Considering the only real difference is BIOS and Driver, that's not surprising really
I'd be very interested to know how much AMD charges for the gaming version of the embedded GPU, and for the pro version. Could this be a truly lucrative deal for AMD? Or is it more like the console contracts where their margins are tiny? The mindshare gains alone would probably justify the deal anyway, but it's an interesting question.
I wonder how big the market is for tiny workstations such as this Dell machine.
I wonder how big the market is for tiny workstations such as this Dell machine.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Sorry I read it wrong. The GPU apparently is just Polaris + HBM.
Phoronix has provided further information about this:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMDGPU-Vega-M-Kernel-Support
I now wonder if the future discrete Vega M that is supposedly coming out later this year is the same chip, just with more CUs enabled, or if it's an actual Vega.
If Vega's architecture wasn't used for this chip, I'm thinking this means the "semi-custom" order from Intel may be older than we think.
To think PS4 Pro's Neo GPU may actually be closer to Vega in ISA than the Vega M in Kaby Lake G.
And I also wonder why call it Vega, since it apparently has no RPM, no DX12_1 support, no NGG and apparently no HBCC. It's just a Polaris with HBM2 for higher efficiency (and an apparently unbalanced ROP count?).
Intel: We want an AMD GPU to combine with our CPU on a package, build us a Vega since that's your newest architecture you're building
Raja: We should use Polaris instead, with HBM2
Intel: But the features you have in Vega could be very beneficial
Raja: Yeah well... if I tell you the truth, will you give me a job?
Intel: Uh sure, why not
Raja: Vega features don't work
Intel: Polaris it is! See you in 2 years, we'll have an office waiting
Raja: We should use Polaris instead, with HBM2
Intel: But the features you have in Vega could be very beneficial
Raja: Yeah well... if I tell you the truth, will you give me a job?
Intel: Uh sure, why not
Raja: Vega features don't work
Intel: Polaris it is! See you in 2 years, we'll have an office waiting
I know it's a dead horse and whatnot, but unless you're actually saying that AMD outright lies about their in-house benches, all the advertised features are there and work on the hardware-level, only thing that's really lacking is the automagic primitive shader -stuff
Oh come on, it's a joke. Why so serious?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I think the not working part simply refers to the fact that none of the new features (other than HBM2) are bringing substantial gains compared to Polaris. Not if we look at performance-per-CU (@ iso clocks), performance-per-mm^2, performance-per-watt, performance-per-bandwidth, etc.
Maybe RPM is the exception, but someone would have to be able to somehow disable it and test one of the two games that support it (Wolfenstein 2 and Far Cry 5).
Given how Vega 56/64 both have an excess of compute throughput relative to its geometry/rasterization+bandwidth performances, I'd say we'll probably only see some difference in the lower-end Vega GPUs embedded in Raven Ridge.
And then there is how much Intel charges the OEM's, any rumour/leaks on the pricing?
Because it seems the Dell and HP laptops (both OEM's for now are only premium and not gaming series) are at the upper price relative to some other configuration options.
Can it be explained why both HP and Dell have not made a gaming brand series version themselves with these SKUs.
HP gaming range is Omen but their Vega-M is a premium Spectre series, while Dell gaming range is Alienware but also subset in Inspiron and G-series however their Vega-M is premium XPS instead.
HP Premium range with Vega-M option: https://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/laptops/spectre-x360-211501--1#!&tab=vao and detail https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-spectre-x360-15t-touch-laptop-2kd76av-1
HP Gaming: https://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/gaming--1/hp-omen-397505--1#!
Dell Premium range with Vega-M option: http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-xps-15-2-in-1/spd/xps-15-9575-2-in-1-laptop
Dell Gaming:
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-dell-g7-15-gaming-laptop/spd/g-series-15-7588-laptop
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/inspiron-15-7000-gaming/spd/inspiron-15-7577-laptop
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-alienware-15-gaming-laptop/spd/alienware-15-laptop
In reality it looks like no-one has created a gaming laptop version of Kaby Lake-G with Vega, possibly because it only has 8 PCIe lanes available along with potentially pricing when looking at those models.
So both Dell and HP are committed heavily to gaming laptop models, but raises the question where is Kaby Lake-G with Vega versions; the benefit of looking at them is that they already have premium models available or soon and both are not signed up to GPP.
Not sure if one should expect products from Asus/etc any quicker than what Dell and HP could do for their gaming series.
HP gaming range is Omen but their Vega-M is a premium Spectre series, while Dell gaming range is Alienware but also subset in Inspiron and G-series however their Vega-M is premium XPS instead.
HP Premium range with Vega-M option: https://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/laptops/spectre-x360-211501--1#!&tab=vao and detail https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-spectre-x360-15t-touch-laptop-2kd76av-1
HP Gaming: https://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/gaming--1/hp-omen-397505--1#!
Dell Premium range with Vega-M option: http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-xps-15-2-in-1/spd/xps-15-9575-2-in-1-laptop
Dell Gaming:
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-dell-g7-15-gaming-laptop/spd/g-series-15-7588-laptop
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/inspiron-15-7000-gaming/spd/inspiron-15-7577-laptop
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/new-alienware-15-gaming-laptop/spd/alienware-15-laptop
In reality it looks like no-one has created a gaming laptop version of Kaby Lake-G with Vega, possibly because it only has 8 PCIe lanes available along with potentially pricing when looking at those models.
So both Dell and HP are committed heavily to gaming laptop models, but raises the question where is Kaby Lake-G with Vega versions; the benefit of looking at them is that they already have premium models available or soon and both are not signed up to GPP.
Not sure if one should expect products from Asus/etc any quicker than what Dell and HP could do for their gaming series.
Last edited:
How on earth wouldn't 8 general purpose PCIe lanes be enough given all the other platform features including discrete GFX which isn't eating them?
I also said possibly cost from Intel and possibly for PCIe, meaning not definite.
For one all modern gaming laptops have 16x PCIe lanes for a dGPU, these SKUs limits what other dGPUs can also be sold now/support in future for such models.
It is better reason than an article blaming it on a single IHV for why no Kaby Lake-G models from OEMs; which ignores the larger OEMs such as Dell or HP gaming, usually one of them is quick to respond when a new CPU-GPU comes to market.
To put gaming 8th gen Intel into reference:
Dell launched 8th gen Intel gaming laptops before Asus including an i9 model before them, Dell was 4th April while Asus was Mid and end of April:
Dell: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12605/dells-8th-gen-alienware-laptops-and-monitors
Asus: http://tabletmonkeys.com/intel-core-i7-8750h-coffeelake-powered-asus-zephyrus-gm501-launch-april-16/
Asus i9 was end April earliest: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-...offee-Lake-H-Core-i9-8950HK-CPU.292694.0.html
Point is like I said, Dell/HP large OEMs (one of them usually) do launch latest generation gaming products as quick as the known OEMs such as Asus/MSI/etc in that segment and especially with 8th Gen Intel.
What are your thoughts then on why there no Kaby Lake-G Vega M gaming laptops as a notebook publication seems to think they should already be announced-launched?
Last edited:
Again, KBL-G has discrete graphics built in package, PCIe lanes are irrelevant from graphics' perspective.
Please take the whole post.
Yeah I agree as long as an OEM is not interested in expanding the gaming laptop product to support dGPU or future support/expansion, along with possibly costs that can have a consideration in multiple ways (separately it could also impact time to market decision).
Whats your thoughts on why there are no gaming KBL-G gaming laptops that a notebook site thinks should already be announced/launched considering OEMs such as Dell/HP/etc (or usually at least one of them) are as fast at launching gaming models as the smaller gaming centric OEMs?
Curious as you seem to have strong thoughts on what it is not.
Last edited:
16 lanes versus 8 is for all practical intents and purposes zero advantage even for bleeding edge GPUs, much less a mainstream budget part like this vega-polaris frankenstein hybrid. Besides, routing 4 CPU lanes straight to a SSD would do users way more good overall than going through the platform controller, and giving all CPU lanes to the GPU. Why would anyone seriously care how many PCI lanes are hooked to the GPU anyhow? It's end-result performance that matters, not theoretical numbers.
Besides, you'll save a bit of power not hooking up all the PCIe lanes. Always* a smart thing in a laptop!
*A true-ish statement.
Yeah maybe better to say x16 lanes for mult-configuration flexibility with dGPU.16 lanes versus 8 is for all practical intents and purposes zero advantage even for bleeding edge GPUs, much less a mainstream budget part like this vega-polaris frankenstein hybrid. Besides, routing 4 CPU lanes straight to a SSD would do users way more good overall than going through the platform controller, and giving all CPU lanes to the GPU. Why would anyone seriously care how many PCI lanes are hooked to the GPU anyhow? It's end-result performance that matters, not theoretical numbers.
Besides, you'll save a bit of power not hooking up all the PCIe lanes. Always* a smart thing in a laptop!
*A true-ish statement.
But I never said it was to do with performance (not sure if anyone has tested with 570/580/1060/1070 at x8 and behaviour), it may or may not impact performance but there is consumer perception who are used to having dGPU with x16; you would need to convince customers that they were not impacted or slightly mislead going to x8 when desktop always recommended x16 and especially so if they found out after purchasing it with a dGPU or adding one later to their gaming laptop; also brings into spotlight consideration what OEMs do for future support/expansion and dGPUs.
But the context responding to is gaming laptops that has options with said CPU (this case would be the 6-core 8750H) for GTX1060/GTX1070OC with those 8th gen Intels (8750H) and possibly GTX1080 depending upon OEM although quite a few only offer that with the i9, also not all are Max-Q designs with that CPU depends upon series within the OEM.
I chose the 6-core 8750H because it can be had in gaming laptops with GTX1060 at $1,079 with Dell, but until pricing from Intel to OEMs or what OEMs intend to charge for KBL-G difficult to know what it should be compared to (in a gaming product).
The big caveat and Kaotik has a point is a lot of this is context of adding/supporting a dGPU, and whether OEMs would want the Vega Kaby Lake-G as a single solution or able to fit more broadly within various gaming brand series and at what price.
But these recent discussion has to be seen also in context of a recent article suggesting we should had already seen gaming laptops with KBL-G, but no OEMs to date have announced/launched those, including large OEMs such as Dell who are as quick with gaming products as the smaller game centric OEMs, and especially 8th Gen Intel.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Many people have, and there's zero difference in performance when comparing x8 and x16 PCIe 3.0.
Performance with HBCC being put to use could show a very different scenario, but since this Vega M apparently has a Polaris GPU, we'll probably never know for sure.
Unless someone finds a way to disable e.g. half the memory in Vega 64/56 cards, enables HBCC and then tests with PCIe 8x/16x on games that eat lots of VRAM.
Why would anyone ever even consider separate discrete GPU for Kaby Lake-G -based machine? There is literally zero reasons, and there never will be one. If you want different GPU options, you go with a regular KBL or CFL.
What is your thoughts then on why there are no OEM KBL-G gaming laptops even from those OEMs such as Dell when a notebook site seems to think they should exist now as part of an article?
You must had missed this in the last few posts.
As I pointed out Dell is one of the most aggressive in launching 8th gen gaming laptops, and is without pressure from any IHV.
My guess? Intel must be charging an arm and a leg for Kaby Lake G. Possibly more expensive than having a "vanilla" Intel CPU + NVidia 1050 class GPU. Don't forget that KLG has HBM2, which is expensive. OEMs could theoretically release a more expensive gaming laptop with it to offset it, but what would be the point if it would more than what a GTX1080 one costs?
EDIT - Looking at Dell website, a XPS 15 with Core i5 KLG costs around £1400. An Alienware with a GTX1060 costs £1099. What do you think gamers would buy if there would be an Alienware with KLG at £1400? No brainer...
EDIT - Looking at Dell website, a XPS 15 with Core i5 KLG costs around £1400. An Alienware with a GTX1060 costs £1099. What do you think gamers would buy if there would be an Alienware with KLG at £1400? No brainer...
Last edited:
I think price is part of it (personally feel/speculate it is multiple factors), but you need to look at comparable series and even then it could be argued which 8th Gen CPU should be used as the price OEM's pay for KLG is unknown.
But closest example would be HP Spectre x360 with its configurable options.
HP Spectre x360t with i7-8550U and MX150 is $120 cheaper than i7-8705G KLG: https://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-spectre-x360-15t-touch-laptop-2kd76av-1
However we have seen OEM's/partners try to normalise pricing sometimes between subtly different "comparable" tier solutions to make both viable.
Yeah I know not really comparable but closest word I could think of.