Discussion Poll: Yes/No Full IGP version of mobile Ryzen 5 4600H?

[EliteRetard]

Reviews are quite positive for the 4900HS and it's IGP, I think it would be great if they offered lower cost H CPUs with that full IGP as well.
Reviews of the full 8 CU IGP show it's just as fast as (often much more than) a Nvidia MX150 / MX250 / MX330 / GT1030 (all rebadged same GPU)
Why force people to pay for all the compromises of a dGPU if they really don't need it? Higher price, weight, size, lower battery life etc.
Forcing people to the low performance U series is not the right attitude or answer either. "Only hardcore gam3rZ need high performance CPUS!"

A theoretical 4600HG (G for graphics, meaning FULL IGP) vs a U series + dGPU would be less complex and much cheaper to produce.
It should offer the same or better GPU and CPU performance in a similar total power envelope (15w CPU + 25w dGPU vs 35w to 45w APU).
Because of the dynamic nature of these new AMD APUs, they have the potential to entirely upset and change the current market.

I guess I'm just really enthusiastic about these new chips, and the large efficiency and performance gains they've brought.
I want to see designs using these powerful Ryzen H chips without a dGPU, the full IGP is good at no extra cost and fast enough for many.
Cutting down the IGP for no reason and trying to force it to also be a product differentiator is just a bad thing, the CPUs already do that.
Nobody is going to spend a lot more for a higher tier CPU they don't need just to get a better IGP, and it's disappointing to "settle for less".
Offering a full power IGP on cheaper tier CPUs however can pull people over from competitors that don't offer such performance for the price.
It literally costs nothing to keep the full IGP enabled on the lower tier chips, all the R&D manufacturing and hardware is physically there.

This is how I see things:

U series for the tech illiterate, for super light office work or web browsing only. Niche 90+ Wh units for maximum battery life.
HG series IGP ONLY for those who need a high performance CPU and sick of paying (cash, battery life, size, weight) for a dGPU they'll never use.
. . . 4600HG could be a great mid-range option, just the right mix of performance and efficiency, perfect for enthusiasts and light gaming normies.
H plus dGPU for the hardcore gamers or anybody who needs GPU power for specific workstation tasks.

What say the rest of you?

Edit: Slightly modified to suggest a full lineup of HG parts that would offer the full IGP. I think there could/should be full IGP only options from R3 all the way to R9. I focused on the R5 since it would be a great mainstream option, and the R9 is already a full IGP (and they need to offer laptops using them without dGPU). The current units with cut down IGP can be used in laptops with a dGPU for those who want that.

Random example: All else being equal (performance, chassis, screen, keyboard, wifi etc) what would you choose?

Intel U series + MX330 for $750 w/ 6hr battery and 4.5lb weight (higher cost due to added dGPU)
AMD HG (full IGP only) for $675 w/ 8hr battery and 4lb weight (higher battery life, lower weight due to lack of dGPU)

In actuality it's likely the AMD system would have a higher performing CPU since it can use the full 35-45w vs the 15w of a U series.
Unfortunately AMD isn't offering such a CPU/configuration because they are trying to conform to the standards Intel has set up to now.
Maybe, hopefully, by voicing my opinions and getting others to share we can catch the attention of somebody who can make it happen.

 

[NTMBK]

Nah, that just solidifies the image of gaming on APUs as the "bad option". Give me a 16CU IGP with enough LPDDR5 memory bandwidth to feed it, in a thinner laptop than a 2 chip Nvidia+Intel could ever manage.

 

[EliteRetard]

Nah, that just solidifies the image of gaming on APUs as the "bad option". Give me a 16CU IGP with enough LPDDR5 memory bandwidth to feed it, in a thinner laptop than a 2 chip Nvidia+Intel could ever manage.

In reviews like this one:

AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS Review

Mobile computing has become the next big target at AMD with its new series of Ryzen 4000 APUs. Today we have the first retail Ryzen 9 4900HS...

www.techspot.com

The 4900HS IGP performs better than a discrete Nvidia MX250.
Yes, that's very low end...so perhaps it could still tarnish the image of APUs.

On the other hand, it turned in decent performance in GTA 5, Civ 6, and CS GO.
Even with that performance I would never suggest an IGP for games like that (or any AAA game).
I expect it would be good for stuff like DOTA 2, LOL, Rocket League, or any older/casual game.
As long as people are properly informed and temper their expectations it should be fine.
Marketing needs to focus on "E-Sports" and light games like Stardew Valley etc.

I also would have liked to see a bigger IGP option, but it would need to be it's own specialty chip (like Hades Canyon).
I imagine a 16CU option with 4GB dedicated RAM would beat a Nvidia 1650.

Makes me wonder why they don't make higher tier APU options for desktop.
As good as their CPUs are, they're a poor choice for many people because of the extra $100 you have to spend on a GPU.
With their chiplet approach, they could go up to 8 cores plus a GPU chiplet (where the other 8 cores would've normally gone).
I wonder how much IGP they could get in a chiplet similarly sized to their core chiplet.

Would anybody pay an extra say $50-60 for an IGP version of their current desktop CPUs?
I imagine if they added dedicated RAM that would drive the cost up significantly more (not because of the RAM cost itself).

 

[VirtualLarry]

Makes me wonder why they don't make higher tier APU options for desktop.

Maybe they need to make a socket variant (oh noes!), called "AM4G" - for "Gamer" or "Graphics", or whatever. Maybe it could somehow be backwards-compatible with existing AM4 CPUs and APUs, and allow for AM4G APUs, APUs with larger numbers of iGPU CUs, maybe using the chiplet model for a GPU chiplet on-package, such that it would be specced out for a HIGHER POWER DRAW for the iGPU, way beyond the normal AM4 Vsoc or Vgfx power plane.

OK, just call it AM4+, but I would have thought that perhaps that name could be saved for a DDR4/DDR5 combo-compatible future CPU, that would be a drop-in upgrade from AM4, but also able to use DDR5 memory.

 

[DrMrLordX]

AMD tried pushing big iGPU APUs for years and got very little traction. They probably won't go back to it anytime soon.

 

[EliteRetard]

AMD tried pushing big iGPU APUs for years and got very little traction. They probably won't go back to it anytime soon.

I'm not even asking for big IGPs...if they could put even their mobile 8CU unit into higher class desktop CPUs then I could recommend them to a lot more people. Without an IGP Intel wins for any system above budget APUs, starting with the i5-9400. As much as I'd like to recommend a 3600, there's an extra $100-125 you have to spend on a GPU just to make it work. Even the budget "winner" 1600 AF are noncompetitive for anybody that doesn't need the added GPU.

Basically I think it needs to be an option (at least up to the 8 core), something even Intel is doing now with it's F series.
Actually, with it's chiplet design I'd really like to see AMD move all it's APUs/CPUs to the latest gen. All current APUs are Zen+
Since their current mainstream chips can hold two chiplets, I'd like to see parts with one CPU and one GPU chiplet.

All this is also why I really want to see the new mobile 4000 H series in IGP only options. I think the majority of people would be incredibly well served by them. Certainly there are a few that could be fine with ultra low end U series and budget APUs, but many people actually want/need more CPU power and don't want/need much GPU power. Many of the people with U series laptops only have them because they have to, there was literally no other choice for them at the time of purchase. For how anti-social and how few people I know, I can name 6 people right now that do enough work to justify i5-i7 or 3600-3700 class CPU power and none have need for a dGPU.

The 4600H I expect will land just below a desktop 3600 in performance, and a big step up from a desktop 3400G. As is I think the 4600H IGP only will be the best all around option for many, a theoretical 4600HG would just be a nice balanced option for those who enjoy light/casual games. There's almost no point to a U series if there's efficient H series options with IGP, something that hasn't been available up to now. I very much hope the entire H series, up to the 4900H, will be offered in quality IGP only laptops. If you think the performance of U series parts has been fine, then you'd be just as well off using a phone/tablet. The only remaining purpose to them should be ultra light tasks that require Windows and where you also need maximum battery life at the expense of everything else. I believe that's quite a small niche, remember even a gaming option like the G14 is getting 12 hours with a 2060+4900H.

 

[AtenRa]

Voted YES, i do want to see lower tier SKUs with full iGPU.

Even a 4C 8T with full iGPU at 15W-35W will be more than enough for the majority of Laptop users.

Also I would like to see 35W TDP SKUs for the Desktop and cheaper Mini-iTX motherboards. Where the hell are those A300 SFF cheap boards ??

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm not even asking for big IGPs...if they could put even their mobile 8CU unit into higher class desktop CPUs then I could recommend them to a lot more people. Without an IGP Intel wins for any system above budget APUs, starting with the i5-9400. As much as I'd like to recommend a 3600, there's an extra $100-125 you have to spend on a GPU just to make it work. Even the budget "winner" 1600 AF are noncompetitive for anybody that doesn't need the added GPU.

That's a market segment they catered to for years, and it nearly ran them out of business. Like I said, the'yre not going back except as an afterthought.

 

[AtenRa]

That's a market segment they catered to for years, and it nearly ran them out of business. Like I said, the'yre not going back except as an afterthought.

I wouldn't compare Bulldozer based APUs with the current ZEN 2.

What we are talking here is to have more SKUs from the same die.

For example,

15W TDP SKUs

Ryzen 4300U - CPU Cores 4C 4T - iGPU 5CUs

Ryzen 4300UG - CPU Cores 4C 4T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600U - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 6CUs

Ryzen 4500UG - CPU Cores 6C 6T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)

Ryzen 4500U - CPU Cores 6C 6T - iGPU 6CUs


35-45 TDP SKUs

Ryzen 4350HG - CPU Cores 4C 8T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600HG - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600HS - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 6CUs (35W TDP)

 

[EliteRetard]

That's a market segment they catered to for years, and it nearly ran them out of business. Like I said, the'yre not going back except as an afterthought.

I disagree, it was not the IGP that caused the problem but the weak CPU that held them back.

Right now AMD has good CPUs and proved they can make good APUs.
Only problem is it seems they don't want people to use it...sticking them to low end desktop or laptops with a dGPU.

Personally I've always thought it was stupid to cut down an IGP, especially limiting the full option to the most expensive CPU.
I feel like it should just be either on or off. Either you want a chip with an IGP or you don't, nobody wants a half baked option.

This thread/poll is one way for me to check my sanity, so far it seems like my ideas aren't that crazy.

 

[EliteRetard]

I wouldn't compare Bulldozer based APUs with the current ZEN 2.

What we are talking here is to have more SKUs from the same die.

For example,

15W TDP SKUs

Ryzen 4300U - CPU Cores 4C 4T - iGPU 5CUs

Ryzen 4300UG - CPU Cores 4C 4T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600U - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 6CUs

Ryzen 4500UG - CPU Cores 6C 6T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)

Ryzen 4500U - CPU Cores 6C 6T - iGPU 6CUs


35-45 TDP SKUs

Ryzen 4350HG - CPU Cores 4C 8T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600HG - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 8CUs (new SKU with best iGPU)


Ryzen 4600HS - CPU Cores 6C 12T - iGPU 6CUs (35W TDP)

I still don't know how to put the words together. Basically I agree with this, but I had limited this thread/poll to a single option to make it simpler for myself. As I just finished saying in my last post I'd very much like to see full IGP options across the full price range and I'd very much like to see systems actually using them (low end to top). The vast majority of people don't need a high power dGPU and all the huge compromises that entails (even if they do need a high performance CPU). Simultaneously it's nonsensical to artificially cut down a good IGP as you step down the CPU. Having an IGP outperform a low end dGPU is a huge value add, and there are those who can't afford a dGPU or the top end CPU who would very much appreciate that performance at a lower price point.

If you already did all the R&D and spent all the money to manufacture it, why not let the people have it? It's not like fusing off good parts saves money. If you really have that many IGPs with defects, why not use those in the designs with dGPUs (the one time you can be certain the IGP performance wont matter)?

 

[DrMrLordX]

I wouldn't compare Bulldozer based APUs with the current ZEN 2.

I disagree, it was not the IGP that caused the problem but the weak CPU that held them back.

You're missing my point. OEMs still screwed AMD in the Carrizo and Kaveri era by essentially ignoring the entire transistor budget AMD spent on the iGPU by integrating dGPUs anyway - sometimes dGPUs that were slower (or as slow as) the iGPU itself! On top of that, they kept using single-channel configs which crippled iGPUs. AMD will not soon forget those hard lessons.

Right now, AMD has arguably the best x86 CPU cores in the business. Thanks to Renoir, those cores are now in full force in the laptop sector. It is highly-probable that OEMs will continue their patterns of behavior from the last 5+ years by offering a plethora of bad/poorly-thought-out configurations that are not favorable to iGPUs in any way, shape, or form. While AMD really does need to offer iGPUs for the market segments served by products like Renoir (and Dali and others), it doesn't mean they need to take iGPUs all that seriously. That's transistor and power budget that competes with the CPU cores.

Intel ruled the roost in mobile for a long time with relatively excellent CPU cores married to awful afterthought iGPUs (exceptions included products like the 4770R which wasn't an laptop CPU anyway). AMD was taking notes. Now it's Intel flailing around with bigger iGPUs and weaker CPU cores. And surprise surprise, they're even pushing multiGPU and APIs to attempt to unify compute resources. The shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, it would be nice if AMD offered more SKUs and tried for some larger iGPUs, especially on their lower-end products that don't necessarily need a dGPU. If AMD caters to that demand, they will be punished by OEMs. It would be a waste of their time and money.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, it would be nice if AMD offered more SKUs and tried for some larger iGPUs, especially on their lower-end products that don't necessarily need a dGPU. If AMD caters to that demand, they will be punished by OEMs. It would be a waste of their time and money.

Supplying more SKUs from the same die will only increase profits as it will increase segmentation. Intel has done it, NVIDIA does it , AMD can do it, especially now that they have the best APU in the Mobile market.

If what you say was true, AMD would create a 8C 16T SKU with only 5CU iGPU, since as you say OEMs care only for the CPU cores.
Instead, AMDs current APU line up has the fastest iGPU paired only with the fastest 8C 16T CPU.
And the irony is that those SKUs that have the fastest iGPUs (35-45W TDP) are paired with a dGPU, making the iGPU completely irrelevant.
This is mentally insane, why create a SKU with the fastest iGPU and OEMs will not create a product to use the iGPU in its full potential ??

Really there is something wrong going on here with AMD AND OEMs, this is stupid.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Supplying more SKUs from the same die will only increase profits as it will increase segmentation.

There's still a cost associated with carrying an extra SKU. If nobody uses your extra SKU (or if OEMs try, misconfigure it, and then stop ordering more parts because customers won't buy the unit) then it can result in financial loss or very marginal gain. I am assuming AMD only has one Renoir die, and that they're getting all their SKUs from that one die.

Intel has done it

I mean, kind of? Intel can sell everything they make (and has continued to do so up until recently, despite some of the products being clearly inferior). They have historically dealt in volumes that dwarf even some of AMD's most successful mobile products. It's easy for them to justify carrying an extra niche SKU when they know they can still sell millions of the things and get away with charging a premium for filling the niche (as opposed to shoehorning another SKU into the spot).

NVIDIA does it

nVidia, on the other hand . . . woof. I wouldn't take their APUs seriously at all. Not sure why they're in this discussion. We aren't talking dGPUs here.

If what you say was true, AMD would create a 8C 16T SKU with only 5CU iGPU, since as you say OEMs care only for the CPU cores.

How many 4900H products do you expect that will have no dGPU? I think they should have looked at it. They didn't go that route since they were only going to create the one die, which is completely in line with all their other design strategies in the Zen era, and I get it. So they looked at transistor/heat budget, crammed in as much iGPU as they could, and then called it a day.

Instead, AMDs current APU line up has the fastest iGPU paired only with the fastest 8C 16T CPU.

It's a bullet point. Might help them move a few more units. Might not. They're also smart enough to know that if the OEM really wants to offer that bigger iGPU, it's in AMD's best financial interests to sell them an upmarket SKU than to try to sell them something cheaper like a hypothetical 4600HG. That way the OEM can pair it with more upmarket parts, raise the MSRP, and increase profits.

And the irony is that those SKUs that have the fastest iGPUs (35-45W TDP) are paired with a dGPU, making the iGPU completely irrelevant.

When has that ever NOT been the case?

This is mentally insane, why create a SKU with the fastest iGPU and OEMs will not create a product to use the iGPU in its full potential ??

Really there is something wrong going on here with AMD AND OEMs, this is stupid.

We've been over this a million times. OEMs like shifting heat budget away from the APU and into a dGPU. OEMs like upselling products by strapping on crap that the customer doesn't need but might think he/she/it wants (like dGPUs). Laptop OEMs continue to show overt hostility to iGPU-only setups. AMD has learned how OEMs play the game, and they're going along with it, which is going to make them more money too. They know that if the OEMs are going to try to sell a customer an 8CU chip, the OEM would rather sell them a 4800u (or better) than a hypothetical 4600HG. AMD is going to make more money off a 4800u since they come from the same die. Neither AMD nor the OEMs want to help their customers save money when an upsell is also an option. I'm still waiting for a "reputable" OEM to approach AMD and say, "hey we can take over a lot of market volume by reducing BoM using one of your APUs without a dGPU". They just don't do it. Maybe if market expansion was still a thing, a value-oriented player would want a product from AMD like a 4600HG just to wipe the floor with OEMs that insist on trying to sell extraneous crap to their customers. How much BoM do you think they could trim, stepping down from a 4800u + dGPU (yes, it's going to be a thing) to just a 4600HG? Probably a lot. But they'd make less money AND AMD would make less money selling that product.

 

[EliteRetard]

You're missing my point. OEMs still screwed AMD in the Carrizo and Kaveri era by essentially ignoring the entire transistor budget AMD spent on the iGPU by integrating dGPUs anyway - sometimes dGPUs that were slower (or as slow as) the iGPU itself! On top of that, they kept using single-channel configs which crippled iGPUs. AMD will not soon forget those hard lessons.

Right now, AMD has arguably the best x86 CPU cores in the business. Thanks to Renoir, those cores are now in full force in the laptop sector. It is highly-probable that OEMs will continue their patterns of behavior from the last 5+ years by offering a plethora of bad/poorly-thought-out configurations that are not favorable to iGPUs in any way, shape, or form. While AMD really does need to offer iGPUs for the market segments served by products like Renoir (and Dali and others), it doesn't mean they need to take iGPUs all that seriously. That's transistor and power budget that competes with the CPU cores.

Intel ruled the roost in mobile for a long time with relatively excellent CPU cores married to awful afterthought iGPUs (exceptions included products like the 4770R which wasn't an laptop CPU anyway). AMD was taking notes. Now it's Intel flailing around with bigger iGPUs and weaker CPU cores. And surprise surprise, they're even pushing multiGPU and APIs to attempt to unify compute resources. The shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, it would be nice if AMD offered more SKUs and tried for some larger iGPUs, especially on their lower-end products that don't necessarily need a dGPU. If AMD caters to that demand, they will be punished by OEMs. It would be a waste of their time and money.

Yeah I think most of that is fairly accurate... but that was back when AMD was last place and bending over and taking it for whatever scraps OEMs offered. They finally got a hold of the whip and have not been shy about using it.
If they can partner with companies like Microsoft for the Surface and Asus for laptops like the G14, then I think they have the ability to make and enforce some guidelines. If OEMs try to force their products into garbage designs AMD can say screw you and refuse them product, pricing, and/or marketing. AMD will have no problem selling those chips elsewhere.

For example, look at reviews of the G14 vs a Razer Blade 15. If you saw AMD's product is faster, cheaper, far more efficient etc, would you want to work with them or piss them off?

There's more I want to write but I don't know how to get the words for this part. Basically I can't speak to AMD, I know they have a great product, and I really don't want them to copy the same crap design that Intel has used for the last decade. They can and should do far better, and I want to let others know and get their opinions as well.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yeah I think most of that is fairly accurate... but that was back when AMD was last place and bending over and taking it for whatever scraps OEMs offered. They finally got a hold of the whip and have not been shy about using it.

AMD still isn't the volume leader. If they ever switch places with Intel, MAYBE they can goad the OEMs into changing some of their business practices . . . but I wouldn't count on it. AMD is learning to play their game instead. I mean really, why sell a 4600HG when you can just sell a 4800u? Makes perfect sense for their wallets.

Personally, I don't want AMD to produce a 4600HG if OEMs just screw it up again. OEMs would do something douchy like put it in a laptop with 95-97% the same parts and MSRP as 4800u laptops e.g. with a dGPU and other near-premium parts.

 

[neblogai]

I voted Yes. This is exactly what would be perfect for a machine I want: a cheap ultraportable (so-sub1,5kg) that is capable of light gaming, where I do not have to pay with money or weight for dGPU. Judging from current data of how Renoir boosts- ~30-35W (sustained power) would be best, because U-series, with 4500U and 18W sustained power only manage ~1300MHz iGPU clocks on Vega6, and lowered CPU clocks. From the current flock of announced laptops- I will be waiting to see if Swift3 with 4500U can be OCed, and how it deals with the temperature then. But if there was a ~same laptop, only with '4500HG' and 2xTDP, +100g weight for better cooling, and 5 milimeters thicker to fit that- it would be much better. With 7-8CUs at ~1700MHz, it could offer ~30-50% higher gaming performance at nearly no extra cost for the manufacturer to implement it. But as it is- it seems that AMD are aiming only with U-series- for ultrathins, and H-series - for gaming with dGPUs. And do not see the full capabilities of their own chips- so we, as users, will have to hack and overvolt again, to get to full gaming potential of their laptop iGPUs.

 

[RetroZombie]

100% with DrMrLordX on this one.
This 'special parts' only could make sense for their custom business, oems could ask some of that for one 'special line up' or just one special model exclusive for them.

Because where would those G models fill up the line? What would be the price difference over the normal parts? Lets assume 10$ difference, why would anyone buy the cheaper model, if those 10$ would be the only difference in the full laptop price?

 

[LightningZ71]

I have to agree with the premise here. Personally, I think that AMD needs a product for the Surface type end of the market. Aim for something like the 4600u, but spec it TDPup at 35-45watts, 6 cores, 12 threads, 8CU, set to maximize single core boost and iGPU clocks like the 4800u's specced 1750Mhz.

I think that the market is also ready for a premium AMD APU for the higher end of the market in the ultra thins. I suggest that they spin a 14-16CU (or Navi equivalent), 4 channel APU with 8 cores when they do their next gen lineup on the improved 7nm process. Yes, I'm fully aware that it will need a new socket and will generate significant heat. I suggest that it will still be cheaper to implement than any design that has a dGPU, yet will rival the 1650 for effective performance. I contend that such a design will be able to fit into the less than $800 market while still being profitable. Also, with four channels, it doesn't need them all to be exposed to the user mechanically, in that, two channels could be soldered as 4GB per channel, which don't take up as much space as dimm slots and two channels that have sodimm slots. This gives upgradeability while retaining the benefit. On something like a surface, it could be four double channels of lpddr4x (remembering that lpddr4x is installed as double 16 bit channels) keeping power draw reasonable but giving a lot of bandwidth. It would be soldered, so, the base config would be 16 GB.

I know that I'm rambling, but, AMD has the ability to do something special there using the same techniques that they already employ with the consoles.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

There are a lot of things I'd *like* to see released but unfortunately that does not always translate to something that will actually make a company money.

AMD's gameplan for a long time was to eliminate the cheapo bottom tier add in cards and replace them entirely with an APU on all their chips. I'd love to see them get back to that goal and include an IGP on every processor they sell, perhaps built into the IO die.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Personally, I *do* want better APUs in the DIY segment as I've got some dumb projects I'd like to build one day, but DrMrLordX really laid the points out well. AMD at this point should assume OEMs are stupid and will just mess up every configuration for a more-powerful APU.

 

[RetroZombie]

AMD's gameplan for a long time was to eliminate the cheapo bottom tier add in cards and replace them entirely with an APU on all their chips.

Yes it was but even cheapo gpus this days goes for >80mm2.

What i would love them or nvidia do is return to the single slot cards like the geforce gt 8800 and the radeon HD 3850 (sub 120W tdp cards), and 200$:

And also proper low end cards like the 4650, 5670, 7750 (sub 50W tdp cards) and 100$:

I like the radeon 570 and 580 very much specially at the price they are being sold but the requirement of a good psu and good ventilated case are one notch above the needs of peasants like me.

 

[SPBHM]

the IGP can keep up with the mobile rebadged GT 1030s that are in some laptops, I think a lower end CPU (less cores/threads) with the full IGP could be interesting for some laptops.

 

[EliteRetard]

*snip*

Because where would those G models fill up the line? What would be the price difference over the normal parts? Lets assume 10$ difference, why would anyone buy the cheaper model, if those 10$ would be the only difference in the full laptop price?

Ideally I'd say the full IGP version should be the only one. There's no reason to cut down the IGP on these parts, in fact it's quite detrimental. Any defective IGP parts could be the "discount special" parts offered to OEMs to use in dGPU laptops (as long as they can do the hybrid idle thing).

Since they already released the parts with cut down IGPs, well now a full version would need to be created. I think they could simply say 4x00H/S for dGPU laptops and the 4x00HG for IGP only units. Even if they charged $10-25 more for the "G" part, you're saving $100+ on the dGPU and required extra parts.

 

[beginner99]

Don't have a strong opinion on this but there are a ton of gotchas to such a SKU. Like how many users even care/know the difference? Too few I guess. Would just be confusing and then you get an sku that has worse CPU performance than an equally priced one but a better GPU. Most consumers wouldn't get it. Then there is tdp. Does it even fit in 15w with all CUs enabled? or how much cpu boost would you sacrifice?

The real problem is that the fully enabled SKUs will probably mostly ship with a dGPU.