News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Alexander_
 - Today at 12:20:03
Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 20:54:27people want a laptop and laptop only. And these people mostly want to do everything with this laptop - from work to gaming.
Amen.
Posted by 10basetom
 - Yesterday at 21:52:28
32GB is fine, don't waste your money.
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 20:54:27
Btw. I somehow think we lost the plot here.

The only reason I posted here was to agree with some posters that 32 GB is not good enough for a Strix Halo system.

It doesn't even matter if a Desktop PC + Macbook Air is cheaper. Some people want a laptop and laptop only. And these people mostly want to do everything with this laptop - from work to gaming. Be it crazy or not - it's not us to decide for them.

And these people have a choice to buy a laptop either with dGPU or a strong iGPU. But in the case of a strong iGPU (Strix Halo), the 32 GB is not enough anymore because it's already at the utmost limit in some games. So the default amount of RAM should be 48 GB.
The RAM consumption does not look that bad on laptops with dGPUs, because game data is spread between VRAM (8 GB average) and system RAM (32 GB average). So it looks like games don't need as much system RAM. And for these laptops it's true.
But if they go for an iGPU, and don't have that extra VRAM, they should have that non-existent VRAM in the shape of more system RAM, to have the same logical address space as the laptop with dGPU.
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 19:26:37
Quote from: Worgarthe on Yesterday at 18:02:38RTX 5070 goes for around 555€:

let's add immediately 465€ to get a 9800X3D

RAM and motherboard etc., all together can be had for about 500€

Ok, let's say that's approximately 1.500€ for all the components within a PC tower.

But should we then not also compare to a pure Strix Halo PC-Tower? A pure Strix Halo PC like the GMKtec Evo X2 also costs "only" 1.500€ (with 1TB SSD and 64 GB RAM).

Regarding the GPU performance, I agree that the RTX 5070 triumphs massively, though I originally had this video in mind, which compared the RTX 4060 with Strix Halo, and the RTX 4060 was only 12% faster. And where in certain games the "shared memory" iGPU could be more stable than the RTX GPU.

youtu.be/RycbWuyQHLY?si=SVaLjsn_H3UBhn6P&t=462


But yeah, I get your point. Although I think it's more of a general criticism about laptops with powerful GPUs (regardless if dGPU or iGPU), in that they are way too expensive. Recent laptops with RTX 5070 start at 3.000€ minimum now, which definitely costs more than 1 Gaming PC + 1 M4-Air.
Posted by Apricot Lemons
 - Yesterday at 18:24:01
Quite the uncharacteristically awful article for such a fantastic org.

Saying 32gb is obsolete due to local LLM use is like saying any monitor below 4k 99% Adobe Color Space is obsolete due to color accurate work dealing with lots of text: yeah, you're right for a very specific niche audience, but that isn't the vast majority of YOUR audience.
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 18:02:38
Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 17:40:07We are talking about Strix Halo here (and which the article is about), not some small iGPU. And Strix Halo performance is on par with midrange RTX gaming GPUs.
I'm aware of that, I'm talking about it all the time in my previous comments.

It is about 50% performance of the RTX 5070 (12 GB): https://www.notebookcheck.net/GeForce-RTX-5070-vs-Radeon-RX-8050S_12952_12964.247598.0.html

RTX 5070 goes for around 555€: https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/ProductCategory/16073F106595215.html

We have 1800 left to build a system so let's add immediately deduct 465€ to get a 9800X3D: https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/OffersOfProduct/205072279_-ryzen-7-9800x3d-amd.html

9800X3D vs AI Max Pro 390: https://www.notebookcheck.net/R7-9800X3D-vs-Ryzen-AI-Max-PRO-390_18494_18888.247596.0.html

1335€ left to get RAM and motherboard etc., all together can be had for about 500€, add 75€ extra and buy an M4 Air: https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/OffersOfProduct/206043711_-macbook-air-13-2025-m4-apple.html

So you have a powerful gaming desktop with twice faster dGPU, and a pretty powerful laptop for on the go, with exceptional battery life too.

Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 17:40:07And there is a specific advantage for an iGPU-only system compared to one with separate GPU. You probably already know:
When you reach the VRAM Limit in a game (e.g. games like Indiana Jones), you'll get a sudden hiccup/stutter, because the VRAM has to shuffle something (Textures or something else) into the System RAM. This hiccup will be noticeable and absolutely destroy your gameplay experience, when it happens repeatedly.
E.g.
- Midrange laptop with 8 GB VRAM + 16 GB System RAM runs at 70 FPS, but briefly dops down to 15 FPS every minute because it runs out of VRAM, and has to shuffle something around.
- Strix Halo laptop with "unlimited" System RAM runs at "only" at 60 FPS, but never has hiccups because VRAM = System RAM.
Very true, all well-said there.

Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 17:40:07So which system would you prefer? I'd definitely take a stable gameplay over hiccups. Even if the general framerate is slightly lower.

In that sense separate GPUs are also inferior to iGPUs. Unless the separate GPU has lots and lots of VRAM (which makes that "far more powerful gaming desktop for less money" not as cheap as you suggest), you always have to be afraid that the next AAA game release will make your GPU outdated, because of insufficient VRAM, forcing you to reduce graphics settings. You generally wouldn't have this problem with an iGPU because it uses just more from the shared RAM.
Absolutely, I agree with you (bold part especially), but many games are so terribly optimised initially yet I still really doubt how 12 GB VRAM is problematic for 1080p gaming. All the benefits of iGPU, those here in your comment, are actually the reason why I prefer iGPU over dGPU, although just not for gaming (got a 16 GB VRAM dGPU in my desktop and 12 GB VRAM in my laptop) due to € per frame cost but definitely yes for productivity.
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 17:40:07
Quote from: Worgarthe on Yesterday at 16:17:02Much cheaper 16 GB RAM + 8 GB dGPU VRAM laptop is going to stomp that iGPU at those same settings (1080p low).

iGPU is an absolute pure inefficiency when gaming is in question - you pay a huge amount of money per frame to get inferior gaming experience in return.

Sure an iGPU can play games at low, but it makes zero sense at all to buy an iGPU-only expensive laptop to specifically play games at low settings in barely 60 fps when you can build a far more powerful gaming desktop for less money, play those same games in high(est) settings at 100+ fps - and still have enough left to buy an M4 MacBook Air.

We are talking about Strix Halo here (and which the article is about), not some small iGPU. And Strix Halo performance is on par with midrange RTX gaming GPUs.

And there is a specific advantage for an iGPU-only system compared to one with separate GPU. You probably already know:
When you reach the VRAM Limit in a game (e.g. games like Indiana Jones), you'll get a sudden hiccup/stutter, because the VRAM has to shuffle something (Textures or something else) into the System RAM. This hiccup will be noticeable and absolutely destroy your gameplay experience, when it happens repeatedly.

E.g.
- Midrange laptop with 8 GB VRAM + 16 GB System RAM runs at 70 FPS, but briefly dops down to 15 FPS every minute because it runs out of VRAM, and has to shuffle something around.
- Strix Halo laptop with "unlimited" System RAM runs at "only" at 60 FPS, but never has hiccups because VRAM = System RAM.

So which system would you prefer? I'd definitely take a stable gameplay over hiccups. Even if the general framerate is slightly lower.

In that sense separate GPUs are also inferior to iGPUs. Unless the separate GPU has lots and lots of VRAM (which makes that "far more powerful gaming desktop for less money" not as cheap as you suggest), you always have to be afraid that the next AAA game release will make your GPU outdated, because of insufficient VRAM, forcing you to reduce graphics settings. You generally wouldn't have this problem with an iGPU because it uses just more from the shared RAM.
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 16:17:02
Yes, Hotz, you are correct there, but you are taking some of the most demanding (and also poorly optimised) games there to compare and show numbers.

And with that, with the RAM+VRAM numbers, you are comparing fully maxed 4K graphics at high fps against all-lowest 1080p at low fps, exactly THAT is the difference. Much cheaper 16 GB RAM + 8 GB dGPU VRAM laptop is going to stomp that iGPU at those same settings (1080p low).

iGPU is an absolute pure inefficiency when gaming is in question - you pay a huge amount of money per frame to get inferior gaming experience in return. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against iGPU and I actually prefer iGPU for my regular day-to-day usage, just not for gaming.

Sure an iGPU can play games at low, but it makes zero sense at all to buy an iGPU-only expensive laptop to specifically play games at low settings in barely 60 fps when you can build a far more powerful gaming desktop for less money, play those same games in high(est) settings at 100+ fps - and still have enough left to buy an M4 MacBook Air.
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 16:00:09
Quote from: Worgarthe on Yesterday at 14:36:27And with 4K maxed, DLSS set to quality and RT set to highest there is still just 17 GB of used RAM[/url].

Yes, there is 10-11 GB of VRAM being used...

Yes, and that amount of RAM combined (Video + System) is 29 GB. Which is similar to the pure iGPU system. That's the point. If you are using a pure iGPU system for gaming, you need as much System RAM as a midrange computer has in System+Video RAM combined.

Midrange computer: 32 GB System + 8-16 GB Video = 40-48 GB combined RAM
Pure iGPU computer: 32 GB System (shared as Video) = still only 32 GB RAM

So with a pure iGPU system you are already at the edge with 32 GB RAM. You wouldn't want that. It should be 48 GB.

Note however, that I specifically mean this as a requirement for strong iGPUs like Strix Halo, which have the capability to use high settings. If it were only for weaker iGPUs like "Arc 140T" or "Radeon 890m", which can never reach as high settings, 32 GB RAM is totally fine.


Btw. another example with 9.5 + 21.5 = 31GB (Oblivion Remastered, here using a Strix Halo laptop)
youtu.be/mePnPYnDQ5o?si=YuIfk-pwS0hpot1w&t=27
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 14:36:27
Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 14:20:05I found the video:

The game in case is Spiderman 2 (timestamp included):

youtu.be/ItpXB1_P-t4?si=MzWvmH64Zv9FWeod&t=480


As you can see it already uses 30 GB of the RAM - with Low Settings. If you have a stronger Mini-PC (with Strix Halo), you probably also want to use medium-high settings and then 32 GB RAM are probably not enough anymore.
Thanks for the link for the vid with the timestamp included! However, something is definitely messed up heavily there with that PC. Why? Look at this, 4K, maxed detail, DLSS off, RT off, less than 15 GB RAM: https://youtu.be/3jXpNWs2PI0?t=58

So basically polar opposite of what the guy uses with that Arc 140T - and it's chugging ~7 (!!) GB less RAM. And with 4K maxed, DLSS set to quality and RT set to highest there is still just 17 GB of used RAM.

Yes, there is 10-11 GB of VRAM being used but that's my point actually from my previous comment regarding iGPU gaming and demanding games - less total memory (15+11=26 GB), but infinitely better experience in playing the same game, and a hell lot of more performance, all for even less money in total than the laptop in the OP of this article. I mean sure, you can't carry your desktop easily around but if you want to play games you can buy a better laptop with a dGPU for less money, or you can make yourself a nice eGPU setup to play at home (because who really plays games when they are outside working on the field or with clients?).
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 14:20:05
I found the video:

The game in case is Spiderman 2 (timestamp included):

youtu.be/ItpXB1_P-t4?si=MzWvmH64Zv9FWeod&t=480


As you can see it already uses 30 GB of the RAM - with Low Settings. If you have a stronger Mini-PC (with Strix Halo), you probably also want to use medium-high settings and then 32 GB RAM are probably not enough anymore.
Posted by Worgarthe
 - Yesterday at 14:10:53
Quote from: Hotz on Yesterday at 13:57:30I wouldn't dismiss that so easily. Recently I watched someone testing a Mini-PC (iGPU only) with 32 GB RAM, and the fps counter showed 22.000 MB being taken as "RAM" and 7.500 MB as "VIDEO RAM". And both combined are very close 32 GB RAM.

Unfortunately I can't remember which Mini-PC and game that was, but I was slightly shocked by the amount of RAM taken.
Yes, I get that point, but no one is seriously going to game heavy demanding games, and there is not that many of them actually (including UE5 games), with iGPU. To claim that "32gb is not enough for games these days" is just crazy. It probably isn't enough for about two games on the market if they are being pushed in a high resolution (which iGPU can't push at 60+ fps), with high texture quality (again, iGPU can't push that at 60+ fps). Actually even a mobile 5080 struggles with those two games without DLSS, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Any iGPU can take up to 50% of RAM since eternity, even old Intel HD 3000. So if there is 16 GB of RAM, an iGPU can access up to 8 GB. If there is 64 GB then it's dynamically available up to 32 GB. That is nothing new like it's being presented here for some reason.
Posted by Hotz
 - Yesterday at 13:57:30
Quote from: Worgarthe on Yesterday at 02:29:43
Quote from: Sebastian277447 on Yesterday at 02:13:21I can confirm this, I have the same problem with gmktec X2 device, the system reserves the memory on forehand.  32gb is not enough for games these days,
Lol, literally stopped reading altogether right there. Still long enough until April 1st though.

I wouldn't dismiss that so easily. Recently I watched someone testing a Mini-PC (iGPU only) with 32 GB RAM, and the fps counter showed 22.000 MB being taken as "RAM" and 7.500 MB as "VIDEO RAM". And both combined are very close 32 GB RAM.

Unfortunately I can't remember which Mini-PC and game that was, but I was slightly shocked by the amount of RAM taken.
Posted by Uberfish
 - Yesterday at 12:21:32
Sorry. Who is running large LLMs locally? Have people suddenly started needing local AI models?

I can tell you now, it's an incredibly small subset of users. This article is so pointless. Most users barely even use online LLMs, never mind local ones.

32gb is more than enough for 99% of laptop users. For the other 1%, sure. Get that large memory to run those fringe use LLMs.
Posted by Gabrielle
 - Yesterday at 06:52:52
i do hope i can afford 64gb...the memory price ain't getting much cheaper as i hoped :P