OH NO NO NO NO

So with lower single core IPC, it's still 400mhz slower? Wow

>lower single core IPC
[citation required]
>it's still 400mhz slower?
yeah, while being 800mhz faster on all core boost. That's a 3.2GHz advantage on multitasking.

It's an ultramobile CPU, what "multitasking" do you actually expect to be doing?

Also, single core performance is well known to be 10-15% worse on AMD at the moment. It's certainly much better than it was before Ryzen, but it's not up to intel standards yet.

Attached: 2018-05-29 19_39_11.png (2598x770, 150K)

most multicore tasks aren't hitting every core at 100%, unless you're doing pure CPU based encoding or rendering or some shit.

kek, even in encoding the AMD is slower

Attached: 2018-05-29 19_43_19.png (700x769, 49K)

> pissmark
what's next? Geekbench?

Attached: 2018-05-29 19_51_30.png (695x766, 58K)

> Acer Swift 3
hmmm, that laptop that gave uses the 2700U at 10W?

It can come with up to 65w AC adapter on the 2700u model, so i doubt it.

Even my sandybridge laptop is better than that

> tfw i7 4770HQ
> 3.2GHz all core boost
> Iris Pro Graphics

My 7700HQ does 3.8 on one core and 3.4 on all cores.

>multitasking on low-power CPU
>video rendering on budget laptop
You're either poor, stupid, or both.

yeah with a 45W TDP

> tfw the T480 and even the P52 comes with this shitty hyperthreaded Atom
You'd expect to render videos on a $2000 machine right?

>buying $2000 laptop with budget parts
Lenovo loves people like you.

> $400 CPU
> budget part

and only 2x the power envelope.

yeah, but it's still inside a thin and portable laptop with a 95Wh battery. Sure it gets hot while on full load, but it's worth it.

So then compare it to the 45W part of the current gen.

i7-8750H
>6 core, 12 thread
>2.2ghz base
>3.9Ghz All core turbo
>4.2Ghz single core turbo

>3.9Ghz All core turbo
[citation required]

The specs sheet, as long as it has adequate cooling.

ark.intel.com/products/134906/Intel-Core-i7-8750H-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_10-GHz

The 3,9GHz is nowhere to be seen.

Various sources cite it

ultrabookreview.com/19390-intel-core-i7-8750h-benchmarks/
en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i7/i7-8750h

Attached: 2018-05-29 20_57_21.png (801x403, 19K)

the 2700U can probably do better than that at 25W

then why doesn't it in any of the benchmarks?

because there's literally only one laptop that uses it, and the laptop is garbage tier (Acer).

Dell has one

where do they even get that info from? No citations at all.

techpowerup.com/237740/on-intels-decision-to-no-longer-disclose-all-core-turbo

Because intel refuses to officially say as a "marketing" strategy.

So the only way to find out is to have one and test it.

Once you get the CPU you can see what turbo modes it uses, but intel themselves no longer disclose all core turbo frequencies.

yeah, but what about AMD? I can't find info on the 2600 all core turbo.

however you achieved that price it is completely irrelevant in a laptop. You're telling me that the price is justified at $450 for a low-powered cpu? Perhaps if you argued the marvel of a "U" series cpu with 4 cores and 8 threads that only draws 25watts tdp I would have taken you seriously.

>Because muh manufacturer
Retarded as fuck, specs are all that matters when you're not talking about warranties and customer service

AMD moved to precision boost 2 which provides higher levels of granularity in all-core vs single core turbos, but no official numbers about maximum all-core turbo frequencies.

My best guess would be it's designed to clock up as high as it thinks it can given the TDP and cooling. Where that number lies probably depends on the specific implementation of the CPU.

so Intel isn't as fucked up after all

1.9 GHz

Attached: 1518374404345.gif (500x545, 263K)

The R7 variant in Acer Swift 3 performs worse than the R5 at the same power consumption in Cinebench per NotebookKek. I actually think it is power starved. Also "25W" configurable doesn't really mean a lot, AMD and Intel calculate TDP differently; 2700U in the Acer Swift 3 consumes just as much power at load as the i3 8250U in the Inspiron and the Inspiron has a smaller screen.

Absolute performance matters, but not all vendors are configuring their laptops equally. You'll find the i7s in top of the line, well configured business laptops like the Surface, Latitude, etc., while Ryzens are stuck in pootop territory (like Lenovo's Ideapad, Dell's Inspirons, and HP's Envy's while Intel command the respective X/T/W/P series, Dell's Precisions and Latitudes, HP's Spectre, Elitebooks). Until Ryzen can penetrate the business laptop market, there won't be apples to apples comparisons of the processors, only the complete laptops themselves.

But that begs the question, why should I care about a CPU that isn't being put into a design i'll find usable?

Even if it's a technically better CPU on paper, if in practice it's shit, then i'll be buying intel for the foreseeable future.

yeah but 4.20 GHz blaze it

> 4.2GHz single core
> after 10 seconds it overheats and clocks down to 0.8GHz

Your sources are wrong, Intel does not specify per core turbo clocks anymore. That's cuz they aren't guaranteeing jack shit.

> Intel does not specify per core turbo clocks anymore
nor does AMD

>OH NO NO NO NO
back to your containment board.

Go find me a 25w cpu that can do 4.2ghz on single core and 2.6ghz on all cores

TDP is dissipated heat, not a measurement of power

Well, I think the question is moot because the thread compares processors but here (and in the benchmark) we're talking about which laptop is better, which I agree, Intel's are still superior, at least when you compare two laptops in the same price range.

I won't be buying any modern laptop since I believe that currently laptop design is absolutely awful, essentially touching on the worst of tablets/phones (inability to upgrade via soldered RAM, BGA CPUs stuck at undervolted dual cores for 500-700 bucks, very hard to replace batteries with convoluted power regulation like the MBP, very poor displays with 25+ms response times - yes 25ms black/white, we've been stuck here for a couple years). I think that AMD coming back into the laptop game is a good thing though and drive the industry in the right direction, but OEMs have to give them a chance to actually go toe-to-toe with Intel's offerings at competitive prices to really put the pressure on Intel.

youtube.com/watch?v=XAx9G5PqBzM

is this the return of 1.7%?

It's 300 MHz faster on base frequency.
Oh wait, only the turbo speed matters, right?
But only the single core and not all core since uhh...

It's not going in an apple product user.

as modern as you get, peasant

>>>>>>>>>overheating

I've got the i5 8250u, its grunty as fuck. Its in an ultrabook which suits my needs perfectly.
This thread is honestly full of autists,

Attached: wew.png (1088x942, 101K)

kek
Grunty, as in strong, as in surprising power.

I got laptop with i7 8550u and it can sustain 3.3ghz boost across 4 cores in a torture test, it will draw more than 25w doing so but it can definitely do more than OP claim of 2.6ghz.

that's a 25W (15W mostly) ULV processor, user
by the way, keeping 2.6 GHz on 4 cores is pretty impressive for a laptop
i got a laptop with 8250U and i can say that it's performance is really, really good
you can even raise your TDP limit and get it's maximum frequency on all cores (3.4 GHz on 4 cores for my cpu and 4.2 GHz for this one on your picture)

Attached: Screenshot_20180530_111755.png (1920x1080, 1.21M)

my fucking sides
whoops

Attached: 1527629778452.jpg (679x758, 54K)

The 2700U is 15w configuration there.
The 8550U is 25W

shut up goy

Notice the HQ in the name

>U
I like shitting on Intel as much as the next guy, but don't be a brainlet, OP

>$400
lul

Not our fault no OEM has released a 25w implementation

Now I just need a Lenovo P-series that supports it.

Wait. Does AMD have a 2c/4t Zen chip yet? They could totally knock Pentium off the bottom rung.

>HQ
>U
They're just random symbols that don't mean anything.

Except the oem decides the cooling and tdp, doofus.

Yeah we will be buying Intel, because Intel forces oems to only put amd Cpus in shit systems.

they're launching some of those

>because Intel forces oems
I doubt it, last time they did that they got slammed for a huge fine in the mid/late 2000s.

>low power cpus
the entry level 6 core gayman laptop cpus consistently stay at around 3.8 ghz at full load

kek

prove it.

that they didn't even pay yet

Says who?

They got $1.25B in 2009 and another $1.45B ruling in 2014.

>get fined
>don't pay the goyim

fantastic proof you've presented, i've changed my mind entirely.

Your fault that you cite benchmarks comparing 15w to 25w as if that's anything conclusive.
If anything it shows that 2700U would clearly be the 8550 if it were 25w when it's that close at 15w.

it was in the news goy.
pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt-paid-AMD-12-billion-USD-anti-trust-fine

there you go.
first link on google is intel shiller pcper.

>2016

Why can't we have 16 core CPU's that can do 6Ghz on all 32 threads and only consumer 1W?

(anyone who replies to this is as dumb as OP is).

but muh Hz numbers are the only metric that measure cpu good

Attached: 1517399270663.jpg (211x239, 5K)

Good point, Intel's IPC is easily 5-10% better than AMDs, so even at a lower clockspeed, the intel is faster.

And then the schlomo wakes up.

Coffeelake is actually only 3.5% IPC ahead of Ryzen 2000 series. Lmao.
So much for
>easily

It's intel's brand new latest 10nm design

>Brings out a 10nm design
>Can't even make a high end CPU with it