Why don't more AMD laptop designs get more OEM love?

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

My 1007U laptop got 6.5-7 hours, and increased to nearly 8 once I swapped in an SSD.

Edit: Here's a comparable "small core" quad-core Intel-based design, from the same brand (Toshiba).

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba...8240650sbe&sourceName=forums&sourceId=1444412

8 hours 7 minutes battery life.

Edit: OK, the screen-size differences could account for some of the difference, but it still seems like something's off here.

 

[sandorski]

Ya, that doesn't sound right at all. Pretty sure AMD was achieving better than that 10 years ago. Some of the Customer Reviews give a Pro to Battery Life, maybe that 3 hours is 100% usage or maybe there's an upgrade for the battery? Could just be clueless Customers I suppose.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Maybe it is simply a mis-print. I have seen mullins laptops in stores and they had a rated life of around 5 hours. However it does seem like a mismatch to put a low power chip like this into a 17 inch formfactor, especially when the trend is toward 14 inch and below.

 

[el etro]

That's why adding southbridge to the CPU is a win for AMD.

 

[LTC8K6]

3 hours is most likely due to the large screen and not the cpu.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.staples.com/Dell-Inspiro...-I3541-5001BLK-/product_1387728#/desc_content

6.5 hours with a smaller screen.

 

[Valantar]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

My 1007U laptop got 6.5-7 hours, and increased to nearly 8 once I swapped in an SSD.

Edit: Here's a comparable "small core" quad-core Intel-based design, from the same brand (Toshiba).

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba...8240650sbe&sourceName=forums&sourceId=1444412

8 hours 7 minutes battery life.

Comparing the battery life of a 17" laptop with a 13.3" (with roughly the same battery size, 48 vs. 45 WH) isn't exactly 1-to-1. The 17" panel probably draws twice the power of the 13.3, if not more. Not to mention that the 17" is most likely intended as an ultra-low-end desktop replacements for those who only need the most basic functionality - in which case Toshiba would have nothing to gain from extra R&D expenditures to improve battery life. They probably just threw in the cheapest components they could fit and called it a day. The process behind designing a 13.3" 2-in-1 detatchable would be very, very different.


But other than that, I agree completely. AMD APUs get stuck with low-end, plasticky, shitty laptops with awful displays, that at best, look and feel five years old when brand new. I laughed out loud at the "Slim - thinner design" title in the video for the 17" - that wasn't a slim laptop 5 years ago, and it definitely isn't today. I am very, very, very much hoping this will change with Carrizo, but some laptop makers (Toshiba is, in my opinion, one of the worst) seem dedicated to keeping AMD in only their crappiest builds.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-carrizo-notebooks-coming-sort-of,29309.html

For example, Asus' two X555 models won't be coming to the U.S., and in fact the company told us that it currently has no plans to launch a Carrizo notebook in the U.S. at all.

 

[Zodiark1593]

This is old news. AMD has rarely seen anything but the bargain basement for quite some time. Unfortunately in the high end segment, Intel has an OEM supported monopoly. And i5 certainly doesn't help AMD is seen by consumers as the budget brand. Quite frankly, I think AMD needs to take matters into it's own hands here like Google did with Nexus. Not a budget model, but a bang for the buck one with 1080p ips display, backlit keyboard and other amneties you'd find primarily in premium laptops, probably for a $650-$800 price point. Basically, it should be the laptop that the family techie recommends.

 

[coercitiv]

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

Toshiba Satellite C75D with AMD A4-5000 scores 4 hours in the WiFi test.
Toshiba Satellite C75A with Intel i5-4200M scores 3.5 hours in the WiFi test.

Surely you know Intel Haswell CPUs can be used to flesh out notebooks with more than 3.5 hours of battery life.

 

[Rakehellion]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

My 1007U laptop got 6.5-7 hours, and increased to nearly 8 once I swapped in an SSD.

Edit: Here's a comparable "small core" quad-core Intel-based design, from the same brand (Toshiba).

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba...8240650sbe&sourceName=forums&sourceId=1444412

8 hours 7 minutes battery life.

One is 13" and the other is 17". I don't think they're intended to be direct replacements for one another.

 

[LTC8K6]

Toshiba Satellite C75D with AMD A4-5000 scores 4 hours in the WiFi test.
Toshiba Satellite C75A with Intel i5-4200M scores 3.5 hours in the WiFi test.

Surely you know Intel Haswell CPUs can be used to flesh out notebooks with more than 3.5 hours of battery life.

One of those CPUs crushes the other in performance, though.

 

[Dresdenboy]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

Different take: Because they can.

Some people (and they aren't a few) worsen the life of others by their own behavior.

 

[geoxile]

Toshiba Satellite C75D with AMD A4-5000 scores 4 hours in the WiFi test.
Toshiba Satellite C75A with Intel i5-4200M scores 3.5 hours in the WiFi test.

Surely you know Intel Haswell CPUs can be used to flesh out notebooks with more than 3.5 hours of battery life.

<= 4 hours in WiFi test for either laptop is rubbish considering they have 48Whr batteries.

 

[TeknoBug]

It's been discussed in another thread, laptop quality and features has gone downhill the past 5 some odd years, I buy and use laptops every couple years since the early 1990's and have noticed this. The midrange AMD laptops a few years ago (A10 5750M or such) were actually quite good for a $300-$400 laptop, but now those $300-400 laptops are those junky A4 5200 or A6 6310.

I have however an A4 5000 and that thing runs 6+ hours on battery but christ it barely runs anything smoothly. I don't remember the last laptop I owned that lasted more than 2.5 hours on battery.

 

[sm625]

When toshiba built that laptop, they probably had an order of 10,000 or 20000 AMD chips. They may have gotten a good price for them, but it is still a small build. When they do an intel build, they might pay more for the chips, but when they build them in lots of 50,000 or even 500,000 the profits stack up quick. Once they made their profit from the build, the residual 10k or 20k units get a deep discount to clear out that SKU. That is why you can find better deals on Intel hardware even though the parts might be more expensive.

 

[waltchan]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life? Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

My 1007U laptop got 6.5-7 hours, and increased to nearly 8 once I swapped in an SSD.

Edit: Here's a comparable "small core" quad-core Intel-based design, from the same brand (Toshiba).

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba...8240650sbe&sourceName=forums&sourceId=1444412

8 hours 7 minutes battery life.

No offense, but this topic is irrelevant. The drop in battery life is due to a smaller-sized battery with fewer cells and lower mAh capacity installed by laptop manufacturers, not the processor itself. OEM PC makers are pushing for cheaper-quality batteries, lighter-weight, and shorter capacity than few years ago in order to cut production costs. Some new 15.6" laptops no longer you can detach battery at the bottom.

For comparison, I own two Celeron Bay Trail laptops from Toshiba. One is a first-generation N2820 based on the older Ivy Bridge chassis with bigger battery, and the battery life gets up to 14 hours (no kidding). The newer Toshiba was replaced to N2830 with lighter, cheaper battery, and the battery life is now only 8 hours max. Both of these CPUs are 7.5W rated.

 

[VirtualLarry]

No offense, but this topic is irrelevant. The drop in battery life is due to a smaller-sized battery with fewer cells and lower mAh capacity rating installed by laptop manufacturers, not the processor itself.

While I agree with you in general for the trend for small, lighter laptops, and smaller batteries, the example I gave has comparable batteries for both; both are 3-cell.

 

[waltchan]

While I agree with you in general for the trend for small, lighter laptops, and smaller batteries, the example I gave has comparable batteries for both; both are 3-cell.

3-cell batteries don't mean anything at all. Each cell varies in weight, size, and mAh rated capacity, and it's totally up to the OEM PC maker whether they should put in cheaper quality batteries or not to save on. I've seen one cell battery weighs only 1 oz with only 1/2 hour battery life, and a bigger one cell weights 5 ozs with 2.5 hour battery life, for a pocket tablet.

The future is not looking good anyway. Buyers are demanding for smaller and lighter laptops, while keeping the same battery life if possible. This did not work out, and we are seeing 30% drop in battery life with the newer, lighter laptops with smaller, cheaper quality built-in battery.

 

[escrow4]

Lenovo X250, 21hr battery life with the fat old extendo battery sticking out the back. Thinking of getting one myself too. Chuck all other tablets and laptops out. I wonder if Skylake will pump it to 25hr. Hmmm. And before you mention price, a $300 laptop is a $300 frisbee.

 

[cbn]

When toshiba built that laptop, they probably had an order of 10,000 or 20000 AMD chips. They may have gotten a good price for them, but it is still a small build. When they do an intel build, they might pay more for the chips, but when they build them in lots of 50,000 or even 500,000 the profits stack up quick. Once they made their profit from the build, the residual 10k or 20k units get a deep discount to clear out that SKU. That is why you can find better deals on Intel hardware even though the parts might be more expensive.

For the first Zen APUs I do hope there is a small iGPU version (with small die) for the very reason you are mentioning.

4C/8T Zen with small iGPU.....so AMD and their OEMs can get their critical mass up.

 

[waltchan]

Lenovo X250, 21hr battery life with the fat old extendo battery sticking out the back. Thinking of getting one myself too. Chuck all other tablets and laptops out. I wonder if Skylake will pump it to 25hr. Hmmm. And before you mention price, a $300 laptop is a $300 frisbee.

Like he says clearly, more batteries, more cells, and more mAh, you can go 24 hours easily. The built-in batteries provided my PC makers are cheaper quality, smaller, and with lower mAh capacity than several years back.

 

[Cerb]

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/473914/Toshiba-Satellite-Laptop-Computer-With-173/

Beema quad-core? Only 3 hours battery life?

"Toshiba-Satellite" right there in the link. It could have an i7, and get 10 hours of battery life, and the following would still stand:

Who are they kidding, no-one's going to buy that, if they're smart.

 

[Ramses]

It's been discussed in another thread, laptop quality and features has gone downhill the past 5 some odd years, I buy and use laptops every couple years since the early 1990's and have noticed this. The midrange AMD laptops a few years ago (A10 5750M or such) were actually quite good for a $300-$400 laptop, but now those $300-400 laptops are those junky A4 5200 or A6 6310.

I have however an A4 5000 and that thing runs 6+ hours on battery but christ it barely runs anything smoothly. I don't remember the last laptop I owned that lasted more than 2.5 hours on battery.

Strongly agree...

 

[geoxile]

It's been discussed in another thread, laptop quality and features has gone downhill the past 5 some odd years, I buy and use laptops every couple years since the early 1990's and have noticed this. The midrange AMD laptops a few years ago (A10 5750M or such) were actually quite good for a $300-$400 laptop, but now those $300-400 laptops are those junky A4 5200 or A6 6310.

I have however an A4 5000 and that thing runs 6+ hours on battery but christ it barely runs anything smoothly. I don't remember the last laptop I owned that lasted more than 2.5 hours on battery.

Anything? Are you sure something like Norton isn't eating up the performance in the background? I knew someone who got a cheapo laptop with Beema from Costco. It was super slow, but only because of some anti-virus and other bloatware eating up the CPU time.