Quote from: Dorby on June 19, 2021, 11:36:51
Well that's because every laptop is using the cheap GB2E version, not the GBD-128, a.k.a "standard model" of MX450 graphics as Nvidia intended.
...

Interesting information.

Well that's because every laptop is using the cheap GB2E version, not the GBD-128, a.k.a "standard model" of MX450 graphics as Nvidia intended.

Every laptop I've seen so far from big brands has had either 12W MX450 Max-Q GDDR6 usually tuned at 10 watts power package, or a 25W MX450 GDDR5 which is essentially an MX250 that is undercooled and performs worse than Intel integrated graphics.

The standard model of MX450 is a 30W 2GB GDDR6, which should perform half as good as a 35W GTX 1650 Max-Q, but problematically costs almost the same.

- Apple M1 iGPU = GTX 1650 Max-Q
- Intel XE (96EU) iGPU = MX450 Max-Q
- Intel XE (non-96EU), AMD Vega 8 iGPUs = MX350

There you go. There's really no point for manufacturers to use MX450 card at all (all 4 versions), since they are overpriced, and difficult to cool properly.

Hopefully AMD releases their low-end laptop dGPUs soon enough.

If they communicated it only to manufacturers, then why should consumers expect such performance? If a manufacturer failed to perform their own testing, the joke is on them.

The strange thing is that the other two numbers track well and can exceed 1050. Fire Strike not only misses the target, it comes nowhere near 1050 and is barely any better than MX350. That really seems strange. Yes, 7500 really does sound like too much. But something like 6000 would seem appropriate. And it's just not there.

Could it have been a mistake was made at some point in the chain and 4500 pts became 7500 pts ?

MX 550-560? when