AMD Carrizo Laptops spotted in EU

..see, this is the problem right there. What actually happened is that the first Llano laptops idled at some 12-14w... at the same level as your average EeePC with an intel board.. and had laughably much higher performance on both cpu and gpu compared to the intel packages with power-draw at the same level. On top of that, normal work-load for video, internet-surfing, etc., still was better in terms of battery draw for each of the amd processors -- all the way until Haswell.

But in spite of that very useful product from the outset, AMD ended up doing exactly what Intel did, and tried to compete on the same benchmarks on peak performance. And pushing out products with higher clock frequencies, and with standard setups that would target higher clocks and ram-timings. While then advertising that the somewhat nearby top performance had marginally better performance/watt. Instead of specializing in what the platform actually could do: extremely low watt-draw while maintaining acceptable/normal use response.

First time I tested an underclock on an apu, I didn't really believe what happened at first. Because I could put 4 cores at 300Mhz, have the temp dip up to 40 degrees, and still soundly beat a 1.7Ghz Intel dual core (that then would run at peak) when running a video-encode. OpenCL performance.. still amazing. Ram could be underclocked without the bus noticing anything wrong, without any instability, or - more importantly - destroying the gpu performance. But there's no official tool for doing that and allowing a balancing scheme to respond to sustained workload, etc. So a standard setup would idle fairly high, marginally below an intel system, and also not have peak performance to show off in the benchmarks. It's just a waste of actually good hardware. Meanwhile, vendors keep insisting - for various reasons - that these low-powered laptop typewriters with high above average 3d performance isn't possible to sell. And we get very, very few laptops with thin and silent cooling, a larger battery, etc. While the ones that were there, some of the brazos tops, were sold at a lower price-point compared to the intel offerings in the same chassis. In spite of how they all were designed for the same use, except they had higher watt-drain, and horrifying 3d performance. The intel graphics drivers are still practically useless for 3d games and 3d contexts that use any kind of shader package, even if they're based on known frameworks. And that's.. shamefully bad. They post tiny incremental increases in performance, for example by emphasizing the desktop variants, at clocks that will never be used. While somehow not managing to post power-saving modes for both sandy and ivy bridge for the igp -- hopeless -- the gpu-load in a desktop context is somewhere around 3%. Or by using the windows performance ranking.. also useless.. But they still sell, because they advertise with higher clock-frequencies on the cpu (which ... you need to run Office..?).

So what AMD have always had the opportunity to do was to polish their drivers and control software, design a competent package designed for a typewriter+ laptop, and ace a segment of the market that was unpopulated until Haswell. While what they've really done is to fight a losing battle with peak performance for the benchmarks Intel focuses on. While vendors put the AMD offerings on the market in a way that pushes the prices down, or more to the point, always makes sure that the profit margins will always be higher on the intel sales. Extremely predictable what's going to be the outcome of that.

Point is - AMD has screwed up by trying to "keep up" with Intel. We know on beforehand that synthetic performance on amd cores is never going to be better "MHz for MHz" -- so why try? Why go along with the common narrative about what matters when it comes to performance on laptops? Even as Intel keeps pumping out i3Us without boost, without the extended instruction sets, with tiny, tiny caches, etc. That's what doesn't make sense.

What's worse - as haswell rolled out, and we could actually have passively cooled intel packages (which had not happened before, in spite of actual physical capability) - laptop makers still persist with not creating power-profiles that default at the lowest possible power-draw. And they're doing that because the laptops then get slammed in reviews for not getting the nominal increases compared to the previous processors, etc.

So the laptops are still not getting more power-efficient in that lower watt segment. While Intel then actually manage to ace that segment by launching something that AMD had the capability of monopolizing in 2011.

Not exactly brilliant planning or execution for anyone from that point of view, if you wanted a low-watt drain typewriter+ laptop, in other words.

 

I am enjoying this conversation.

Learning a lot too.

I can see the points you're making and I'm seeing the points I've made are conveniently or inadvertently ignored. Even if we seem to be agreeing on some/most things.

Comparing Braswell or anything AMD to Haswell is a stretch for anyone though...

That AMD E350 platform with 8GB RAM and an SSD with Win8x64Pro was obsolete when I bought it for the price of a good set of RAM - years ago. The low price didn't excuse it's poor performance either (even at that time) - today, I mainly use it for a dropbox and OneDrive backup system. And guess what? The OneDrive folder is hosed for a few weeks now... (and yes; I'm blaming the AMD architecture on this one... this is one of those glitches that happen on AMD systems that I simply do not see on Intel platforms).

To use it for normal tasks (browsing, replying to these forums, etc.) is effectively a nightmare today. Really. (Okay, at least for me vs. what other systems I have available...). Even acquaintance's that have seen the system in use (connected to a 50" TV) comment on 'what's wrong with the computer?'... that is how noticeable the performance delta is even with 'normal/light' tasks.

Today's AMD examples are no better, ime. Not even comparing them against an Intel platform - just using them for 5 minutes or longer in a 'vacuum' (except from memory/experience), they fall on their face, imo.

Video Encoding? OpenCL performance? Yawn. Not what I use a mobile system for.

Browse the O/S. Utilities, folders, internet, forums. I need snap (no dumb 'smart' phone for me... waiting for a 16GB RAM QC i5 with 1TB capacity Windows Phone... ). Did I say snap? I mean SNAP!

AMD introduced these products ahead of anyone else. Then sat on it. Without improving performance, efficiency nor price.

How do I spell dumb? A-M-D.

Any and all AMD platforms I've used underwhelm with regards to performance, run too hot and noisy and do not cost comparatively less vs. Intel systems. The opposite actually; they are comparatively more expensive over the lifecycle of a system when all aspects are considered. Especially my time.

Do I waste any time on any phone to get any real work done? No, unless I'm using it to actually speak to someone. Same with AMD. Not worth turning on. Vs. other available options.

Bottom line:

- I am not saying AMD should chase Intel - they should mimic them.
- Further excuses for AMD's decisions (past, present and future) don't hold water any longer - if they planned to get carried on excuses, they could have planned to address the reasons for those excuses instead.
- Huge and monumental performance upgrades once or twice a decade is 1990's thinking - 2x per year is the new 'new'.

Unless AMD can pull an Intel (circa 2006) and knock one out of this galaxy with a single blow, they'd better be content to consistently and persistently aim for the moon instead.

And they should also realize that repeating those relatively small, tiny steps are what turns a boy into a man. And a man into a force to be reckoned with.

But only if they mimic what Intel is doing - and that is build on their strengths and at the same time strengthen (not ignore) their weaknesses.

 

No, no. I'm ignoring your good points completely on purpose

Well, like I said - I wanted a laptop to run stable and semi-efficiently with passive cooling only. That was technically possible even on brazos (never mind with ION, if anyone remembers that). But no one managed to actually create a real product that would work in that way out of the factory until Haswell.. That's pretty amazing to me.

Sure. And if you look at the frequency graph, you're going to see exactly why. Nevertheless - the hardware is capable. And the four-cores and dual-channel mainboards were even better. Again, that's why I sat and chucled when plucking at the power-states.

Obviously also the case. Nevertheless... actually possible to make it work. On the actual existing hardware. So.. see my problem here? And it's the same with Haswell too - by default, laptop makers will allow the processor to go to burst, or disallow reducing bus-speed, won't allow the igp to idle (even though the nvidia card in many cases draw less power in the same context).. you know, it's not just bad tweaking, it's not really conscious tweaking, or any tweaking at all..

Admittedly, the snapdragon and qualcomm chipsets have already said goodbye to a 2w budget, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see a "burst" type phone turning up soon. But for those tasks, processor performance isn't the bottleneck. A typical process diagram has something like 10% waits for processor activity during browsing, and so on. Bus-speed, ram writes, other IO.. much more significant. Reason phones are slow is often from how every write in ram is slow and needs to wait for cache hits on a slow "ssd".. Engineering - always a fun hobby, even if you're paid to do a good job, apparently

I mean, if you know you can get "decent" performance out of a phone by dropping the response times, skipping the sizeable storage, while saving a few pennies per phone - if you just design the OS to keep the running software out of fast ram, and limiting the sizes of the "runnables", etc. Then that's what's going to happen. Same thing, if you can put horrendously bloated MS-packages of dlls and run them on an ARM-platform without conversion and save development time for apps - then that's going to happen, even if it requires much higher processor load than what is strictly needed.

Even so - it's not technically impossible to get more than decent desktop performance for the kind of tasks you mention out of a 3-400Mhz processor. Never was, even with Windows.

Other than that - OpenCL performance may very well be.. allright, it will be.. the next area where any computation performance improvement can be made across platforms. So I wouldn't be incredibly surprised to see a lot of different program types, not just graphics, start to make use of that. Simply because it's not tenable in the long run to design software that drops computation tasks to an external server.. the "cloud".. or something like that. Doesn't work unless we get significantly higher transfer speeds, and so on. Right now - what about a "power work station" running video and photo editing, that has a power-draw budget of 20w? In 0.8kg? Rather than running on a 100w psu, and being married to the wall-socket, etc. That's worth something, surely.

Sure, I see your point, of course. Still.. PR coherency isn't a strength if you want an actually good product. Both Intel and AMD are examples of why, for two different reasons. But PR coherency is a proven asset to a company regardless of the quality of the product - see Apple, for example - and therefore it's going to be a useful tool for a company that has to.. you know.. earn money and sell stuff. But it's not going to get me better power-profiles, or stable 12w loads, predictable battery life, etc.

 

Okay, I'll ignore your good points too then.

The hardware is capable? No. By a long shot. Of course 4 Core and Dual Channel is better... but 8 Threads is better still and with regards to the Dual Channel RAM; AMD still runs into a brick wall by offering single channel products.

We will disagree here: Intel took their sweet time to do Haswell fanless properly - but; they did it eventually. AMD showed the rest of the world what was possible (if I'm blindly believing your viewpoint) and what do they have to show for it half a decade later? Nothing.

I wasn't joking about my spec's for a Windows phone I would consider using. The reasons phones are slow and useless to me is because they are supremely underpowered. I don't want to see a single 4K screen at 8" size. I don't want to see a mobile website (ever) and I don't want to use a keyboard with one finger, let alone one hand. Even with the maximum RAM and latest SoC's; they suck. Not to mention they are running yet another proprietary O/S with all the limitations and restrictions (for no benefit at all). The handheld computing experience was something I looked forward too in 1990... the implementation so far has left me less than impressed every single time I try to make it work.

How bad is this performance/productivity delta? I can drive to my offices, my home or any of my clients' offices to use a real computer and/or network/internet connection and finish what I need before I can type the first search term on any flagship dumbphone today. So sad, so bad but I've had two and a half decades to get over this 'wish' and realize that I'm happy I didn't 'make it work' too. Life is too short to spend on a too small, too unstable and too expensive device that would be just as bad if it had been around two decades ago.

Performance of the cpu? Of the storage subsystem? Of the RAM? Don't care.

Productivity is the name of the tech train I'm on (and almost always have been). Using tech (devices) for the sake of simply using them seems kind of useless to me (and hence; why I don't game).

And this folds beautifully into your statement that 300-400MHz CPU speeds are enough. Lol...

Just what are you smoking? lol...

I just opened up Tomshardware.com and the i5-3427U CPU I am using hit over 51% cpu utilization over 4 threads with 16GB RAM and an SSD too... That is at an indicated clock speed of 2.58GHz so, lets say you're off by a factor of 300 to 400%, at least.

Your points of efficiency per watt is Intel whispering in your ear... AMD won't be there even at the end of this decade.

I'm not sure where you're going with PR coherency? Apple is a prime example of what to avoid. Not what to mimic, from an educated consumers standpoint. Business-wise? Yeah; I'll give them that. They are envied, but for how long remains to be seen (not one of my clients is currently running an apple setup - at least; not for business purposes and this is a far cry from when it was the other way around in the 'creativity' segment of computing).

We all want what you want. I want efficiency, cost savings and more - but not at the expense of never increasing performance (even at just 5% per iteration) relative to what current workloads (light or heavy) demand.

There is such a thing as too small (~12" screen/keyboard size or smaller), too slow (below current i7 QC without maxed out RAM), too limited (os x, chrome, android) and there is no such thing as 'good enough'. Because 'good enough' is a moving target... yeah, even the millisecond after I wrote this post.

What you wish for is properly expected as an Intel product at this point in time (or the near future). If you want it from AMD? You'll be waiting a very long time and I wouldn't be too surprised if they never deliver.

 

Of course. The point was that even if we're talking about x86, badly optimized software, etc., it's possible to maintain an acceptable response time on low clock speeds with.. fast bus-speeds and many threads. Just as it's possible to offload all kinds of tasks with well-optimized software to for example OpenCL devices. And that's.. really the only way to increase performance in the reasonably close future in any case..

True, of course. I just pointed out that you could tweak the existing hardware to actually do it. That's.. a bit shocking.

Hehe, no kidding. It's got to do with what I mentioned over there, though. That it's easy to write software, and design hardware, that relies on "boost" and peak performance. But it doesn't give us the results we want without ending up with too high watt-drain.

It's.. kind of essential.

If you look at a process diagram, it will make more sense. For example, most of the processor time goes to attempting to draw the page over and over again while the information is downloaded. That's.. not strictly necessary, and webkit and mozilla runs code that avails itself of free processor time in that rendering process. So while of course the rendering times go up with a lower processor speed, it's not a linear graph here. Even pages that actually rely on processing power to draw the objects, like masonry.. pinterest, resizing objects in realtime, that sort of thing - doesn't require a 3GHz processor to run smoothly.

Let's call it "as high processing power as possible, for as little watt cost as possible", then

Yes. But they sell products. Arguably because they are excellent at projecting very strong and predictable design goals, regardless of what they're actually offering.

One specific example. A Macbook Air is sold in different variants, with more or less "power", and in different price-ranges. But of course all of them run at a power scheme that generally drops the processor to 800-1700Mhz, regardless of the option to go higher. That's how they run without fans for most of the time. So the products are positioned very wisely for sales - without having any real difference in actual performance.

But it works for sales. And the product will reach customer expectation. Win-win. So to speak..

Hehe. No. We don't live in cyberpunk heaven, with nano-computers and airborne viral information pollen, and we never will. And even if we did, response times for user input, process response time, process locks, IO waits, etc., is always going to be involved. And in that sense, "good enough" is about getting a low enough response time to make it look smooth. Which is something we kind of achieve and fail at continuously with different hardware and software , even in the same iteration..

While the current idea of solving it by just raising the clock-speeds doesn't work, and arguably never did - it's been a long while since max processor speed was reached. So it's just not possible to design software that "expects" unlimited increases in "processing power" to shave off the hiccups, to get them small enough to not be seen, or to be short enough to be "acceptably short".

In my opinion, obviously, that was never the case either, and never will be. But opinions differ.

 

tilleroftheearth, though I agree with your hardware requirements for a smartphone in general, I have to say the situation ain't as bad for productivity as it looks. My smartphone has a great physical keyboard, and, though it was quite hard to find, software for my tasks that fully utilizes its' strengths and provides similar to desktop experience. Moreover that, I often use it with a docking station, which is a 14" laptop shell with great non-chiclet keyboard, SD slot and couple USB ports. It is very convenient and extremely safe because all my valuable data remains on the phone, and has decent battery life being dirty cheap at less than $100. While Android as an OS is certainly worse than Windows, it's bearable after you tinker with it, and other pros overweight the cons of this device package. Oh, and it's snappier than a notebook with traditional HDD.
I believe in future most devices will be like it. Compact main unit with enough umph for almost any task and different optional docking stations with peripherals for more specific usage scenarios. But I wanted the future today so badly that purchased what was available at the moment, Android-running ARM device with mediocre specs that is. Still does the job pretty well.

 

HP has started selling Carrizo and Carrizo-L laptops on their US website.

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk

 

I want to see AMD improve their good aspects with their APU (Good GPU performance built in). I want power efficiency but I want hardware which is not bogged down when asking it to do real workloads in real life. AMD needs processors to improve on their speed and power, they need to run less hot, and they need to address their limitations they currently have. And take away none of their good aspects. And good battery efficiency is necessary. I need an AMD which does not throttle doing routine everyday tasks which performs like a good Haswell Core i5 ULV with the AMD GPU prowess. And for AMD to stay competitive with Intel offerings. These ideals will get AMD available in superior laptop offerings and keep Intel honest by real competition. I want to see AMD with the spirit and the fire they had when Athlon was released. I want them awakened and I want AMD to strike fear in the heart of Intel. Little useful improvements on the processing side, keep the GPU excellence, and keep power draws low, and gains made for real world usage will get AMD there. This we all here can agree on. To put it in simplistic lines.

 

The first couple Carrizo FX laptops showing up from USA retailers. Mobile Kaveri FX products were not released this quickly after announcement so this is most certainly welcomed. I'm going to give this Toshiba a test drive at my local Best Buy when it becomes available. I like them both but What do ya'll think? Which would you buy? Why or why not?

Toshiba Satellite Radius 14"
$679.99
FREE SHIPPING
Processor Model AMD FX-8800P
Operating System Windows 10
Height 0.83 inches
Width 13.3 inches
Depth 9.3 inches
Weight 4.5 pounds
Display Type Touchscreen Widescreen LED-LCD
Screen Resolution 1366 x 768 (HD)
System Memory (RAM) 8 gigabytes
Type of Memory (RAM) DDR3L
System Memory RAM Speed 1600 megahertz
Hard Drive RPM 5400 revolutions per minute
Hard Drive Capacity 750 gigabytes
Backlit Keyboard Yes
Speaker Type Built-in harman/kardon stereo speakers
UPC 889661015727
Battery Life 6.62 hours 3-cell lithium-ion battery
EPEAT Level Gold

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba...etal/4203204.p?id=1219706550112&skuId=4203204






HP ENVY 15z 15.6"
$674.99 (use coupon JUL799 when you configure as follows $799.99-$125.00 at HP USA site)
FREE SHIPPING
Processor Model AMD FX-8800P
Operating System Windows 10
Height 0.93 inches
Width 15.12 inches
Depth 10.04 inches
Weight 5.03 pounds
Display Type Widescreen LED-LCD Touch solution with flush glass, multitouch enabled
Screen Resolution 1366 x 768 (HD)
System Memory (RAM) 8 gigabytes - 1 DIMM
Type of Memory (RAM) DDR3L-1600 dual channel support
System Memory RAM Speed xxxx megahertz
Hard Drive RPM 5400 revolutions per minute
Hard Drive Capacity 1TB
Backlit Keyboard Yes
External Tray Super Multi 8X DVD+/-RW w/Double Layer
HP HDMI to VGA Display Adapter
Speaker Type Bang & Olufsen with 2 speakers and 1 subwoofer
Battery Life 7.50 hours 3-cell, 48-Wh, 4.21-Ah, Li-ion battery
EPEAT Level Silver

http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/Laptops/hp-envy---15z--m7k39av-1#!&TabName=specs




Note: These laptops do not include a built-in DVD/CD drive

 

Are they full 35W TDP config?