The 28-2600Hs have higher clocks but the interesting thing is the 2800H is now utilizing the full Vega GPU all 11 CUs.
Seems AMD don’t have a whole lot more to offer on the mobile market.
But what was the point of the R7 2700U?
But yeah, AMD doesn’t have an answer to Intel’s mobile Hex-Core CPUs. Not a proper one anyways, they would just have to plop an R5 1600/2600 or R7 1700/2700.
Lower TDP for slimmer devices. The 2700U is a 15-25W chip. The new ones are 35W chips. Higher clocks and more performance as well as letting them unlock all CUs.
Yeah and then you have awful power consumption and battery life as well as a laptop the size of a brick.
Even Intel’s 6 Core chips currently don’t make sense in mobile workstation laptop variants. All of them so far have terrible battery life or when they did have good battery life (Apple Macbook) they overheat and underperform due to cooling compromises.
Also:
* 'Model and specifications not confirmed'
The R5 2500U already fits that category though does it not?
Yeah and then you have awful power consumption and battery life as well as a laptop the size of a brick.
Idk about that but it wouldn’t be a good laptop CPU still. I mean we are talking about 65W CPUs and the TDP of those can still go down even more with some underclocking and/or undervolting but without an iGPU to switch to while not gaming that won’t do battery life any justice…
Macbooks are so ridiculously thin I wouldn’t be surprised if a regular 15W CPU overheated in those things, it’s happened before. It makes perfect sense in a mobile workstation laptop really, just not a very thin laptop unfortunately when you factor in a discrete GPU.
Overall it’s an incremental improvement, Zen -> Zen+ like Ryzen 2.
Includes the new XFR features and better boost clock management etc.
1 Like
No.
They are both 15-25W parts but the 2500 is a lower end SKU. It clocks lower and has less CUs. Less performance than the 2700U. It’s product segmenting.
All laptops we have seen with the Desktop Ryzen parts are huge, loud, hot and have batter life often less than an hour and a half…
Also this. Not helped by the fact they always part them with RX GPUs rather than nVidia ones
Also likely this. The APUs had many of the latency tweaks but still were 14nm. So these are likely 12nm so you get a better volt/frequency curve
Benchmarks seem to suggest that they have similar performance, especailly at 15W TDP where the R7 2700U is seen doing as bad as an R5 2500U at the same 15W TDP.
That just creates confusion. You basically can have a 25W R5 2500U (aka, the “lower SKU”) beat a 15W R5 2700U handily, and how is someone not critically informed about laptops going to see this?
As for the desktop Ryzen, there ain’t any arguing that at stock clocks they are going to be BAD for battery life and not good for thermals and the existing laptops are clunky and big, none is arguing that. But we are talking about 3+GHz CPUs with 6-8 Cores in a laptop right now. Intel’s proper mobile 6-Core CPUs run at like 2.2-2.3 GHz. So it’s not impossible for AMD to downclock the 8 Core and 6 Core CPUs for slightly smaller laptops to like 2.4 GHz or something like that and get a much lower TDP like Raven Ridge does. The R5 2400G is 65W, didn’t stop AMD from going all the way to 15W with a lot of down clocking, not that they should get it all the way to 15W.
It’s heavily dependent on power and thermal envelope. If both aren’t limited by either then the 2700U is faster though overall performance is very similar. However that is across the board for AMD’s lines. The 2200 and 2400 are almost the same too but people will buy the one with bigger numbers. It’s marketing and segmentation. Also lets them resell worse/defective chips.
Yup. It is confusing and it is how it has always been. Intel’s lines are even more segmented. The i9 often does worse than the i7 ect… Again it is all about selling more expensive parts based on a bigger number in a spec sheet. AMD doesn’t give a shit if the consumer is confused. Nor do their partners. They just want to sell parts for as much money as they can.
The base clock is 2.9 on the 8950. Most easily do higher so long as they aren’t horribly thermal throttled.
Maybe not impossible but at that point the clock speed is so low you might as well not bother especially as things aren’t multi threaded. Also it isn’t just clocks. One of AMD’s biggest power draws is Uncore. IF and cache both use a lot of power. The higher core count CPUs have more complex links and a lot more cache also drawing a lot of juice. It isn’t just as simple as lowering the clocks.
I’m sure it would be possible to get it fairly close to the Intel 6 core parts. The point still stands though that they have no dGPU which also drinks the power.
It prob won’t be until Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 on 7nm where we will six core mobile parts from AMD. From “half” of a 12 core module.