AMD Radeon finally back into laptops?

[Deleted member 13524]

It's starting to get very difficult to discuss anything with that new guy posting insults towards me and not being moderated.
The insults have escalated to "petulant child".
I don't get it. Maybe the mods are getting a blast with the bullying, and if they're trying to pass the message that I'm not welcome then they're being very successful.

what happened to the post before you posted that? The one I quoted you on? That just isn't important anymore for this conversation?

Which one? The last one you quoted me on just said something like "CSI showed you he's right" with little more than that.

I showed you the gp107 did get down there. Yet you keep on going with your imaginary thinking......

Please post it again because I haven't seen it. Again, maybe because of all the noise around but I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
Where is a GP107 consuming 35W?

Is it from this?

Just looking at the temps, they increase 35 degrees C, that alone tells us they can save 35 watts or so if they stop the card from boosting (seriously overclocked card here), so just to point out temps are playing a pretty important roll with power usage when this card is overclocked.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that you're taking the "35W savings" from the temperature increase?
Temperature increase, which depends on ambient temperature, exhausted heat from all other components in the PC, the case, the airflow in the case and the graphics card's own cooler using fans with variable speed, etc., is telling you the card can "save 35W" if they simply stop the boosting?

BTW I did no such things to you other then stating you should look up some of the things you are posting about, hinting to you are not correct.

Yeah this is totally friendly:

I suggest you look up things like that when you have free time before spouting
(...)
You kinda put your foot in the fire here with pretty absurd comments

 

[Razor1]

If you can't read my posts, and just commenting on them, no I'm not going repost them, go find them man. That is major problem if you can't do those things.

If you can't understand what I stated go read up some more. When you go down the path of saying people don't know what they are posting about. Then sorry I will make it more blunt next time. But it seems like the mods don't like it when I'm blunt because they deleted my post on other people complaining about it saying its was too argumentative, but yeah, I even agree it was too argumentative, and left it at that but it was quid pro quo to your comments.

You were diminishing ieldra's post because of his post count, yeah comment on his post not his post count.

You were the one that misdirected the topic by introducing nV comparative performance per watt, then when shown you were wrong, then go down to the path that others have misdirected the thread.

No, you are going around the topic, and circumventing what is being talked about by blaming and diminishing others. Don't do that!

if you can't show why you think with something credible about what you post about, its one thing ok you guessed, but to say that others that have shown things that show what you have stated is most likely incorrect, because you guessed and they didn't, doesn't make your guessing more likely to be true, quite the contrary.

 

[Razor1]

http://www.hwcompare.com/25931/geforce-gtx-850m-vs-geforce-gtx-950m/

here is your TDP for the gm107 mobile

40 watts, and this is for the entire MXM module not just the GPU, GPU+memory.

here the chip you were saying was at 35watts (GM108)

http://hwbench.com/vgas/geforce-940mx-vs-geforce-gtx-1080-ti

its at 23 Watts for the entire module GPU + RAM.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

AMD’s new mobile GPUs for MacBooks aren’t that powerful

This new line up of Polaris mobile graphics chips is made up of the Radeon Pro 450, 455 and 460, built on the 14nm FinFET process used in the creation of the RX 480 and similar. In terms of raw performance they are more akin to a RX 450, considering the RX 460 desktop card is nearly 30 per cent more powerful than the top end version.

In specifications released by AMD (via Ars), the Radeon 450 Pro is capable of just one teraflop of computing power. To give this some context, the RX 460 desktop GPU produces 2.2 teraflops. A several-generations-old Radeon 5870 produces 2.7 teraflops. While these mobile chips aren’t designed to act like desktop graphics cards, you would assume they’d be able to compete with a high-end card that’s half a decade old.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...mobile-gpus-for-macbooks-arent-that-powerful/

 

[manux]

Pretty poor judgment from apple. I had hoped they would make a higher end model minimally compatible with vr and doing a deal with oculus/valve. Can't blame amd for that. They deliver what the customer wants.

It seems to be all the rage on windows side that any new gaming laptop 14" or bigger is vr compatible. I suppose razer blade would be the one that somehow could be compared to macbook pro's. Having the uumph to drive vr doesn't mean the laptop has to be fireball on regular use.

 

[Razor1]

People are still going to buy Apple, they have a steady following and GPU prowess isn't what is on their top of their list for those buyers.

 

[ieldra]

It's starting to get very difficult to discuss anything with that new guy posting insults towards me and not being moderated.
The insults have escalated to "petulant child".

Calling you a petulant child would indeed be an insult. Saying your behavior/attitude in your last few posts in this thread is that of a petulant child is not.

Playing the victim once again and now extending your victimhood to include being mistreated by the mods also amounts to what I would consider infantile behavior.

You initially said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that GP107 hasn't been proven to scale to 35W. This is not what triggered the heated discussion.

What triggered the heated discussion is your response to @CSI PC posting the Tom's Hardware under-clocking results in which you essentially implied he was a moron, because only a moron would extrapolate to NEGATIVE WATTAGE. You attacked him for having posted this TEST DATA, then you went and quoted PCGAMER on mobile Pascal power draw with no actual testing having been done. None. Zip. Zilch.

Later you mentioned that GTX 1060 test data from Tom's is just one sample being tested by one source, to detract from it's validity.

So just a brief recap of the past two sentences, so we avoid any other misunderstandings on your part.

1. Unhappy that GTX 1060 underclock results are based on only one sample from only one source.
2. Quotes PCGAMER on power usage for mobile Pascal, based on no testing whatsoever.


Now I got that one off my chest, let's move on to more serious and pertinent discussion.

What you're about to read is phrased as a question, but I want you to know I do not expect you to answer it.

If a GP106 based discrete board has it's power consumption halved when the GPU core is downclocked 33% from 2000-1500mhz (and this is with a constant ~20W between board losses and memory power; thus effective 60% power reduction on the GPU) what thought-process leads you to conclude that a GP107 chip cannot meet a 35W TDP ?

Let's call it 15W being lost on the board for a 1050Ti; so at 1900mhz we are looking at ~60W.

The base clock for this card is in the 1300MHz range.

The GPU on the 1060 draws ~40W at 1500MHz.

The Polaris 11 GPU that's going on the MacBook is a 35W TDP. Only 5W less than a GP106 die operating at a constant 67% higher clock than the MAXIMUM clock the Radeon Pro 460 will boost to.

Yet here you are berating and mocking the people who are arguing that a chip almost half the size can draw 5W less, and at an even lower clockrate of 1290MHz.

Edit:

I'd also like to inform you that attempting to discredit a post using the poster's post count is what is called an ad-hominem attack, interesting that you should resort to that.

 

[lanek]

People are still going to buy Apple, they have a steady following and GPU prowess isn't what is on their top of their list for those buyers.

Even more, look at the last year generation, the Intel CPU they was using had less power of the 2013 Macbook version... Peoples have still buy it. And we cant say that the battery life was much better.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

If you can't read my posts, and just commenting on them, no I'm not going repost them, go find them man. That is major problem if you can't do those things.

I did just that. I spent like 10 minutes reading all the posts from the last 2 pages and I came up with this:

Which one? The last one you quoted me on just said something like "CSI showed you he's right" with little more than that.


Please post it again because I haven't seen it. Again, maybe because of all the noise around but I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
Where is a GP107 consuming 35W?

Is it from this?

Just looking at the temps, they increase 35 degrees C, that alone tells us they can save 35 watts or so if they stop the card from boosting (seriously overclocked card here), so just to point out temps are playing a pretty important roll with power usage when this card is overclocked.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that you're taking the "35W savings" from the temperature increase?
Temperature increase, which depends on ambient temperature, exhausted heat from all other components in the PC, the case, the airflow in the case and the graphics card's own cooler using fans with variable speed, etc., is telling you the card can "save 35W" if they simply stop the boosting?

And your answer is "I'm not bothering to repost my posts"?

I quoted your post so you wouldn't have to. I wrote down my interpretation of whatever you wrote so you could clarify.
And you have the nerve of accusing me of "not reading"?
Could it be that you're afraid of your own arguments?

You were diminishing ieldra's post because of his post count, yeah comment on his post not his post count.

I diminished that user's posts because they're 90% personal confrontation and 10% whatever other people have posted already, without adding a shred of argument or knowledge of his own.
And yes, the fact that they have a 2-digit post count shows that already large percentage of his posts are already made of almost pure trolling, hence mentioning the number of posts.

By the way, I also think you're a culprit of that behavior by putting likes into every one of those bile-filled posts. You're friggin' encouraging it.
You may enjoy these posts a lot while they're agreeing with your point of view, but you'll be sorry when this kind of attitude becomes common on all grounds and you become unable to have a simple conversation in some sub-forums.

http://www.hwcompare.com/25931/geforce-gtx-850m-vs-geforce-gtx-950m/

here is your TDP for the gm107 mobile

40 watts, and this is for the entire MXM module not just the GPU, GPU+memory.

Those aren't measurements, they're numbers taken from Wikipedia.
And they're wrong.

In MXM format, the GTX 850M's TDP is 55W:
http://www.embpower-sparkle.com/products_detail.asp?id=64

Maybe the card consumes less if it's embedded into the motherboard, but that's definitely not taking 15W from it.

here the chip you were saying was at 35watts (GM108)

http://hwbench.com/vgas/geforce-940mx-vs-geforce-gtx-1080-ti

its at 23 Watts for the entire module GPU + RAM.

I'm pretty sure I wrote "nvidia developed GM108 to reach that TDP (referring to 35W)", and not that GM108's lower TDP limit was 35W.
Microsoft's implementation of the GM108 on the Surface Book is probably even lower than that, since it uses only two chips of DDR3 and is clocked even lower.



By the way, where does it say that the 35W for the new Pro 4x0 for the macs don't include memory?

 

[Razor1]

Even more, look at the last year generation, the Intel CPU they was using had less power of the 2013 Macbook version... Peoples have still buy it. And we cant say that the battery life was much better.

I do have to say though the OLED strip is really cool! lol, love to see more of tech being used.

 

[Razor1]

I did just that. I spent like 10 minutes reading all the posts from the last 2 pages and I came up with this:



And your answer is "I'm not bothering to repost my posts"?

I quoted your post so you wouldn't have to. I wrote down my interpretation of whatever you wrote so you could clarify.
And you have the nerve of accusing me of "not reading"?
Could it be that you're afraid of your own arguments?

What you can't use google? I even told you where to look for it too. I just remembered where I read it before when I was interested in buying the laptop with the cards we were talking about.

I diminished that user's posts because they're 90% personal confrontation and 10% whatever other people have posted already, without adding a shred of argument or knowledge of his own.
And yes, the fact that he/she/it has a 2-digit post count shows that already large percentage of his posts are already made of almost pure trolling, hence mentioning the number of posts.

Post count means nothing. Its like you you have been around here for much less time then I have but have 1.5 times the post count, who gives a crap? Should I look down on you because you seem to spend more time here then I?

By the way, I also think you're a culprit of that behavior by putting likes into every one of those bile-filled posts.
You may enjoy these posts a lot while they're agreeing with your point of view, but you'll be sorry when this kind of attitude becomes common on all grounds and you become unable to have a simple conversation in some sub-forums.

If you feel that way, I will be more blunt next time and call you for what you really are lol. I told you I would and you can mark my words on it.

Those aren't measurements, they're numbers taken from Wikipedia.
And they're wrong.

In MXM format, the GTX 850M's TDP is 55W:
http://www.embpower-sparkle.com/products_detail.asp?id=64

Maybe the card consumes less if it's embedded into the motherboard, but that's definitely not taking 15W from it.

Board power is not TDP, two different things lol.

I don't think you remember the quibe about how nV and AMD switch between TDP and TBP when it suits them.

I'm pretty sure I wrote "nvidia developed GM108 to reach that TDP (referring to 35W)", and not that GM108's lower TDP limit was 35W.
Microsoft's implementation of the GM108 on the Surface Book is probably even lower than that, since it uses only two chips of DDR3 and is clocked even lower.

The form factor has a big difference in TDP.

By the way, where does it say that the 35W for the new Pro 4x0 for the macs don't include memory?

They never stated anything about the memory clocks in the footnote, and I fully expect AMD to be thoroughly misleading in these types of conversations, please look at all the manuals from their partners about their cards.....

If you don't believe what I'm saying here, all you got to do is look at the manuals for the rx480 and rx460, most if not all of them talk about GPU power only, they don't ever talk about full power usage of their cards as a whole.

Its just like their marketing material, less that 150 watts remember that? or for the rx460 less that 75 watts?

None of that happened.

 

[manux]

People are still going to buy Apple, they have a steady following and GPU prowess isn't what is on their top of their list for those buyers.

Sales trend for apple is not so great and I'm not at all convinced the latest crop of phones, tablets and laptops will change that significantly. Meanwhile microsoft really put their a-game out with latest releases. I had hoped more from apple as the current products are pretty minor upgrades and apple is missing big potential trends like vr. VR will take a significant effort to get right both on hw and software. If apple is ignoring vr that it's not something they can fix overnight in future.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/appl...-results-iphone-mac-sales-down-again-3581769/

edit. It's also very difficult proposition for developers once apple does support vr as apple vr supporting hardware base is zero.

 

[Razor1]

That a good point, yeah Apple sales have been dropping. I think the added pressure form other OEM on their notebooks (higher end form factors) and MS's surface pro, putting pressure on Apples Ipad, phones nothing to say there, just better products from Samsung have taken a toll on Apple sales.

 

[ieldra]

Microsoft has a really solid product imo with the Surface Pro line, I just feel it's way too damned expensive.

 

[Razor1]

well if apple can charge that much, and MS makes a better product with better specs and places it at the same price range, MS is going to win, and that is what is happening. Surface pro is killing Ipad in sales, last a checked.

 

[manux]

My feeling is apple sells based on solid reputation earned from past really functional products. Once people get disappointed and stuff like vr is not available(remember times when office must work or computer is null and void) the reputation erodes. Once you loose enough reputation it will be very difficult to climb back up. Microsoft is still in bad place and some platforms like symbian just disappeared with no chance of recovery.

Apple is facing heavy competition and they are not bringing out their a game. They are leaving really solid holes into products that can be exploited by competition like microsoft, samsung and google. I think there is balance on coming out with the right product at right time. Maybe the right time wasn't this fall but it's next year. But I think apple is really gambling here by putting out pretty basic products from hw point of view.

I wonder how trends in sw industry like deep neural networks will affect apple sales. Anyone researching or producing dnn algorithms/code/products pretty much cannot use apple products for anything serious. Developers might be forced to use alternative platforms. To me it looks like "all" new startups is old idea + ai (->dnn,cuda,caffe,gpu power needed, more the better)

 

[Razor1]

I agree, Apple in the past, created niches and then created a name for its self, Iphone, Ipad, their music devices, the way they made an ecosystem with Itunes and locked everyone in, pretty much created a base for their "high value product lines". They were innovating ideas. Other companies have seen what they did in the past and now are mimicking them and taking away what they have. The only way Apple can sustain itself is to keep innovating, which they really haven't done in the past few years after Steve Jobs.

I'm not sure what other companies are doing with DNN's, but yeah its probably going to affect apple to some degree, they are interested in self driving cars too.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

What you can't use google? I even told you where to look for it too.

Because during an intelligent argument you post proof to back your arguments.
Writing I saw this in a forum and if you want proof just google because I can't bother is pretty much the same as assuming you have zero evidence to back that up, IMO.

If you feel that way, I will be more blunt next time and call you for what you really are lol. I told you I would and you can mark my words on it.

Friendly advice: you start dropping insults and breaking the rules and perhaps getting your posts partially moderated is not the only thing that could happen.

They never stated anything about the memory clocks in the footnote

Why would it have to be in the foot notes? They wrote that information in the big numbers. 80GB/s for all models, meaning it's 5000MT/s GDDR5 on a 128bit bus.

Board power is not TDP, two different things lol.

And you're suggesting TBP is 55W and TDP is 40W? So this is an unprecedented case where TBP is 40% above TDP? It must be some kind of world record.

By the way, what exactly is your source for 40W on the 850M? Is it only that website that copy/pastes wikipedia, which in turn seems to have no source for that number?

and I fully expect AMD to be thoroughly misleading in these types of conversations

Ok then the 35W being "only for the chip" is pure speculation on your end.
I just wanted to know if there was actually any credible source for that.

 

[Razor1]

Because during an intelligent argument you post proof to back your arguments.
Writing I saw this in a forum and if you want proof just google because I can't bother is pretty much the same as assuming you have zero evidence to back that up, IMO.

In your opinion, just like your opnions on Apple GPU marketshare, your opnions don't mean much when you can't think further then the marketing crap AMD spill out to you.

Friendly advice: you start dropping insults and breaking the rules and perhaps getting your posts partially moderated is not the only thing that could happen.

Oh ok, I'll take that advice from you, who does the same shit lol.

Why would it have to be in the foot notes? They wrote that information in the big numbers. 80GB/s for all models, meaning it's 5000MT/s GDDR5 on a 128bit bus.

Right and you take their word for it when you want explicit takes on everything else anyone else talks about? Hypocrictical isn't it?

And you're suggesting TBP is 55W and TDP is 40W? So this is an unprecedented case where TBP is 40% above TDP? It must be some kind of world record.

I suggest you look it up, because I showed you a few places in recent history AMD did this, worse yet if you look back with the r3xx and r2xx line its even worse!

By the way, what exactly is your source for 40W on the 850M? Is it only that website that copy/pastes wikipedia, which in turn seems to have no source for that number?

How do you know its from wiki, btw, that is just one source, I have others, but I think you should look it up. Yeah others have it pegged at 45 watts....

BTW both databases show differences in TDP from both MXM models, I'm not going to post the links for you, you have the database links, you can search for yourself.

Ok then the 35W being "only for the chip" is pure speculation on your end.
I just wanted to know if there was actually any credible source for that.

And you are speculating it as well, so what does that make us, both speculating on two different sides, makes us a gaffer of idiots I guess.

 

[ieldra]

Ok then the 35W being "only for the chip" is pure speculation on your end.
I just wanted to know if there was actually any credible source for that.

Claiming that 35W figure is for the whole board is not speculative on your part?

That's great, I await your proof with great anticipation.