer market in 2019 while PCI Express 3.0 was released for the consumer market 7 years before in 2012. So, there is 3 more years for Graphics Card to implement PCI Express gen 5 for that market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli
As the owner of an Asus G17 Advantage and a 5900HX using PCIe3 instead of PCIe4 (because AMD reasons; check signature), I can't say I've noticed the lack of PCIe4 and when you compare the 5900HX to the 6900HS (which has PCe4) and the 6800M in both, the performance delta is... Basically zero, which reflects my own subjective view. And I've been using this laptop more and more than my main PC, because it's just as fast as my main PC (Vega64 vs 6800M is evenly matched!) driving 2x 1440p screens. Bonkers.

I also have the laptop with 2 NVMes: the included Intel SSD (SSDPEKNU010TZ) and a Crucial P5+ (PCIe4); 1TB each. They both perform as well as if they were in PCIe4, since not everything is sequential reads.

So, while I get we all want the latest and greatest... PCIe5 won't be actually needed until a few years down the line. So a laptop not having it right now is not something I find outrageous or demonstrable as a "practical downside".

Not having USB4 or external connectivity that can make use of all the available bandwidth is more glaring and offensive to me.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikolay Mihaylov and suryasans
There is like one type of person that won't be able to take full advantage of their system because of PCIe4 instead of PCIe5.

The guy who spends 5k on a laptop for gaming. He might only be able to hit 7500MB/s transfer speeds on his M.2 instead of 10,000MB/s+

What a horror show!
 
PCIe 5.0 would actually be a great thing if GPU/SSD were built to use it as you could use half the lanes and end up in a better place power consumption wise. However that hasn't happened with the current GPUs and all of the SSDs are designed around x4 lanes so it seems like PCIe 5.0 as of now would just be a waste of board engineering cost.
 
Kamen Rider Blade said:
Because they want to "Keep up with the latest tech", even if the application doesn't always make sense like in mobile where higher PCIe spec would sap more energy out of a limited battery.
Click to expand...
I get that but it shouldn't be treated like a big deal when it really isn't. I thought it was absurd when AMD was crowing about DP v2.1 because DP v1.4a doesn't hinder the performance of cards at our current level of tech. The best option for any company is to use the lest-expensive standard that won't hinder the product's performance. AFAIK, not even the RTX 4090 is powerful enough to exceed the specifications of DP v1.4a so it's a moot point. I don't know about the 4090 Ti or the new Titan but if those cards can exceed the DP v1.4a spec (which they probably won't), I'm sure that they'll have DP v2.1 on them.

I didn't understand the criticism of GeForce cards using the older DisplayPort version and I don't understand this criticism either. It's a mobile APU which means that it'll be weak by desktop standards so a lack of PCI-e5 won't make any difference except maybe cost more (which nobody wants).

If it makes no difference, who cares? That's all I was saying.
 
It doesn’t need it. Nothing really does. All they do here is to cram new stuff down your throat so that you keep buying stuff. The smart thing to do is not buy anything until you actually need it. And I’m not going for any new PCie until I need it.

this site is nothing more than advertising and to get people interested in buying hardware. Hardware has become a commodity and there’s nothing exciting about it.

say no to advertising. Think critically for yourself and don’t buy anything unless you absolutely need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom