Schenker VIA 15: Long-distance runner with an AMD processor

[Redaktion]

Schenker has chosen a similar path to Huawei and has equipped its VIA 15 with two Ryzen models from AMD instead of offering a wide range of CPUs. This means that the device is tuned to the chip so well that the Ryzen 5 3500U in our test unit reaches its full potential.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Schenker-VIA-15-Long-distance-runner-with-an-AMD-processor.460876.0.html

[william blake]

There's one real drawback we'd like to mention and that's RAM. Schenker has decided to go for a single RAM module - and has therefore only installed a single slot. This makes dual-channel configurations impossible. An upgrade to dual channel might have benefited the integrated graphics unit AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 and given the VIA 15 an even better overall rating

true claim but incorrect conclusions. dual channel is a "free" boost to cpu and system performance. this is why it is nice to have.
igpu performance is never free, and its slow and cheap, so whatever. matters is sub 400usd laptop category, not higher.

[Valantar]

There's one real drawback we'd like to mention and that's RAM. Schenker has decided to go for a single RAM module - and has therefore only installed a single slot. This makes dual-channel configurations impossible. An upgrade to dual channel might have benefited the integrated graphics unit AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 and given the VIA 15 an even better overall rating

true claim but incorrect conclusions. dual channel is a "free" boost to cpu and system performance. this is why it is nice to have.
igpu performance is never free, and its slow and cheap, so whatever. matters is sub 400usd laptop category, not higher.

What a weird thing to say. Why is the (minor) increase to CPU performance from dual channel RAM "free", while the (major) increase to iGPU performance from the same upgrade not? Are you implying that this is because the latter takes performance away from the CPU? If that's your logic, your logic is quite faulty, as for any GPU-reliant workload the increase in iGPU performance from dual channel RAM will more than make up for any CPU performance losses from the iGPU being better utilized.

As for iGPU performance not mattering above the $400 category: that's nonsense. Have you seen the number of people in Steam surveys gaming on Intel iGPUs? Don't you think those people would like the 2-3x (or more) performance increase they could get with a better iGPU at the same power levels? Don't you think people with $1000-1500 thin-and-lights would like the option to play some games now and then at semi-decent settings and resolutions? And yes, the difference is noticeable - current Intel iGPUs can barely handle something like  Rocket League at ~40fps at 720p low settings, while even something like the Ryzen 5 3500U can more than double that with dual channel RAM. And if iGPU performance didn't matter, why is Intel investing billions of dollars into developing better iGPUs? Sure, they're making dGPUs too, but their primary plan for the near future is Xe iGPUs in Tiger Lake.

[william blake]

What a weird thing to say. Why is the (minor) increase to CPU performance from dual channel RAM "free", while the (major) increase to iGPU performance from the same upgrade not?

you can always buy as many fps as you need. buy mx150 for christ sake not dual channel.
igpu is lowlowlowend it does not matter much is it lowlowlowlow or just lowlowlow.

As for iGPU performance not mattering above the $400 category: that's nonsense. Have you seen the number of people in Steam..

they bought what was on the store shelf. btw they preferred shitty intel igpus not amd fastashell igpus.

[Valantar]

What a weird thing to say. Why is the (minor) increase to CPU performance from dual channel RAM "free", while the (major) increase to iGPU performance from the same upgrade not?

you can always buy as many fps as you need. buy mx150 for christ sake not dual channel.
igpu is lowlowlowend it does not matter much is it lowlowlowlow or just lowlowlow.

I completely disagree - in fact, I would say the lower end your GPU is, the more of a difference any increase in performance makes. The difference between, say, a laptop with a 1660 Ti and one with a 2060 is far less noticeable than the difference between one with an UHD 620 and one with an Iris Plus, Vega 8 or Vega 10.

And sure, you can always buy a faster PC - but my point is that most of the people who play games once in a while don't consider gaming performance whatsoever when buying a laptop. Thus, any increase in the baseline level of performance will benefit them. Convincing them to buy something more powerful - which inevitably comes with drawbacks in the form of heat, lower battery life, higher prices, higher weight, or any combination thereof - is a very, very tough sell. Implementing dual channel memory in baseline configurations, on the other hand, is a <$20 BOM change (slightly more complex board design + more memory chips), which won't affect the pricing of the laptop noticeably.

As for iGPU performance not mattering above the $400 category: that's nonsense. Have you seen the number of people in Steam..

they bought what was on the store shelf. btw they preferred shitty intel igpus not amd fastashell igpus.

They likely didn't "prefer" anything, but bought what was available and recommended to them, which would then be Intel (due to years of market dominance and performance dominance, and a serious mindshare advantage, which will take a lot of time to shift even now when AMD's solutions are superior across the board). Likely they didn't even know there are multiple types of performance in a computer. My point is: increased iGPU performance across the board is both something that's desperately needed and something that will be very noticeable for a lot of people.

[william blake]

I completely disagree - in fact, I would say the lower end your GPU is, the more of a difference any increase in performance makes.

yep. geforce 730 rules because geforce 610 is a complete crap.
..
ok forget about where gpu is located and even dpu itself. lets talk about dollars.
20$ anything is whatever in any market. 20$ part of a 1000$ product. the more money you spend on something the more it important and valuable to YOU.
cpu-200$
ssd-100$
screen-200$
case-200$
so on
if your gpu is 10$ or 20$ or 30$ THAT MEANS IT IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR YOU. it is your money, your choice.

[Valantar]

I completely disagree - in fact, I would say the lower end your GPU is, the more of a difference any increase in performance makes.

yep. geforce 730 rules because geforce 610 is a complete crap.
..
ok forget about where gpu is located and even dpu itself. lets talk about dollars.
20$ anything is whatever in any market. 20$ part of a 1000$ product. the more money you spend on something the more it important and valuable to YOU.
cpu-200$
ssd-100$
screen-200$
case-200$
so on
if your gpu is 10$ or 20$ or 30$ THAT MEANS IT IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR YOU. it is your money, your choice.

You seem to live in some kind of fictional dream world where nobody ever makes poorly thought out choices and everyone always has a perfect overview of their own wants and needs both now and into the future. A little news flash to you: that isn't even close to the truth.

Price isn't what determines if a GPU is important to you; your intended use case is what determines that. If you buy a laptop without considering the GPU (which the vast majority of people do, as they don't even know what a GPU is) but then decide to try to game on it later on, the GPU becomes important nonetheless. So, given how gaming is constantly increasing in popularity and people are demonstrably trying to game even on low-end laptops, any performance increase in these laptops should be welcome, yes? Of course those who don't try to game won't care one way or the other, but those who do will definitely notice the difference between a Ryzen 5 or 7 with single channel RAM vs. dual channel - which was the whole point here. The difference between those two can be very big for barely any cost increase at all.

As for your pricing, all that shows is you are (I would think deliberately, though it might not be) misunderstanding my point. My point is that for a theoretical $1000 ultrabook or otherwise thin and light laptop, which is likely to have a ~$600 BOM+amortization of R&D cost, going for a dual channel rather than single channel memory layout is a negligible added cost while having serious performance benefits for any iGPU load. Yet you somehow seem to think that's not worth it? Either your logic is failing or you're failing to argue your own points. People game on laptops like this whether you like it or not, thus iGPU performance obviously matters to the user experience. It's about making as good a design as possible within the framework you're working in, after all, and leaving performance on the table like that is just poor design.

Though going by your history here I would guess you're arguing for this mainly because you really want AMD-based products to be designed worse than Intel-based alternatives so that Intel can sell more. That kind of mindless loyalty is really difficult to understand - shouldn't our focus be that end users get the best product possible, regardless of who makes it?