AMD launches Ryzen Mobile 7 2700U & 5 2500U with Vega Graphics

[Zucker2k]

How much does screen size matter in comparing Ryzen Mobile and Kaby Lake-R battery life? - The Tech Report

Woah! Quite a revelation.

 

[krumme]

Here is a present for you
Bf1 64 Mp on a 15w apu ryzen r5
https://youtu.be/CBOY0HU5UzE
You want better fps? Get the r7
I repeat. That was 64mp bf1.

And btw. Bf4 will run fine 60fps probably on medium if not even 1080 low taken from this example.
You take speedstep- witch effect is already in the benchmark so nothing new here. I take this.
Its a slam dunk cpu gpu combo in a 15w tdp form factor. Respect.

 

[Bouowmx]

1280x720 low
60 fps dicking around in desert.
< 40 fps when shooting, receiving damage, buildings crumbling.
Great gaming experience. Can't wait to try.

 

[Dayman1225]

I mean it was 720p low @80% reso scale so I cant imagine it doing very well at all at 1080p and this is one of the emptiest maps in the game. I'm not saying it's not impressive (compared to Intel at least) I am just saying that I am not impressed by it.

 

[krumme]

1280x720 low
60 fps dicking around in desert.
< 40 fps when shooting, receiving damage, buildings crumbling.
Great gaming experience. Can't wait to try.

Yeaa you were surprised but try to hide behind your sarcasm.
It just proves bf4 is easily 60fps. And that was the question right. You were just 100% wrong. Its not a hd620.

On bf1 30 to 60 fps is sort of extremely impressive performance from 15w cpu plus gpu.

Have a look on youtube and look on all the bf series played on 620. You can be pretty sure those will prefer a r5 or r7 like 100 to 150% more.

 

[Bouowmx]

AMD Raven Ridge integrated GPU is greater than Intel Gen9 GT2. I am not denying that.

But the increase (100% to 150% more, as you say) in graphics performance still insufficient to produce a playable resolution and frame rate for a competitive FPS. 1280x720, low, < 40 fps

Intel Gen9 GT2 can do 2 fps for all I care. I still will not get a great gaming experience in a AAA competitive FPS in either Intel Kaby Lake-R or AMD Raven Ridge.

 

[krumme]

I mean it was 720p low @80% reso scale so I cant imagine it doing very well at all at 1080p and this is one of the emptiest maps in the game. I'm not saying it's not impressive (compared to Intel at least) I am just saying that I am not impressed by it.

I mentioned bf4 as a start. Ofc because i knew it could pull it.
Actually that it can take on bf1 at all is crazy and a surprise to me because it puts a lot of extra stress on the cpu also vs bf4. It is darn impressive from a technical perspective. Take the r7 instead of r5 and its actually playable at 720 low for one of the most taxing games we have.

 

[Dayman1225]

I mentioned bf4 as a start. Ofc because i knew it could pull it.
Actually that it can take on bf1 at all is crazy and a surprise to me because it puts a lot of extra stress on the cpu also vs bf4. It is darn impressive from a technical perspective. Take the r7 instead of r5 and its actually playable at 720 low for one of the most taxing games we have.

I honestly dont think the R7 will offer much more performance, sure it has 2 more CUs but it still has that same 15w TDP and the same bandwidth/VRAM limitations, though that's just me speculating. Personally these APUs are not for me but I cannot deny their gaming performance is impressive.

 

[krumme]

AMD Raven Ridge integrated GPU is greater than Intel Gen9 GT2. I am not denying that.

But the increase (100% to 150% more, as you say) in graphics performance still insufficient to produce a playable resolution and frame rate for a competitive FPS. 1280x720, low, < 40 fps

Intel Gen9 GT2 can do 2 fps for all I care. I still will not get a great gaming experience in a AAA competitive FPS in either Intel Kaby Lake-R or AMD Raven Ridge.

Its 15w tdp apu and people use them all the time in the real world for playing all sort of stuff. Even bf series.
We wouldnt do it but they do. (Ok i would do it on vacations if i get the need)

But look how many mx940 was sold. Its tons! There is a huge huge market for that performance and now you get it in 15w formfactor. In time we will see tons of r5 14 inch plastic stuff invade millions of homes some even with a 720 display. At least the gpu is much much better than the hd620. It is a huge step forward in the real world.
Again all assuming battery life is compettitive.
And btw bf4 is perfectly fine. Bf1 is darn near worst case.

 

[krumme]

I honestly dont think the R7 will offer much more performance, sure it has 2 more CUs but it still has that same 15w TDP and the same bandwidth/VRAM limitations, though that's just me speculating. Personally these APUs are not for me but I cannot deny their gaming performance is impressive.

Agree a r7 will be hovering 20 to 60 fps in bf1 mp64 looking from this as its only slightly faster due to tdp. You get synch so that helps a good deal and i bet it will be played a lot. I probably wouldnt play it and would boot bf4 but better play 40 fps bf1 than nothing thats for sure.

 

[Bouowmx]

I have already acknowledged there will be titles that AMD Raven Ridge is suitable in.

Its 15w tdp apu and people use them all the time in the real world for playing all sort of stuff. Even bf series.

And you seriously saying people unironically play AAA competitive FPS at < 30 fps and are happy with it?

Repeating ad nauseum, why is an AAA competitive FPS at 30 fps acceptable? Why is going from unplayable frame rate to unplayable frame rate acceptable? Why would I consider AMD Raven Ridge if it still cannot provide suitable gaming fidelity?

 

[krumme]

I am still wondering why r5 can do this bf1 mp64 stuff albeit slow in such a tdp. Especially because there is a serious cpu load.
We know Bf1 issues 10 threads. And i think the high efficiency of zen hyperthreadding helps a lot here. If we look at the video all threads is nicely loaded. It seems they really comes to good use here.

 

[krumme]

I have already acknowledged there will be titles that AMD Raven Ridge is suitable in.


And you seriously saying people unironically play AAA competitive FPS at < 30 fps and are happy with it?

Repeating ad nauseum, why is an AAA competitive FPS at 30 fps acceptable? Why is going from unplayable frame rate to unplayable frame rate acceptable? Why would I consider AMD Raven Ridge if it still cannot provide suitable gaming fidelity?

They are used for mixed purpose. Work leasure and entertainment - not compettitive. Are slim and portable. Play a short round in school.
Most are used to 30fps from the consoles so nothing new here.
If you want a faster but fatter more heavy and more expensive machine and cary that do it. Most dont these days.

 

[Bouowmx]

Because my break time is well used to play a round of... being killed despite spotting the enemy first because the frames did not come quickly enough, and frolicking in a plain.

30 fps like a console, but not playing against console players.

I will not continue this branch of discussion, as the debate is going nowhere.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Because my break time is well used to play a round of... being killed despite spotting the enemy first because the frames did not come quickly enough, and frolicking in a plain.

Bouowmx, it doesn't matter.

Because I assume vast majority of such twitchy FPS gamers are playing on Desktops, with $200 so-called Gaming Chairs. Any of them, if they are out there use Laptops, it'll be $2000+ ones with 1080 chips. The fact that you'd go play on a laptop that is ergonomically unsound but care about every ms is ridiculous. You get rid of the bigger bottlenecks first. That means playing on Desktops.

 

[Bouowmx]

if they are out there use Laptops, it'll be $2000+ ones with 1080 chips.

That's kind of too extreme?

There is still a reasonable experience (1920x1080 60 or more fps) in a competitive FPS to have on a 15.6-in laptop with entry-level dedicated GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050) for ~800 USD (including Intel Core i5-H and SSD): ~2.6 cm (1 in) thick, ~2.5 kg (5-6 lb). I consider those average ergonomics (maybe because I never use thin-and-light).

 

[neblogai]

I have already acknowledged there will be titles that AMD Raven Ridge is suitable in.


And you seriously saying people unironically play AAA competitive FPS at < 30 fps and are happy with it?

Repeating ad nauseum, why is an AAA competitive FPS at 30 fps acceptable? Why is going from unplayable frame rate to unplayable frame rate acceptable? Why would I consider AMD Raven Ridge if it still cannot provide suitable gaming fidelity?

If high fps are needed- then there are games like SC:GO (75-150fps) or Overwatch (40-70+fps) for 2500U. Also- more powerful, 35-45W APUs with all 11CUs enabled and higher clocks will still be Raven Ridge, power efficient enough for similar Ultrabooks like HP x360, but with much higher gaming performance. Saying AMD Raven Ridge can not provide suitable gaming fidelity is wrong.

2500U Overwatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYWeiCXnvrE
SC:GO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9pG9FhkGic

 

[IntelUser2000]

That's kind of too extreme?

There is still a reasonable experience (1920x1080 60 or more fps) in a competitive FPS to have on a 15.6-in laptop with entry-level dedicated GPU (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050) for ~800 USD (including Intel Core i5-H and SSD): ~2.6 cm (1 in) thick, ~2.5 kg (5-6 lb). I consider those average ergonomics (maybe because I never use thin-and-light).

Ergonomics, usually translate into comfort, and means better play.

I don't doubt people you describe exist. However, if they really wanted to be in the competitive gaming arena, why would they settle for anything less than the best they can afford? Why care about getting steady fps, but go and buy a device that's far smaller and less comfortable in any way? There's a serious disconnect between the two. There's a market dedicated to people buying ultra high performance mice, mechanical keyboards, proper mat for the mice, and very low latency monitors(and big, close to 30 inches), which combined might cost as much as regular ultrabooks.

Did I mention chairs?

Laptops also suck with driver support because manufacturers want their devices to be made out of proprietary things.

If you ignore the competitive gaming you are left with rest of the folks that do it for the sake of entertainment.

 

[Bouowmx]

If high fps are needed- then there are games like SC:GO (75-150fps) or Overwatch (40-70+fps) for 2500U. Also- more powerful, 35-45W APUs with all 11CUs enabled and higher clocks will still be Raven Ridge, power efficient enough for similar Ultrabooks like HP x360, but with much higher gaming performance. Saying AMD Raven Ridge can not provide suitable gaming fidelity is wrong.

Like I mentioned, there will be suitable titles for AMD Raven Ridge. But the user I was debating is quite adamant on the contemporary Battlefield series, in which Raven Ridge cannot deliver.

In context of what is currently available, I figured when I write "Raven Ridge", it will represent "Ryzen 5 2500U" and "Ryzen 7 2700U" in 15 W.

 

[Bouowmx]

I don't doubt people you describe exist. However, if they really wanted to be in the competitive gaming arena, why would they settle for anything less than the best they can afford? Why care about getting steady fps, but go and buy a device that's far smaller and less comfortable in any way? There's a serious disconnect between the two.

I believe you and I interpret "competitive" differently. By your tone, I believe you interpret "competitive" in the e-sport sense: best as possible. No doubt a desktop is for that.

I use "competitive" in the sense that you will be on similar footing with other players (in public matches), i.e. the hardware is not completely diluting your skill because you can only get 1280x720 30 fps.

 

[wahdangun]

1280x720 low
60 fps dicking around in desert.
< 40 fps when shooting, receiving damage, buildings crumbling.
Great gaming experience. Can't wait to try.

Actually If the laptop have freesync, 30-60 fps will still play-able.

 

[USER8000]

1280x720 low
60 fps dicking around in desert.
< 40 fps when shooting, receiving damage, buildings crumbling.
Great gaming experience. Can't wait to try.

So basically significantly better than an Intel integrated graphics?? Seems perfectly fine for someone who is a casual gamer,or have you ignored consoles like the XBox One and Switch that seem limited to be 30FPS in many titles at 720p?? The point is the Intel integrated sucks so badly,they even had to go to AMD to buy a dGPU to put in their next high end mobile CPU.

Do you honestly not understand as AMD gets more design wins,these will end up in cheaper laptops?? We have not even seen the 4 core/4 thread models out yet. So where does that leave the Intel integrated graphics which you seem to trying to remove the pressure off(for some weird reason).

If high fps are needed- then there are games like SC:GO (75-150fps) or Overwatch (40-70+fps) for 2500U. Also- more powerful, 35-45W APUs with all 11CUs enabled and higher clocks will still be Raven Ridge, power efficient enough for similar Ultrabooks like HP x360, but with much higher gaming performance. Saying AMD Raven Ridge can not provide suitable gaming fidelity is wrong.

2500U Overwatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYWeiCXnvrE
SC:GO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9pG9FhkGic

Looks quite solid. OFC,enthusiasts on forums are more worried about that extra 10% single core score in SuperPI so they can compare their E-PENIS points,but for everyone else it looks quite decent for a laptop integrated graphics solution,or even for cheaper desktops.

Woah! Quite a revelation.

Its still a flawed comparison - there is both an Intel and AMD version of the laptop:

http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-envy-x360-convertible-laptop-15t-1za23av-1
http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/hp-envy-x360-convertible-laptop-15z-touch-1za07av-1

I really cannot understand why they can't buy the Intel one,test it and then sell it off,or even ask HP for a loaner laptop.

 

[Bouowmx]

So basically significantly better than an Intel integrated graphics?? Seems perfectly fine for someone who is a casual gamer,or have you ignored consoles like the XBox One and Switch that seem limited to be 30FPS in many titles at 720p?? The point is the Intel integrated sucks so badly,they even had to go to AMD to buy a dGPU to put in their next high end mobile CPU.

To repeat (sorry thread watchers):
In the quoted example of Battlefield 1, so what AMD Raven Ridge is better than Intel Gen9 GT2? Raven Ridge still fails to deliver an acceptable experience.
So what consoles get 30 fps? You're playing with PC players.
So what about the Intel/Radeon processor? It uses a dedicated GPU with far greater power budget. In what way is it relevant to integrated GPUs?

 

[John Carmack]

How much does screen size matter in comparing Ryzen Mobile and Kaby Lake-R battery life? - The Tech Report

Told yall couldn't compare laptops with different screens like that.

To repeat (sorry thread watchers):
In the quoted example of Battlefield 1, so what AMD Raven Ridge is better than Intel Gen9 GT2? Raven Ridge still fails to deliver an acceptable experience.
So what consoles get 30 fps? You're playing with PC players.
So what about the Intel/Radeon processor? It uses a dedicated GPU with far greater power budget. In what way is it relevant to integrated GPUs?

Why the obsession with BF1? I play a game called Cities: Skylines which the developer specifically says does not support Intel integrated GPU's but maybe it might run on the 2500U and I might be perfectly happy with it. More gamers don't play BF1 than gamers who do.

 

[Bouowmx]

Why the obsession with BF1?

I was debating with a user that is adamant about the contemporary Battlefield series. The user, krumme, posted a video showing AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (15 W) performance in Battlefield 1. I made my comments, krumme made its comments, and the discussion came to a close.
Another user, USER8000, revived that branch by replying to a comment I made. I repeated the same points I made earlier.

I never shamed AMD Raven Ridge in other specific titles.