I saw an Asus laptop with a RX 580/i7 7700HQ for $1200...

...in a Bestbuy and then I came home and can't find anything about it, it's not even on the Bestbuy website.


...anybody got a cool story about this laptop to tell a bro?

 

To the best of my knowledge, the ROG Strix GL702ZC is the only Ryzen laptop ASUS is selling.

 

Alienware also offer RX470/570 in their machines IIRC

HP also introduced RX 580 GPUs in the new Omen line

Ryzen APUs are also coming very soon.

 

LOL! That's why I couldn't find such an Asus, ...my memory sucks. ...and I can't find review/benchmarks.

 

Asus are also offering AMD laptops, though. Their GL702ZC comes with an 8-core Ryzen 7 1700 and RX 580 4/8GB

 

I know. This was all out of curiosity and not even window shopping, much less actual shopping. I chose a 980m 8GB with the thought that it is good enough to run PS4/XB1 ports 30fps+ until there is a PS5/XB2. Since we're nearing the 3rd anniversary of the 980m and almost everything is still running well on V.High/Ultra @ 1080p ...I haven't experienced any real challenge to my assumption about the 980m.

 

i'd be interested if it didn't only come with 4gb of VRAM.

 

It comes in 4/8GB configs (depending on the region IIRC)

 

I'll wait for benchmarks.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

Bit-Tech already have them. Here they are: https://www.bit-tech.net/previews/t...preview-asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-benchmarked/2/

TL: DR - the 580 and 1060 mobile versions trade blows in games whereas the R7 1700 walks circles around the 7700HQ in multi-core.

 

Link's busted.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

Search: "Asus GL702ZC review" in google and search for the Bit-tech article.

 

Cant wait for these new 6 core chips Intel is bringing mobile.

 

@don_svetlio 's link worked fine for me, here it is again:
https://www.bit-tech.net/previews/t...preview-asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-benchmarked/2/

 

Too little, too late.

Get the AMD Ryzen 5 6-core or Ryzen 7 8-core, right now

 

Only comparable to a 1060? Pass!

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

But, with a CPU that outperforms all laptop CPU's, and outperforms the 7700k/6700k for Professional use.

A 1060 isn't bad, considering it's able to play all games

You could wait for the Vega 56, which is a 1070 equivalent (benchmarks pending), or the Vega 64 which is a 1080 equivalent (benchmarks pending). Both are better than all the Max-Q models too.

As a 1060 level laptop, with that amazing 6-core or 8-core CPU, it's a real boon to users needing a work laptop - that can also game.

Pricing is getting better too $1200-$1700, maybe even less for the R3 1200

 

V56 is 210W. V64 is 295W. In a laptop. Totally.

 

Not the mobile versions

Just like Nvidia, the "desktop for mobile" GPU's will have reduced TDP, and maybe adjusted elements, to fit the profile for various levels of laptops.

Maybe even a "Max-Q" like, or Mobile GPU part.

Time will tell... AMD is also coming out with Ryzen mobile CPU's, maybe with iGPU like on board low power graphics + dGPU for extending battery life.

 

If AMD didn't do a mobile R9 Nano (would've been better than RX 580 anyway), what makes you think they'll do mobile Vega 56/64?

 

RX Vega Nano is coming too (Check LTT for the news post)

 

I know, doesn't mean there will be a mobile version though.

 

Well the HP Omen w/RX 580 is $1200 @ B'buy, that puts it in "worth a mention" territory and more so when it goes on sale. Plus AMD drivers mature over a long time, so the RX 580 will likely have some lead on the laptop GTX 1060 in a year.

 

Considering the desktop model already outperforms the 1060 - I'd say it all depends on clockspeed really.

 

Considering Vega is a disappointment, I'd love to see Ryzen+Nvidia options really.

 

Vega is not out yet. GN already retracted everything they've said about Vega based on the FE card since AMD stated publicly that basically every new addition had been disabled on FE cards so as to meet the deadline. So no, we have 0 information about RX Vega performance. TDP is also in the range of 150-300W now.

 

Why say things like that that seem to completely dismiss AMD Vega / RX GPU's when they clearly appeal to the largest market segments?

The Vega64 is faster than the RX580 / 1060 / 1060 Max-Q / 1070 / 1070 Max-Q / 1080 / 1080 Max-Q.

The Vega56 is faster than the RX580 / 1060 / 1060 Max-Q / 1070 / 1070 Max-Q / 1080 Max-Q(?).

And the prices come in well under the Nvidia GPU's.

Only the 1080ti and the other Nvidia way overpriced GPU's are faster, and that's a very small part of the market.

AMD has covered at least 95% of Nvidia's desktop offerings, and moving to mobile should cover 100% of the mobile Nvidia GPU's, considering there are no Nvidia GPU's higher than the 1080 in laptops

 

But but, we are comparing desktop Vegas to Nvidia laptop variants and considering power hungry designs of the former, I really don't see how they can put a power-efficient Vega into laptops without significant drop in clocks/performance. So Ryzen+Nvidia looks like the best combo in terms of power efficiency and performance for me. But if priced right, perhaps it will also be an option for me

 

Vega 56 (1070 competitor) is 150-165W core power. Same as a 1070. Again, stop thinking about the Frontier Edition - that one had all the power saving and rasterization features disabled in drivers.

 

AMD already has Mobile on their roadmap, just after the ThreadRipper release, so it might be coming sooner rather than later. Which is why we aren't seeing AMD+Nvidia at release, which would have been possible.

Nvidia reduced TDP/TGP(AMD's term) for mobile, and even within mobile Nvidia had a wide range of TDP for 1080's, from 135w-200w+, with Max-Q GPU's downgraded performance grabbing the most power efficient section of their power range.

AMD has a large range of potential to use as well, if not as fast as the fastest 1080, at least covering the above 1060 range with Vega56/Vega64's 2 more levels of performance.

Price and the strong desire of many (most?) people to vote with their cash to send a message to Intel and Nvidia, AMD should have a great next few years for desktop and mobile.

 

Good, let's hope for the better

Amen, my brother! I am by all means supporting AMD to be competitive in all fields as monopoly is simply bad and unacceptable and should have never ever been allowed to exist, so I am endlessly happy Ryzens have finally become competitive and even more than that, they are banging Shintel so bad, it makes my happy at the sourest of times! Now let's wait and see what Radeon brings then.

 

You might have missed the fact that the RX 580 which Asus has in their Ryzen laptops is a desktop equivalent (same specs) with a 65W TDP.
That's at 1000 - 1200 MhZ core, lower voltages, binning, etc., keeping up with 1060 in DX 11 and surpassing it in DX12.
Essentially they brought down a desktop chip TDP from 150W to 65W (57% reduction) by tweaking its voltages and binning and a minor underclock (equal to desktop 480).

AMD frequently ramps up the voltage on reference cards to improve yields.

Now, if they do the same with Vega for mobile...

Efficiency of AMD GPU's is probably not the same like on Nvidia... however, undervolting on the user end can bring them VERY close while stabilizing the GPU so it can run on turbo clocks better, all the while reducing power draw and heat.
Binning, etc. however can make the AMD gpu far more efficient (if only AMD had the ability to do that from the get go).

 

A fully boosting RX 580 loses to 1060, let alone an underclocked RX 580.

 

Same for a laptop 1060 not matching a desktop 1060, underpowered and undercooled as it is in a laptop.

Also not sure about 65w for the GPU, I thought that was the CPU TDP... the GPU should be higher, more like 90w-120w... checking article...
https://www.bit-tech.net/previews/t...preview-asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-benchmarked/1/

"We didn’t have time to do a full tear-down, but hidden beneath the cooler is the six-core Ryzen 5 1600 CPU sporting its usual six cores. It carries all the same specs as the desktop part including 3.2GHz / 3.6GHz base and boost clocks. The TDP of this chip is a hefty 65W. The other component directly cooled is, of course, the Radeon RX 580 GPU and associated 4GB of GDDR5. The core is clocked at 1,077MHz, which is down from the 1,340MHz boost clock of the desktop part, but the memory is at the same 8Gbps as the desktop model..."

There is no mention of the TDP rating for the RX580 GPU...

And, there are many gaming benchmarks where the stock RX580 does match or beat the stock 1060, close enough overall to not notice any difference while gaming, with the Ryzen 6-c0re / 8-core CPU kicking the laptop CPU the whole way

 

Nope. Depending on the game, fully boosting 580 can surpass 1060 or is maybe 5% slower in dx 11 while keeping up or surpassing it in dx12.
A mobile 580 is clocked @ 1200mhz. Not a tremendous underclock. But enough to significantly reduce tdp and trail the mobile 1060 by 5% if the early review is accurate and in dx12 surpassing 1060.

580 is not weak. It's a higher quality silicon of 480 which means that you can likely get away with a higher clock and lower voltage

 

Actually, the 580 now has a commanding lead in pretty much every game. At worst, the 1060 and 580 are equal. At best, the 580 is 10-15% ahead.

 

Thank you for the correction.

Anyway, this video here showcases the upcoming Asus laptop with Ryzen 1700 and RX 580 (4GB VRAM) and says the gpu's tdp is at 65W:


As I said, AMD's GPu's can do NICELY when some quality control is instigated.
It also points to the premise that Polaris works amazingly great at lower clock speeds and that higher clocks hurt its efficiency (obviously), which I don't think is necessarily worth extra few % of performance past a certain point.

Point in case: RX 580 mobile will likely be a great asset in the mobile market especially with latest Crimson drivers.
Now if we can also undervolt both the RX 580 and Ryzen 1700 in the Asus laptops... that would be EVEN BETTER for not just battery life but also longer lasting components at lower power draw.

 

You do realize that the RX 580 cards tested in that video are factory overclocked, while the 1060 cards are reference, right? One RX 580 was a Sapphire card that boosted to 1450 MHz out of the box (vs. 1340 MHz reference boost), and consumed 100W more than the 1060 under load. Read the written review of that video: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-radeon-rx-580-570-review

Now think about how the RX 580 in the GL702ZC is only 65W. The answer is obvious. It clocks in at just 1077 MHz. That means the 1450 MHz Sapphire sample is +35% in clock speed alone.

 

In that video you have a desktop 1060 - most 1060 owners I've spoken to report that their cards operate at 1900MHz or higher at stock via GPU Boost 3.0
Most laptop 1060s only boost to about 1500MHz - that's also a 25% decrease as you see. Hence why I've said that the mobile versions of these GPUs perform similarly to each other.

 

Pascal's boost is affected by temperature. In laptop with good GPU cooling, such as the GT72, a 1060N can maintain ~1650 MHz which is close to its max boost (1671 MHz). The desktop 1060 FE averages ~1835 MHz, so the 1060N is roughly 10% slower.

 

You and I both know that Pascal boost clocks have no limits. High end coolers result in some cards auto boosting to 2GHz. The Founders Edition results are by far the worst 1060 clocks whereas the GT72's 1060 is by far the best laptop 1060 clockspeed.

What you've shown is that the worst desktop 1060 is still faster than the best mobile 1060.

 

But the gap is smaller than that between the DT and mobile RX 580.

 

Incorrect.
The RX 580 in laptop was clocked at 1200Mhz at core.
Looking at latest benchmarks between desktop 480 and 1060, they are actually comparable performance-wise in games (stock vs stock).
Keep in mind that desktop 480 usually comes with a stock clock of 1266MhZ at core.
The RX 580 mobile is underclocked by 66MhZ only at core vs the desktop model, whereas the 1060 mobile was underclocked by a much larger amount in comparison to its desktop model.

Reduction in TDP does not mean great loss in performance for AMD because Polaris was (as I previously said) made on a process for lower clocks. A small underclock with binning and undervolting could easily reduce TDP to 65W while reducing performance by a comparatively small amount.
Similarly raising clocks on Polaris would yield very small performance increase at a much greater power expenditure.

 

What is your source for this? The Bit-Tech article also mentioned a core clock of 1077 MHz:

 

My brother has a 1060 laptop and when using his daily driver overclock he is maintaining around 1900+Mhz on the core while under gaming loads. Most after market desktop 1060 top out around 2000-2100Mhz so not that neutered in comparison. The difference between 1900+Mhz and 2100Mhz on Pascal is really small as the performance does not scale well with increase with clock speeds as seen with Maxwell. Were talking a few ~3-5fps in most situations and thats if the desktop card can hit 2100Mhz stable, most will not.

 

Since @Deks never bothered to provide his source for the 1200 MHz mobile RX 580, I'm just gonna assume it's a made up number. Sad, as Donald Trump would say. Once you factor in overclocking, then 1060N wipes the floor with 1077 MHz RX M580.

 

Remember Schrodinger's rule - until proof emerges of something, everything is true

 

There are 2 proofs of 1077 MHz, 0 of 1200 MHz.

 

Those pieces of proof come from the spec sheet which only lists base clock. I don't see how that is relevant since the real reviews aren't out yet. Meanwhile, we have the 1060 MQ reviews placing it 25-30% behind a desktop 1060 and about the same as a last gen 980M (only about 20% ahead of the 1050 Ti)

 

Core clock listed in Radeon Settings is the boost clock.

GTX 1060 Max-Q is not in same form factor systems as RX M580, don't compare apples to oranges. We were talking about Max-P this entire time.