What the OEMs have done with Carrizo is pre-define it as a low end part, and worked with AMD to reduce their overheads by creating a pin-compatible platform between Carrizo and Carrizo-L. Because of the Carrizo-L limitations, any hardware that is built to support both but ends up with Carrizo is unnecessarily cut off at the legs before it leaves the gate. We see this with single channel memory designs, chassis built to cost, 13x7 TN panels for Carrizo-L systems and trackpads that need to be blown up in controlled explosions. A side note is the memory – Carrizo is defined up to DDR3-2133, but this only works in 35W scenarios. But if the device is designed for Carrizo-L as well, then it is limited to DDR3L-1600 at single channel by design, such as in the case of the Lenovo Y700. That’s restricting performance before you start.
AMD needs to define their market. I would argue that the split between the low Puma+ core platform and the Excavator module design, as with previous generations, should have been kept in place. OEMs design motherboards for laptops day-in and day-out, so designing two different ones for Carrizo and Carrizo-L isn’t that much of a hit in the R&D department. By combining the two AMD is ultimately defining a near-union Venn diagram which shouldn’t even exist. As a result, there are very few people (technical users or OEMs) willing to take a risk with a high end Carrizo platform, in case it might be restricted, or for fear of all the low quality systems currently in the market (if you can even find one) with bad panels or poor configurations.
There's also the fact that the performance per watt metrics lie purely in Intel's camp, and OEMs seem to believe that the highest specification CPU solves all issues, as in the Toshiba Satellite in our roundup that had the FX-8800P and not a lot else. When compared to the i5-5200U or i6-5300U, very few metrics went in AMD's favor, partly because of the memory issue but also due to Intel's architecture mapping better to common software.
The price/performance ratio is harder to clarify - as we saw in the Lenovo Y700 Carrizo vs Core comparison that for the same price the Intel version had a true quad core and dual channel memory but a smaller HDD compared to the Carrizo. But when we compare the Y700 Carrizo to the Zenbook UX305, also at a similar price, you exchange that 35W Carrizo for a 15W Core but in a smaller, lighter device, with the SoC performace being much closer in exchange for the size and weight of the laptop. The performance gap at 15W vs 15W is hard to compete against when the default designs are being stung with single channel memory (for integrated graphics and elements like compression) for what is arguably another $10-$25, especially with AMD's other business units that are focusing on gaming. There's also the design aspect, and why there are fewer thin/light platforms for Carrizo - part of this might be around z-height of the platform, which was the big push for Broadwell.
Facebook
Twitter