NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

Jesus, way to cherry-pick stats. Actually, that's putting it kindly; most of this article is a flat-out lie, intentionally trying to deceive people who don't take the effort to read the linked article.

To provide a real dGPU performance boost, I propose to combine a 15W AMD APU (like the 4800U) with the GTX 1650ti max-Q, in a 13" or 14" package. Users should be able to turn ON the dGPU "on demand", and the laptop should run silent when the dGPU is turned off.

Of course, a 50W TDP (15W APU + 35W dGPU) comes with a penalty in terms of size and battery endurance. But this penalty is not too large: Asus was able to fit a 100W TDP (35W APU + 65W dGPU) in a 1.8mm thin 14" laptop, and this laptop has almost 10 hours of battery endurance under a light load.

Because they have contracts

Quote from: LHPSU on May 08, 2020, 10:22:00
Jesus, way to cherry-pick stats. Actually, that's putting it kindly; most of this article is a flat-out lie, intentionally trying to deceive people who don't take the effort to read the linked article.

Just to add on that here the short conclusion of that article:

QuoteIn conclusion, both the Vega7 and the MX350 chips cannot run at their full potential on this ZenBook UM433 implementation, and we'll update our findings if we get to test a final unit.

We know for a fact that both can perform better in higher tier thermal designs

As many laptop reviews have shown [Asus G14, TUF A15, Yoga 14s (Slim 7), s540-13are05], the general conclusion is that they all need better cooling to have both cpu and gpu perform to their full potential, even though right now they already outclassed higher powered Intel cpu's.

Less optimal solutions are undervolting the dGPU or tweaking the cpu frequency with tools like Armoury Crate.

Asus plz, just remove mx350 and put 2 more heat pipe in the space for more powerful ultrabook.

Cuda cores?

another attack by religious igpu believers? lol
lets check the data
https://www.ultrabookreview.com/38004-amd-vega-7-8-mx350-benchmarks/
last table, same chassis, vega 7, second best vega versus mx350(10w version, keep in mind)
+30% fps
-5%
+95%
+60%
+41%
0 fps vs 30, not sure how to count it
+32%
+33%
+11%
+225%
10w mx is incomparably better, more than +50% avg fps, even more in 1% lows, some games are not even working on vega.
but yea,, go spread some "you dont need more fps" bullshit between noobs.

Quote from: Rick on May 08, 2020, 10:26:35
To provide a real dGPU performance boost, I propose to combine a 15W AMD APU (like the 4800U) with the GTX 1650ti max-Q, in a 13" or 14" package. Users should be able to turn ON the dGPU "on demand", and the laptop should run silent when the dGPU is turned off.

Of course, a 50W TDP (15W APU + 35W dGPU) comes with a penalty in terms of size and battery endurance. But this penalty is not too large: Asus was able to fit a 100W TDP (35W APU + 65W dGPU) in a 1.8mm thin 14" laptop, and this laptop has almost 10 hours of battery endurance under a light load.

I had same idea like you, as these midrange thin laptops with GTX 1650 are now difficult to find. I asked someone who had a Asus G14 14 inch 4800HS+RTX2060 to tweak the APU at 15W tdp max at full load, and using the iGPU at low fan speed, however the laptop still feels warm.

I mean the thermal design of the G14 is not bad, but to have fan control software, the drivers of the Ryzen APU and Nvidia RTX work in sync and use minimal power at idle time needs some maturing probably.

Quote from: ed on May 08, 2020, 12:32:30


I had same idea like you, as these midrange thin laptops with GTX 1650 are now difficult to find. I asked someone who had a Asus G14 14 inch 4800HS+RTX2060 to tweak the APU at 15W tdp max at full load, and using the iGPU at low fan speed, however the laptop still feels warm.

I mean the thermal design of the G14 is not bad, but to have fan control software, the drivers of the Ryzen APU and Nvidia RTX work in sync and use minimal power at idle time needs some maturing probably.

That's interesting, as I am also considering the G14. Check with your friend, there's an AMD app which keeps on the dGPU even at light loads. It's a software glitch that hopefully Asus will correct, and the reason why battery life is so different across reviews.

If I go the G14 route, my idea, similar to your, is to set an "ultrabook mode", with the dGPU disabled and the TDP set at 15W. I need the PC to be silent, or almost silent, as I work in a room with other people. How can you tweak the TDP?

As an owner of two laptops, one with Vega 10 igpu and one with MX250 gpu, I can say it is a more complicated question than it looks. But in most cases the performance is limited by cooling capacity / RAM bandwidth & latency, in case of igpu. When I experimented with my EliteBook 745G, opening the back panel and placing it over coolpad reduced drop of fps completely, even Forza 4 was playable at 720p (doesn't look as bad on 14"). However, when used w/o additional cooling, I noticed statters after just couple of minutes. Mind you, I used very high-quality HyperX DDR4 in dual-channel (best possible latency at 2400 MHz).

To some degree, this happens to my Lenovo Yoga S740 with MX250. After some time, again, I get framedrops in Forza 4. Overall - all these comparisons are very hard to perform, because they may be tons of factors:
1) How many pipelines per APU/GPU in each case.
2) What fans and how arranged with radiators.
3) Area and arrangement of radiators.
4) Thermal interface.
5) Case: internal space/how thermally insulative or not, etc.
6) Single-channel or dual-channel RAM, latency - below 100 ns has great impact, etc.
7) Specific BIOS issues, drivers, etc.

Even in the same version of laptop, they may not take full advantage of using great APU, as you see above...

Quote from: Rick on May 08, 2020, 13:17:35

That's interesting, as I am also considering the G14. Check with your friend, there's an AMD app which keeps on the dGPU even at light loads. It's a software glitch that hopefully Asus will correct, and the reason why battery life is so different across reviews.

If I go the G14 route, my idea, similar to your, is to set an "ultrabook mode", with the dGPU disabled and the TDP set at 15W. I need the PC to be silent, or almost silent, as I work in a room with other people. How can you tweak the TDP?

You can check out this guy yourself, he made a review and shared it at reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/gemov7/review_2020_asus_g14/.

I shared him my scenario and he "disabled the turbo by setting the max cpu at 99%" [in Armoury crate I think]

Quote from: LHPSU on May 08, 2020, 10:22:00
Jesus, way to cherry-pick stats. Actually, that's putting it kindly; most of this article is a flat-out lie, intentionally trying to deceive people who don't take the effort to read the linked article.

I read the review, and they do seem to agree:

QuoteIn conclusion, both the Vega7 and the MX350 chips cannot run at their full potential on this ZenBook UM433 implementation, and we'll update our findings if we get to test a final unit.

Both are thermally limited, and while the MX350 is faster overall, in lighter loads the Vega 7 does indeed seem able to keep up. There is also a serious question to be raised of whether the Vega would be able to keep up better if the thermal design of the laptop wasn't quite poor (even if the MX350 was given the same improved thermal design, obviously) as the overall thermal design of the laptop seems incapable of sustaining even 25W total load for the system.

The fact is, both Intel and Nvidia have the vendors, the bloggers and pretty much everyone by the balls. The list of anti-competitive tricks employed by the companies is huge. It would be naive to think laptops utilizing AMD hardware are all imperfect, in one or more ways, because of mere negligence. On the contrary, the vendors appear to be putting quite a bit of effort into making AMD-based products unattractive by design (by putting the components into an old chassis or limiting the RAM configuration to single channel only, among other things). Call this a conspiracy theory if you like.

For my job this laptop is not bad. I need a small, lightweight laptop with CUDA support and OK battery.

don't know if dx 12 and vulkan 1.2 can use both gpu together, but one thing is for sure cuda won't help to the extend price of this laptop. only reason why asus had added dGPU is just for pure marketing purpose. see this one has Nvidia GPU and most people especially people going for this fancy  piece will seldom understand difference of GPU model.

Well, in heavy graphic load mx 350 beats by more than 2 times integrated gpu.
Whats wrong with article author?

battery optimize, better driver. AMD needs more time for this or we have to wait for AMD getting better in this :v

I think many people are missing the point of this article.

The point is NOT that the MX350 is the same performance as the iGPU in a 4700U.  I think too many are getting derailed here.

The point IS that if the power budget is 15W, the power may well be better utilized by the AMD CPU+iGPU over by the AMD CPU + MX350, particularly considering price.  I think that hypothesis could be well true, but I'm not sure how we consumer-level people can prove/disprove this.

If I could spend $50-100 more on a part to pair with the Ryzen U series, it would be a very bright (500+ nit) screen, not a low-end GPU.

Quote from: william blake on May 08, 2020, 12:27:08
last table, same chassis, vega 7, second best vega versus mx350(10w version, keep in mind)
+30% fps
-5%
+95%
+60%
+41%
0 fps vs 30, not sure how to count it
+32%
+33%
+11%
+225%
10w mx is incomparably better, more than +50% avg fps, even more in 1% lows, some games are not even working on vega.
but yea,, go spread some "you dont need more fps" bullshit between noobs.

You are too stuck up on the dGPU religion that you think even a 30 year old worst dGPU is better than the latest and best iGPU.

Here is the question for you, what if you sent those 10W to the APU instead of including an extra dGPU? And then use all that extra space and cost of that dGPU for a larger heat sink?

@A Actually it doesn't work like that. The CPU will use less than rated TDP because it doesn't have to use the iGPU. It's especially the case here since low-end GPUs need only a slow CPU to max it out.

Overall the power consumption will be closer than you think.

Quote from: DavidC1 on May 08, 2020, 19:41:21
@A Actually it doesn't work like that. The CPU will use less than rated TDP because it doesn't have to use the iGPU. It's especially the case here since low-end GPUs need only a slow CPU to max it out.

Overall the power consumption will be closer than you think.

Not in cases like this - mobile chips boost aggressively based on temps and power, and in a 15W power envelope there will always be room for the CPU to push higher unless thermally constrained, even if the load is only heavy on a single core. After all, Zen2 cores in high end Ryzen 3000 CPUs go to 18-20W each when boosting high. The only exceptions to this is if you are extremely GPU bottlenecked or if your CPU is a low enough SKU that it isn't allowed to stretch its legs properly. But just take a look at the frequencies of the APU in that review - even with the dGPU running its clocking way below base clock. There is something seriously wrong there.

More like a business decision than a technical one. They simply had to sell the MX350 they agreed to order with Nvidia and this is just one of many Asus mobile products

It wasnt that hard to understand. AMD has been notoriously bad in their GPU driver and software. It is so badly optimized that wont even compare it anymore. Simply put, the gpu division of amd has been poorly doing its job. You won't be surprised seeing everywhere in the internet, reddit and  forums about how it is. Asus didnt want to take the gamble of having to deal with customer in gpu.

Its funny how their cpu division however, is doing a great job nowadays.

Quote from: Ahmad Aizat on May 08, 2020, 21:13:06
It wasnt that hard to understand. AMD has been notoriously bad in their GPU driver and software. It is so badly optimized that wont even compare it anymore. Simply put, the gpu division of amd has been poorly doing its job. You won't be surprised seeing everywhere in the internet, reddit and  forums about how it is. Asus didnt want to take the gamble of having to deal with customer in gpu.

Its funny how their cpu division however, is doing a great job nowadays.

Not sure what you mean, AMD drivers used to be terrible during the Catalyst days (the cpu drivers used to be bad too when zen first came out). But nowadays, the AMD GPU drivers are better than Nvidia. A study was done by QA consultants 2 years ago and they found that:

"In total, across both the gaming and workstation cards QA Consultants measured 31 crashes or hangs for AMD, and 76 for Nvidia, out of 432 tests carried out across each company's cards."

Of course when a new gpu is released, you will always have issues for the first few months here and there, and Nvidia being more used usually means more testing by developers. That said, AMD's drivers are a ton more stable than they used to be in the past so your reasoning is flawed.

Quote from: Ahmad Aizat on May 08, 2020, 21:13:06
It wasnt that hard to understand. AMD has been notoriously bad in their GPU driver and software. It is so badly optimized that wont even compare it anymore. Simply put, the gpu division of amd has been poorly doing its job. You won't be surprised seeing everywhere in the internet, reddit and  forums about how it is. Asus didnt want to take the gamble of having to deal with customer in gpu.

Its funny how their cpu division however, is doing a great job nowadays.

That is pure nonsense. All GPU drivers have bugs, and while there were quite a few when Navi was launched, most were quickly fixed. The rest is a very vocal yet tiny minority with very specific issues that are near impossible to recreate for others. AMD drivers these days are stable and work just fine for >99% of users.

Quote from: Valantar on May 08, 2020, 20:19:36

Quote from: DavidC1 on May 08, 2020, 19:41:21
@A Actually it doesn't work like that. The CPU will use less than rated TDP because it doesn't have to use the iGPU. It's especially the case here since low-end GPUs need only a slow CPU to max it out.

You can see from that very link you put up that the iGPU package power is higher and the CPU frequency is lower, supporting my point that dGPU total power consumption isn't 15W + 10W but 0.x*15W + 10W.

Not to mention the 10W dGPU configuration equal/faster than the much higher power H series APU configuration and demolishes the U APU.

A capable dGPU is competitive even in perf/watt against an iGPU. Only thing its worse at it is taking up more board real estate.

What else?. For Marketing purposes. If the company says it has a dedicated GPU, the common people will buy it for that.

What we want is unlock 4800U + 3080/3070. So we can have a laptop that last 10+hours for office work and when gaming 90% of power usage and cooling capacity can go to the dGPU.

Quote from: Valantar on May 08, 2020, 13:50:23
Both are thermally limited, and while the MX350 is faster overall, in lighter loads the Vega 7 does indeed seem able to keep up. There is also a serious question to be raised of whether the Vega would be able to keep up better if the thermal design of the laptop wasn't quite poor (even if the MX350 was given the same improved thermal design, obviously) as the overall thermal design of the laptop seems incapable of sustaining even 25W total load for the system.

They tested that using a Zephyrus G14 with the dGPU disabled. Yes, there was a significant improvement. No, it wasn't enough to beat MX350 (in the Zenbook). As far as I recall. G14 doesn't have the best cooling system in the world, but it's much better than what you'll typically find in ultrabooks.

Yes, it's debatable whether it's worth the space and money. And I understand that having more is desirable for gaming. But, the real question is whether you have the cooling and power capacity for a more powerful dGPU to make sense. The 1650/ 1660 are more gaming territory rather than plain Jane ultrabook territory cards (especially in this size). If you want to play games, buy a gaming laptop. The Zenbook isn't a gaming laptop. Some people might want CUDA. Some might enjoy a little bit of light gaming. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Who knows, maybe they'll offer a version without a dGPU so you can safe some money and a little bit of weight (but it also could have less capable cooling).

The simple fact is that not a single laptop manufacturer is putting any real time or effort into the AMD based laptops despite their performance.

MSI has the Alpha and Bravo, both are marketed as budget models. Neither have Nvidia graphics for people doing any kind of video or content creation that would benefit from the Nvidia graphics, and even if they did, the display panels are unusable for even photo editing.

Asus has done this, along with the G14, G15, and TUF A15. G14 offers no upgradability with it's one M.2, and half the memory soldered onto the board. Same thing for the G15, except it has 2 M.2 slots, though you're just going to be slow cooking them looking at the thermals which are prone to 100C under load thanks to terrible chassis and fan design from Asus. The TUF is the most upgradable but has a screen so bad you can't enjoy Netflix on it.

Now go look at Lenovo's recent release of their next Legion series. Compared to the options for memory, display panel, and gpu in the intel based 7i and 5i models, the AMD based 5 model is a farce for the entire series launch.

The simple fact is that all of these manufacturers consider the Ryzen systems to be low cost & budget models they couldn't care less about, so is it any wonder they're making these odd and questionable decisions?

To those complaining about AMD GPUs, with as much as I hate to admit it, go watch videos comparing some of the "top end" creator systems from MSI, Asus etc being compared to a 16" Macbook Pro (I'm VERY anti-apple so it literally pains me to admit it) but the Macbook Pro using Vega graphics handles things like 4k and 8k video editing better than the "Creator" based machines like the Prestige or Creator P75 using "Nvidia Studio Drivers" .. so I fail to see how AMD's GPU's are lacking with the exception of intense gaming which I don't do and have no interest in. Though even the comparisons I've seen there, unless you're on a 240hz+ display, I doubt you're going to notice a difference.

You ever went into the task manager to see how many apps are auto suspending using UMP and if NTFS or REfS for file indexing on HDDs and SSDs is faster and more secure using windows 10 virtual desktops running multiple open games and apps using a Logitech mouse or keyboard button press or mouse swipe to change screen on the fly to see is the apps are still running or not as MacOS already does this? I did and windows did not shutdown running apps games or the browser in question here so that's how you test to see how badly bloated your prebuilt system is and how bad the OS is made using base hardware like an Xbox one series x console as that internet browser and apps and OS are horrible and run badly being very insecure too without a vpn or virtual credit card numbers to buy things from the XBL store here. Its the same way with windows OS as well right now as it can change for the better if people and they wanted that to be done.

Quote from: Finch on May 09, 2020, 11:20:00
To those complaining about AMD GPUs, with as much as I hate to admit it, go watch videos comparing some of the "top end" creator systems from MSI, Asus etc being compared to a 16" Macbook Pro (I'm VERY anti-apple so it literally pains me to admit it) but the Macbook Pro using Vega graphics handles things like 4k and 8k video editing better than the "Creator" based machines like the Prestige or Creator P75 using "Nvidia Studio Drivers" .. so I fail to see how AMD's GPU's are lacking with the exception of intense gaming which I don't do and have no interest in. Though even the comparisons I've seen there, unless you're on a 240hz+ display, I doubt you're going to notice a difference.

That's to a large extent Apple's work. Both in OS/ drivers and in Final Cut Pro (if that's what they're comparing against). Install Windows and performance is going to drop significantly. Or look at DaVinci Resolve, tends to be significantly faster on MacOS (and FCP can beat it still) IIRC. Vega isn't bad. But it's expensive. And AMD struggled with drivers. And Windows can suck. And the editors are not all as optimized. Apple simply has its ducks in a row. In video editing, Mac can indeed be considered "Pro". Simply buying a Vega card won't get you there.

Quote from: _MT_ on May 10, 2020, 09:25:01

Quote from: Finch on May 09, 2020, 11:20:00
To those complaining about AMD GPUs, with as much as I hate to admit it, go watch videos comparing some of the "top end" creator systems from MSI, Asus etc being compared to a 16" Macbook Pro (I'm VERY anti-apple so it literally pains me to admit it) but the Macbook Pro using Vega graphics handles things like 4k and 8k video editing better than the "Creator" based machines like the Prestige or Creator P75 using "Nvidia Studio Drivers" .. so I fail to see how AMD's GPU's are lacking with the exception of intense gaming which I don't do and have no interest in. Though even the comparisons I've seen there, unless you're on a 240hz+ display, I doubt you're going to notice a difference.

That's to a large extent Apple's work. Both in OS/ drivers and in Final Cut Pro (if that's what they're comparing against). Install Windows and performance is going to drop significantly. Or look at DaVinci Resolve, tends to be significantly faster on MacOS (and FCP can beat it still) IIRC. Vega isn't bad. But it's expensive. And AMD struggled with drivers. And Windows can suck. And the editors are not all as optimized. Apple simply has its ducks in a row. In video editing, Mac can indeed be considered "Pro". Simply buying a Vega card won't get you there.

@_MT_:

What utter rubbish! Stop spreading your fruity fangirl tosh!

Apple hardware sucks. No refreshes for 7-8 years and still fangirls like you buy the same ancient stuff at brand new prices.

DaVinci Resolve benefits greatly from GPU horsepower and is well-known to be optimized for CUDA, which favours Nvidia GPUs. Apple only bothers to expend the minimal engineering support for AMD GPUs, which is a function of how little they care about the MacOS product line. Hence it is very well known that Apple SUCKS big time when running DaVinci Resolve. I just caught you with your pants down lying blatantly.

I won't even bother addressing your Final Cut Pro nonsense. Who the hell even uses that crap piece of legacy software?! There's a reason why its dead - the clueless developers were lame enough to make it run only on Macs... an insignificant OS running on a single digit percentage share of the worlds computers. The whole damn world, including Hollywood has long since made Adobe Premier the industry standard, you mug!

In all industrial applications, from AutoCAD, Adobe Premiere, Photoshop etc. PCs rule. All the huge tender projects I've seen involving hundreds or thousands of workstation computers have always been for PCs only. Nobody is dumb enough to procure hardware that only can run on 1 kind of CPU (Intel) and 1 kind of GPU (AMD). With PCs you can run anything and that is a corporate/enterprise requirement. Clueless idiot!

Quote from: william blake on May 08, 2020, 12:27:08
another attack by religious igpu believers? lol
lets check the data
https://www.ultrabookreview.com/38004-amd-vega-7-8-mx350-benchmarks/
last table, same chassis, vega 7, second best vega versus mx350(10w version, keep in mind)
+30% fps
-5%
+95%
+60%
+41%
0 fps vs 30, not sure how to count it
+32%
+33%
+11%
+225%
10w mx is incomparably better, more than +50% avg fps, even more in 1% lows, some games are not even working on vega.
but yea,, go spread some "you dont need more fps" bullshit between noobs.

FFS, there are no "religious igpu believers", you idiot! Only people who understand what power-performance efficiency in thermally constrained casing - as compared to idiots like you.

In laptops, there's never enough thermal headroom for anything, whether CPU, iGPU or dGPU. Its the zealots like you who apply your zealot view of PCs to a zero understanding of laptop design.

Its all about putting the most price/weight/size/performance-efficient silicon in a laptop. The point is that low end crappy dGPUs like MX150, 250, 350 are pointless rubbish.

You don't even understand the basics. The wiring to connect the CPU to such crappy dGPUs like the MX350, at the nanometer level, is like the equivalent of driving a car (as an analogy to electrons) from one city to another across state lines. On an AMD APU's iGPU, the wiring distance that the electrons have to travel from the Zen 2 CPU cores to the Vega GPU cores is like the equivalent of driving across the street!

Hence, this CPU-GPU latency inefficiency means dGPUs can NEVER be as efficient or as fast or as latency free as iGPUs. Anybody with cow brains & cow sense should understand that! They consume a lot of energy for the same performance. This energy also creates far more heat, which builds up in the laptop chasis with tiny fans and tiny heatsinks, which then screws everything up as the CPU, the iGPU, the dGPU, the RAM, the SSD... EVERTHING then has to throttle.

In a PC chasis, you can put in a fan as large as you want, feed the fan and dGPU as much power as you want to leverage the huge silicon die size efficiencies where there are a lot more CUs in close proximity to each other on the dGPU die. But this is really a case where you feed brute force power to extract graphics performance from the dGPU die to overcome the inherent dGPU-to-CPU distance inefficiencies.

As I have said many times to ignorant zealots like you, the most power efficient, price efficient and design efficient solution is the AMD APU with iGPU. MX150/250/350 dGPUs are stupid when they consume 25 or 35W on their own... when the AMD Zen 2 CPU and Vega iGPU only consumes 15W!!!

The size of the die also makes the motherboard surface area much bigger, which means there is less space for battery volume/capacity obviously. Not forgetting that the dGPU usually requires its own copper heat pipe and fan, reducing internal space even more!

You don't seem to even understand basic common sense stuff like what so many others have been pointing out here. It is MUCH CHEAPER in terms of BOM costs, to put a single larger copper heat pipe and/or larger fan on top of the AMD Zen 2 Renoir APU to allow it to clock higher speeds. Yet the performance-per-watt will beat any MX350 anytime!

Quote from: Astar on July 07, 2020, 08:49:56
FFS, there are no "religious igpu believers", you idiot! Only people who understand what power-performance efficiency in thermally constrained casing - as compared to idiots like you.

In laptops, there's never enough thermal headroom for anything, whether CPU, iGPU or dGPU. Its the zealots like you who apply your zealot view of PCs to a zero understanding of laptop design.

Its all about putting the most price/weight/size/performance-efficient silicon in a laptop. The point is that low end crappy dGPUs like MX150, 250, 350 are pointless rubbish.

You don't even understand the basics. The wiring to connect the CPU to such crappy dGPUs like the MX350, at the nanometer level, is like the equivalent of driving a car (as an analogy to electrons) from one city to another across state lines. On an AMD APU's iGPU, the wiring distance that the electrons have to travel from the Zen 2 CPU cores to the Vega GPU cores is like the equivalent of driving across the street!

Hence, this CPU-GPU latency inefficiency means dGPUs can NEVER be as efficient or as fast or as latency free as iGPUs. Anybody with cow brains & cow sense should understand that! They consume a lot of energy for the same performance. This energy also creates far more heat, which builds up in the laptop chasis with tiny fans and tiny heatsinks, which then screws everything up as the CPU, the iGPU, the dGPU, the RAM, the SSD... EVERTHING then has to throttle.

In a PC chasis, you can put in a fan as large as you want, feed the fan and dGPU as much power as you want to leverage the huge silicon die size efficiencies where there are a lot more CUs in close proximity to each other on the dGPU die. But this is really a case where you feed brute force power to extract graphics performance from the dGPU die to overcome the inherent dGPU-to-CPU distance inefficiencies.

As I have said many times to ignorant zealots like you, the most power efficient, price efficient and design efficient solution is the AMD APU with iGPU. MX150/250/350 dGPUs are stupid when they consume 25 or 35W on their own... when the AMD Zen 2 CPU and Vega iGPU only consumes 15W!!!

The size of the die also makes the motherboard surface area much bigger, which means there is less space for battery volume/capacity obviously. Not forgetting that the dGPU usually requires its own copper heat pipe and fan, reducing internal space even more!

You don't seem to even understand basic common sense stuff like what so many others have been pointing out here. It is MUCH CHEAPER in terms of BOM costs, to put a single larger copper heat pipe and/or larger fan on top of the AMD Zen 2 Renoir APU to allow it to clock higher speeds. Yet the performance-per-watt will beat any MX350 anytime!

I want to argue with you about your confidence in the superiority of embedded video over discrete one. All you wrote about efficiency of iGPU and inefficiency of dGPU with their performance-per-watt isn't supported by illustrative examples - only emotional speculations. On the contrary, your opponent gave a quite compelling evidence of MX350 obvious superiority over Vega 7 in the game benchmarks. Weird that you didn't comment on this in any way, you simply ignored an inconvenient fact that does not agree with your speculations. But facts are stubborn thing they speak for themselves. About dGPU performance-per-watt inefficiency - to put it mildly, you are exaggerating heat dissipation of MX350. Considering that it only consumes 10 watts (we speak about less powerful version designed for thin 14" ultrabooks) this dGPU hardly can overheat even in such constrained space as in ultrabooks. And despite this is less powerful version of MX350 even it easily beats 4700U's Vega 7 in game benchmarks. The 25 watt version will all the more surpass Vega 7. But 25 Watt version should be used on larger, 15" laptop and in its case this MX350 will work quite efficiently and calmly.

Quote from: Tinien on July 30, 2020, 13:19:41

I want to argue with you about your confidence in the superiority of embedded video over discrete one. All you wrote about efficiency of iGPU and inefficiency of dGPU with their performance-per-watt isn't supported by illustrative examples - only emotional speculations. On the contrary, your opponent gave a quite compelling evidence of MX350 obvious superiority over Vega 7 in the game benchmarks. Weird that you didn't comment on this in any way, you simply ignored an inconvenient fact that does not agree with your speculations. But facts are stubborn thing they speak for themselves. About dGPU performance-per-watt inefficiency - to put it mildly, you are exaggerating heat dissipation of MX350. Considering that it only consumes 10 watts (we speak about less powerful version designed for thin 14" ultrabooks) this dGPU hardly can overheat even in such constrained space as in ultrabooks. And despite this is less powerful version of MX350 even it easily beats 4700U's Vega 7 in game benchmarks. The 25 watt version will all the more surpass Vega 7. But 25 Watt version should be used on larger, 15" laptop and in its case this MX350 will work quite efficiently and calmly.

You want to argue, you must at least have a brain and the ability to read. Much less think.

I already said that performance is meaningless without considering the power consumption in a power-battery-heat constrained LAPTOP CHASIS, you idiot!

I also stated the freaking obvious - If the MX350 benchmarks beat & outperform the AMD Ryzen APUs that is because they consume 25W on their own! What 10W nonsense are you blabbering about?!? Read the Nvidia spec sheet! Add in the Intel CPU's power consumption, the Intel CPU + MX350 or whatever low end dGPU crap is utterly pointless when the AMD Renoir APUs use as little as 15W on their own. Not only that, the top of the line Zen 2 Renoir chips perform basically the same as the Intel+MX350 crap.

That is the whole point of the article, you fool!