Don't get offended, but creative people are not using cloud for Cpp, Direct compute, cuda, ... And why you show CPU that has 15W TDP, +35W dGPU, +2~5W MB required to connect and power those. So, you are comparing up to 55W system versus previous generation incomplete SoC running at 35W. FX-8800p does better at same power draw and considerably better on lower power draw. How big notebook with 55W CPU+dGPU have to be to have same battery life like 12'' APU running 35W? Like 15.6''? How good framerate that 55W system gets if you force it to 12W TDP CPU+dGPU? If that is even possible it will be considerably worse than that older FX-7600p forced to 12W. And I am far from interested in this last generation chip. FX-8800p is contender here. From AMD power efficiency roadmap I can already see some new features in Fury X. Like fine frequency & voltage granularity, interframe power gating. And those are in FX-8800p too + whatever AMD moved there. So while AMD is still at 28nm, those parts are quite competitive with intel's 14nm parts in certain power target range. As you can see above, I wrote that intel can easily crush AMD at high performance (wattage), but that is because 14nm simply is more power efficient there and it is out of AMD's control. And they are smart not to bring products there. So I stay firm with my statement that AMD's FX-8800p can fail only if not delivered in proper netbook/notebook. And there is none today and none announced. People are waiting for next batches of Fury X (again and again sold out), and they would be waiting for 12'' FX-8800p without dGPU, without overcomplicated MB, but with extra battery in place of those unnecessary internals. So remember, AMD results are not poor because of constantly failing to make good chips, they are poor for not having them on shelves.

The Fury X being sold is as much about supply issues as it has to do with demand. Correlation =/ Causation. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-fury-x-supply/ Again, you're not seeing the picture here. Anyone going for GAMING, which is why someone would care about the iGPU performance in the first place beyond the usual app acceleration, is going to want and need the higher performance a dGPU offers; the APU barely offers enough performance to drive a 720p screen at medium or below settings in games in a best case scenario (fast SSD, high performance DDR3-1866 (adds to cost) memory, etc.; and you want it in a 1080p laptop with high quality components against a dGPU competition that offers nearly 75%+ performance for a small amount more. Good luck selling a $900 laptop like that against a $950 laptop equipped with a dGPU. And if you want AMD in garbage bargain bin netbooks with the margins they entail, then be my guest... No offense Fox, but a lot of what you say about AMD sounds like you are talking from an alternate reality where competition and market segments don't exist. If there was a market for these chips, the OEM's would take it and deliver for it; there just isn't a market for these mobile APU's (it's even worse than the desktop market).

I'm interested in knowing how expensive and how powerful people expect a laptop to be. I bought a Toshiba with an I3 for 500$, it works great, I don't need more.. What's a 100$ worth to you, a tank of gas more or less?

Same exact pricing, not like Intel has any competing atm. Amd got my money socket 939 and prior when they had great performance. I am not going to buy subpar amd stuff to help them out.

I can second that, intel already prices their chips as they see fit and clearly ignore AMD. Looking today at i5 priced same way as was mine at day of purchase (no discounts here), that new part will not even overclock. Unlocked i5-4670k/4690k costs same as unlocked i7 did those 4 years ago when I got my chip. So only benefit is like 20W lower power consumption. FX-8370E (95W) is better choice than modern i5 if one can utilize those 8 threads. If not (which is sadly usual case) then i5 is better. It for sure again is not competition for 130W Intel Core i7-4820K on LGA2011. But that chip cost like 50% more, average LGA2011 cost like 2 times more than very good AM3+ board. In all honesty I hope my system survives till Zen comes as i do not want to pay $400 for CPU, $300 for MB, ... on intel's side to actually feel some upgrade over what I have.

So what, I'm supposed to support a company that perpetually fails at releasing competitive products? I don't really care what anyone says, the moment AMD failed was the moment they decided to spend $5.4B on ATi. Literally every single analyst at the time said they overpaid for it. To make it worse, they sold off Imageon right after buying ATi. Qualcomm picked them up and now Qualcomm has the best Mobile-GPU's by a landslide. Anyway, since that moment they've been releasing subpar processors that are only competitive due to pricing. Which is fine if it's temporary, but it's not -- it's been what, 9 years since Core 2? Imagine if that $5.4 went towards a Bulldozer in 2008 or 2009. Imagine if it went into their fabrication division and they actually competed with Intel instead of spinning off Global Foundaries. Imagine if they actually hired a competent CEO instead of the garbage they've been hiring (Lisa Su is like the first person I like in that position for them). I definitely hope AMD comes back, or gets bought out and injected full of money. But in the mean time there is no way I'm buying inferior stuff because I feel bad that some corporation sucks at running a business. I buy based on my budget and my budget is pretty high, thus I'll continue to buy Intel while they have the better performing desktop chips and lower power mobile chips.

I agree with this. I made a similar statement to Mars in another thread and even showed him on AMD's site the timeline of their history and the cause of their downfall. Of course he had to come back with some rhetoric about how Intel and Nvidia owe AMD money. So far Lisa Su seems capable as she recognizes there is a huge financial problem at AMD. She seems capable enough to bring AMD back from the brink of collapse. I just hope that waiting until 2019 to start paying on the debt doesn't destroy them in the meantime.

And here's a fine example of what a shipping Kaveri laptop looks like compared to even weak competition: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Aspire-E5-551-T8X3-Kaveri-A10-7300-Notebook-Review.122063.0.html Now who in their right mind would want that over the competition's offering? Edit: Pimp, wasn't their debt in 2018?

The Fury X being sold is as much about supply issues as it has to do with demand. Correlation =/ Causation. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-fury-x-supply/ Again, you're not seeing the picture here. Anyone going for GAMING, which is why someone would care about the iGPU performance in the first place beyond the usual app acceleration, is going to want and need the higher performance a dGPU offers; the APU barely offers enough performance to drive a 720p screen at medium or below settings in games in a best case scenario (fast SSD, high performance DDR3-1866 (adds to cost) memory, etc.; and you want it in a 1080p laptop with high quality components against a dGPU competition that offers nearly 75%+ performance for a small amount more. Good luck selling a $900 laptop like that against a $950 laptop equipped with a dGPU. And if you want AMD in garbage bargain bin netbooks with the margins they entail, then be my guest... No offense Fox, but a lot of what you say about AMD sounds like you are talking from an alternate reality where competition and market segments don't exist. If there was a market for these chips, the OEM's would take it and deliver for it; there just isn't a market for these mobile APU's (it's even worse than the desktop market).

That is actually out of this reality. You can clearly ignore all other components than MB+CPU+dGPU vs MB+APU. Because if you use same remaining components then price addition will be same. And that intel+nV/intel+AMD does not come only $50 more expensive. And even if you could get that price difference to $50, it would still require considerably larger device to deliver same value. We do not have to argue anything else than: Smaller, lighter, better performance per battery life. And yes, cheaper. You may think that not one person wants 12'' with good battery life and decent performance when needed. But here I am and I know few more. And btw, 12'' + 1080p is waste. I want 1600x900 screen on that as optimum, maybe 1440x900 if earlier not available. Optical drives are so yesterday. I used BR-drive after 2 years to see what driver came with Fury X. And I do not expect to use it for another few years. And in reality, FX-8800p can play quite well most played games on steam, since those are Dota2 and CS:GO. I would not expect 35W machine to play well crysis, batman or other high profile, no replayability games which struggle on 150W gaming notebooks, not sane person would. But do you know what may come as extra bonus with that APU? Freesync screen.

That is actually out of this reality. You can clearly ignore all other components than MB+CPU+dGPU vs MB+APU. Because if you use same remaining components then price addition will be same. And that intel+nV/intel+AMD does not come only $50 more expensive. And even if you could get that price difference to $50, it would still require considerably larger device to deliver same value.

Again, if someone is paying over $1,000 for a gaming laptop, he wants performance, not saving $50 (or even $100) and getting unusable performance for the purpose. The only way to deliver that performance is through a powerful Intel CPU with a discrete AMD or Nvidia mobile GPU, period.

We do not have to argue anything else than: Smaller, lighter, better performance per battery life. And yes, cheaper. You may think that not one person wants 12'' with good battery life and decent performance when needed. But here I am and I know few more. And btw, 12'' + 1080p is waste. I want 1600x900 screen on that as optimum, maybe 1440x900 if earlier not available. Optical drives are so yesterday. I used BR-drive after 2 years to see what driver came with Fury X. And I do not expect to use it for another few years.

Again, your imagining a market segment that doesn't exist. Your bringing very weak anecdotal evidence to try and support your position, evidence that doesn't even change the market position. You have five people who want 12" gaming machines with sh!t specs, great. Nearly every single person I know wants an 11"-15" laptop that's fast enough to do word, web browsing and the occassional movie, and is light and has an extremely long lasting battery for around $400-600. Guess what, even AMD agrees with me: http://s24.postimg.org/szo9nrz6d/Slide_4_400_700_Market.png http://s4.postimg.org/ciq3zpqpp/Slide_9_All_Day_Battery_Life.png So your bargain bin trash AMD or Intel sub-13" already exist; but a market for a premium $700+ AMD notebook with sub-par specs doesn't exist; and even AMD says the same, so I'm not sure what you see that even your AMD doesn't see. The insanely slim margins with your bargain bin 12" netbooks is not what is going to help AMD.

And in reality, FX-8800p can play quite well most played games on steam, since those are Dota2 and CS:GO. I would not expect 35W machine to play well crysis, batman or other high profile, no replayability games which struggle on 150W gaming notebooks, not sane person would. But do you know what may come as extra bonus with that APU? Freesync screen.

Great, so can an Intel at reduced graphics (just like the APU will have to). I can play Homeworld Remastered on my i5-4200u at around medium settings at 720p if I feel the urge to play on the go, and I got my laptop at $400, so what exactly would an APU offer? And I'm sorry you think Freesync on a sh!tty screen at low resolutions and detail settings is going to change anyone's mind. Furthermore, where the heck is Carrizo besides on paper? The only benchmark that I could find on the web was conducted inside an AMD lab with an unknown power and thermal target limit (the reviewer thinks 35w), and here is the result (compared to Kaveri): http://www.jagatreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CInebenchR15_Carrizo.jpg If you think this is going to change anyone's opinion about using an APU then you are living a fantasy. Finally, there is the elephant in the room: Support. If I was an OEM, I know I can go Intel, get top of the line support and that the company will still be there to support in three years; and I also know nearly exactly what to expect for future quarters based on Intel's roadmaps. Now can you say the same about AMD? Can anyone here actually get good betting odds that AMD will even be around in three years in its current form?

And you know what I mean by that AMD's CPU's are junk today, is that Intel's mainstream MOBILE CPU, the i5-5200U, either outright beats or trades blows with AMD's top of the line DESKTOP CPU, the FX-8350, with the exception of Cinebench. The FX-8350 has a 8.3x higher TDP at 15w vs 125w (forget about actual power usage!) and doesn't even have an iGPU within that limit. This ignores the 47w TDP quad-core mobile Broadwell (also includes the iGPU) that absolutely annihilates the FX-8350. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2015/07/07/intel-core-i7-5700hq-review/1 Good luck peddling AMD CPU's off to anyone today besides garbage bin bargain systems.

Finally, there is the elephant in the room: Support. If I was an OEM, I know I can go Intel, get top of the line support and that the company will still be there to support in three years; and I also know nearly exactly what to expect for future quarters based on Intel's roadmaps. Now can you say the same about AMD? Can anyone here actually get good betting odds that AMD will even be around in three years in its current form?

AMD's product roadmaps have become so long that OEMs risk losing money. When a processor is being sold for 2-3 years without a replacement in site, OEMs lose sales. HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc rely on product sales to remain in business. You can't keep building new systems around old components and expect people to keep buying. If say, HP, were to start selling AMD based systems exclusively, they'd be out of business in 2-3 years. AMD doesn't have the resources to accelerate their product deployment. Intel and NVidia have pushed the industry forward at a rate that AMD simply can't keep up with.

And here's a fine example of what a shipping Kaveri laptop looks like compared to even weak competition: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Aspire-E5-551-T8X3-Kaveri-A10-7300-Notebook-Review.122063.0.html Now who in their right mind would want that over the competition's offering? Edit: Pimp, wasn't their debt in 2018?

I actually like these cheaper laptops, because you generally can easily add in a SSD and better RAM. I used to have a laptop with an A8-4500M. I dropped in a SSD and much better RAM, and my total cost was $550. Very capable machine. Much better equipped in general than anything I could have gotten from the Intel camp. This was in 2013 however.

And here's a fine example of what a shipping Kaveri laptop looks like compared to even weak competition: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Aspire-E5-551-T8X3-Kaveri-A10-7300-Notebook-Review.122063.0.html Now who in their right mind would want that over the competition's offering? Edit: Pimp, wasn't their debt in 2018?

According to the following document it doesn't come until 2019, but I maybe wrong. I also heard 2019 quoted in several other sources. http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2014oct8.aspx

I actually like these cheaper laptops, because you generally can easily add in a SSD and better RAM. I used to have a laptop with an A8-4500M. I dropped in a SSD and much better RAM, and my total cost was $550. Very capable machine. Much better equipped in general than anything I could have gotten from the Intel camp. This was in 2013 however.

100%. I took my ****ty $400 Acer with a **** screen, 4gb and an i5-4200u, and added an EVO SSD and now it's perfect for all my university needs. I wasn't willing to spend more on something I'm lugging roughly every day for 3-4 years (good thing too, the screen got damaged but is still usable). But let's be honest between us, how many people do you know even think about opening up a laptop for any reason, much less than switch out the hard drive and put in an SSD, reinstall Windows (without the usual recovery partitions that come with OEM's), etc. So again, there are hundreds of anecdotal cases out there, but when you are pushing hundreds of thousands to millions of units, you don't look at the fringe cases for your market. That's why OEM's are able to charge absurd amounts for SSD or RAM upgrades. (P.S. - Like I said, I also experimented with an AMD APU a few years back since I thought it might be better suited for what I needed (in the end it was a disaster of a CPU)).

According to the following document it doesn't come until 2019, but I maybe wrong. I also heard 2019 quoted in several other sources. http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2014oct8.aspx

Oops, you're right 🙂

AMD will be back ! Yust they need change politics in production and focus on mostly wanted products..... Hey ,the advice is has to pay ....? Amd ? Money please ?

100%. I took my ****ty $400 Acer with a **** screen, 4gb and an i5-4200u, and added an EVO SSD and now it's perfect for all my university needs. I wasn't willing to spend more on something I'm lugging roughly every day for 3-4 years (good thing too, the screen got damaged but is still usable). But let's be honest between us, how many people do you know even think about opening up a laptop for any reason, much less than switch out the hard drive and put in an SSD, reinstall Windows (without the usual recovery partitions that come with OEM's), etc. So again, there are hundreds of anecdotal cases out there, but when you are pushing hundreds of thousands to millions of units, you don't look at the fringe cases for your market. That's why OEM's are able to charge absurd amounts for SSD or RAM upgrades. (P.S. - Like I said, I also experimented with an AMD APU a few years back since I thought it might be better suited for what I needed (in the end it was a disaster of a CPU)).

I'm not giving that to AMD as a redeeming point at all, I was just pointing out that sometimes, those types of laptops have inherent extra value despite being barebones and uninteresting. The A8 was more than sufficient for general college computing, and overall it was quite smooth. Games also ran well at medium settings. I benched Just Cause 2 at all medium with 16AF and 0XAA and got an average of 42FPS. Not bad at all for something that low end. Was it going to win any awards for CPU performance? Of course not, but it doesn't need to. I certainly wasn't doing any encoding or computations on it. Just homework. Having said that, I also pointed out that was two years ago. Intel has been strengthening it's mobile lineup and I'm sure you can get something much better now for the same price (including the obligatory SSD that you'll add as an experienced user). I haven't looked into it so I can't say for sure.

Again, if someone is paying over $1,000 for a gaming laptop, he wants performance, not saving $50 (or even $100) and getting unusable performance for the purpose. The only way to deliver that performance is through a powerful Intel CPU with a discrete AMD or Nvidia mobile GPU, period.

It is actually you believing that I am talking $1000+ gaming notebook. And all rest of that post of yours is based on that presumption too. I am talking well rounded 12'' notebook from start. Which can do anything including light gaming and has good battery life while doing so. Your posting hinted that you do own intel mobile device. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself that there is nothing better or even equivalent. But understand, that people have different needs and while your device may suit you, it is bound to fail many others. That is why there are so many different configurations. And read how far away you managed to pull my original reply to topic, which was pointing out that AMD can't have sales of product which is not in market. And one remark to your theory crafting: As those manufacturers can fit AMD chips in 15.6'' under $700 and include dGPU, they can fit APU into 12'' and exclude dGPU and its cooling. That actually results in cheaper device, going smaller does not mean pricier.

Weird. I definitely have problems with it on Linux but I never had an issue with it on Windows and I always just let the Nvidia driver handle the GPU install.

I used to install all drivers that came with that specific laptop. That's probably why I've always had problems with optimus.

This is still quite batlle betwen amd and intel....hey you intel people,who prefer intel ,i dont like intel ever - i dont know why, but yust this hear,,,,what will be if was no amd ??? You will be buying your i5 and i i7 and titan for at last x3 price ,ha ??? So,dont be so hard to amd . Lets yust see what will be and a competition is a good thing for common people....:)

I'm not paying AMD a single dime until they either come back or get bought out by some company which will throw enough money at AMD until their problems go away. Thus, making competitive products possible again. Because they cannot go forward without money. Come on. A bloody i3 mops the floor with that FX-8350 in gaming. That's a dual core pinned against an octa core. Why do you think Intel's prices are so high? They can afford to do so. Meanwhile I should buy from a company that has essentially failed to release anything competitive since what, 4 years? Lol! I need raw processing power. Not some cheap-ass APU. Buying AMD right now would be a sidegrade, or even a downgrade for me in the case that FX-8350 (which would replace my current CPU) doesn't overclock properly. And I own a 4 year old processor. This little 2600k @ 4.9GHz absolutely rapes just about everything AMD has to offer. Even that FX-9590 with a GPU TDP lol. And before you bring price into this, think about how well the FX-8350 has suited its users. Bottlenecking games like crazy while my processor is still going strong. 4 years without an upgrade. And not feeling the need of doing so.

So what, I'm supposed to support a company that perpetually fails at releasing competitive products? I don't really care what anyone says, the moment AMD failed was the moment they decided to spend $5.4B on ATi. Literally every single analyst at the time said they overpaid for it. To make it worse, they sold off Imageon right after buying ATi. Qualcomm picked them up and now Qualcomm has the best Mobile-GPU's by a landslide. Anyway, since that moment they've been releasing subpar processors that are only competitive due to pricing. Which is fine if it's temporary, but it's not -- it's been what, 9 years since Core 2? Imagine if that $5.4 went towards a Bulldozer in 2008 or 2009. Imagine if it went into their fabrication division and they actually competed with Intel instead of spinning off Global Foundaries. Imagine if they actually hired a competent CEO instead of the garbage they've been hiring (Lisa Su is like the first person I like in that position for them). I definitely hope AMD comes back, or gets bought out and injected full of money. But in the mean time there is no way I'm buying inferior stuff because I feel bad that some corporation sucks at running a business. I buy based on my budget and my budget is pretty high, thus I'll continue to buy Intel while they have the better performing desktop chips and lower power mobile chips.

I agree. And I will add the fact that AMD have been focusing too much on those APUs without anything materializing from that investment. People want performance CPUs, they get APUs instead. APUs which could drive some laptops. Except AMD is almost inexistent in that segment.

I agree with this. I made a similar statement to Mars in another thread and even showed him on AMD's site the timeline of their history and the cause of their downfall. Of course he had to come back with some rhetoric about how Intel and Nvidia owe AMD money. So far Lisa Su seems capable as she recognizes there is a huge financial problem at AMD. She seems capable enough to bring AMD back from the brink of collapse. I just hope that waiting until 2019 to start paying on the debt doesn't destroy them in the meantime.

Haha thought I was the only one remembering that Mars guy. Hilarious dude that one. Wasn't in tune with reality at all.

It is actually you believing that I am talking $1000+ gaming notebook. And all rest of that post of yours is based on that presumption too. I am talking well rounded 12'' notebook from start. Which can do anything including light gaming and has good battery life while doing so.

Then what you want is this: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-9343-laptop/pd?oc=dncwt5128b&model_id=xps-13-9343-laptop You want something cheaper and lower specced? http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-11-3147-laptop/pd?ref=PD_OC And that's just Dell, the situation is similar around the web. Here's the price for a sh!ty specced AMD laptop: http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/Laptops/hp-pavilion-x360-13z-touch-laptop-g3s52av-1#!&TabName=specs Sorry Fox, you're dreaming with your price range and made up market for the APU. No one, not even AMD, sees it your way. Any recent i5 from Intel could do everything you said, and do it much better, than anything from AMD's mobile amo

Your posting hinted that you do own intel mobile device. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself that there is nothing better or even equivalent. But understand, that people have different needs and while your device may suit you, it is bound to fail many others. That is why there are so many different configurations.

Yes, I do own an Intel laptop, but somehow you missed the part where I specifically said it was a ****ty one for $400 (over a year and a half ago); and despite being ****ty (never again Acer) it does everything I need from a laptop; which is web, word, video and the occasional game, all while lasting a rather long time and being damn light. And that's right, there are many different configurations. but many of them revolve around the same premise.

And read how far away you managed to pull my original reply to topic, which was pointing out that AMD can't have sales of product which is not in market. And one remark to your theory crafting: As those manufacturers can fit AMD chips in 15.6'' under $700 and include dGPU, they can fit APU into 12'' and exclude dGPU and its cooling. That actually results in cheaper device, going smaller does not mean pricier.

Now you are just assuming things all over the board without regards for cost. Guess what, for a thing and light 12" device, a 15w Intel i5 would be a better match for 99% of people than a 35w APU that is far more power hungry and offers worse performance in everything besides somewhat better in some games, but still not enough to even driver a 720p screen at above low-medium details. Fox, you are beating a dead horse. The APU is dead in the water and that's why you aren't seeing them anywhere in comparison with Intel's offerings.

AMD's APU system is being held back by itself unfortunately. Poor memory controllers, no extra cache, they need to build up their APU. Maybe go the Intel route, and throw seom onboard eram or HBM in this case. Try to make a move on to ddr4.

Haha thought I was the only one remembering that Mars guy. Hilarious dude that one. Wasn't in tune with reality at all.

I'm sure you aren't the only one he made quite a spectacle in the Fury X review thread.