5 ms·
I'm very impressed by the performance of the 3700X given its extremely low power consumption. AMD has historically delivered subpar mobile processors that had a
by ucha 7y ago
I'm very impressed by the performance of the 3700X given its extremely low power consumption. AMD has historically delivered subpar mobile processors that had a higher power consumption that Intel counterparts. A processor with a TDP of half the 3700X's will be very competitive if the graphics module consumption can be contained. I'm looking forward to Zen 2 mobile CPUs although I do not know when they will be announced.
- jonatron 7y agoYes, the performance per watt is a huge jump: https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/132374-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ryzen-7-3700x/?page=12 https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/132374-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-...
- microcolonel 7y agoAlso keep in mind that Intel and AMD have different ways of measuring TDP, the difference would be greater with a standard measure.
- washadjeffmad 7y agoAgreed. And Bulldozer was an ultimately underwhelming run, but AMD still set the stage during that time for many technologies and practices that continue to raise the tide for consumers. Mantle API was opened to Khronos and became Vulkan, and opening their hardware has allowed open driver development to keep parity with the proprietary, negating the GPU vendor as middleman problem. And not all of the A-series were awful, but it seems those were the favored ones for OEMs to put in the very popular $300 Ultrabook competitors. I'd also hazard to say that if we went back and benchmarked the Intel CPUs of that time with the mitigations of today, they wouldn't have fared better than AMD's. We've come a long way from the world before smartphones, parallelism, SoC, and affordable flash, and I'm just glad we're finally here.
- ohithereyou 7y ago>opening their hardware has allowed open driver development to keep parity with the proprietary, negating the GPU vendor as middleman problem Except until recently, AMD GPU performance was a bag of wet farts for both industry and gaming.
- onli 7y agoThat's not accurate. AMD only recently lost the ability to compete with Nvidia in the high end for a while. But they still had cards like the RX 580, that are the best option for their budget, and Fury, Vega and the Radeon VII all were not slow. They just were not better than Nvidia's cards. See https://www.pc-kombo.com/benchmark/games/gpu https://www.pc-kombo.com/benchmark/games/gpu (I run a meta benchmark that includes those cards).
- SubiculumCode 7y agoOne advantage of AMD laptop processors are their superior integrated graphics, while not competing with a dedicated chip, outperforms anything integrated that Intel has to offer, last I checked.
- makomk 7y agoShame about the idle power consumption, though, which seems to have rather suffered this generation.
- trynumber9 7y agoI've only seen that with total system power draw. X570 chipset is power hungry, check again in a few months for a test with a B450/X470 chipset.
- makomk 7y agoAs I understand it the I/O die on the actual processors is basically the same die as the X570 chipset, and there's no way of avoiding the power draw from that. Plus there's the question of what kind of performance you can expecct with lesser chipsets and motherboards.
- trynumber9 7y agoThere are benchmarks. There is no performance difference between a B450 chipset and X570. https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Chipset_CB_Single.png https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1869/bench/Chipset...