New Asus ROG Ryzen Laptops On The Way!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3197...es-the-worlds-first-amd-ryzen-laptop.amp.html

 

Raven Ridge? Probably Quad-cores. Sigh, I was hoping for a hex-core at long last. WHYYYYY T_T

 

Odd formating with that link, this one looks better:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3197...teases-the-worlds-first-amd-ryzen-laptop.html

Difference is ".amp." in link... mobile?

 

Let's elaborate on this topic a bit: So according to the slide, ryzen mobile scores 50% more than 7th gen APU. Let's assume they're talking about FX-9830P that scores 4340 at 3DMark FS Physics score, so 50% more is like ~6200. Ryzen mobile GPU scores 40% more than bristol ridge's Radeon R7 Carrizo (= gt 920mx), which is too low, not worth even talking about.

Now where does 6200 score in FS physics put mobile Ryzen at? Well, not too good, since 7700HQ scores ~10K in the same test. In fact, i5-7300hq scores ~6500, so that is a more appropriate competing rival. Where did they see "high-end" I have no clue, this is just another APU and for that it IS a great improvement, but please do not embarrass yourselves (journalists) calling it "high-end", especially considering that joke of a graphics card.

 

Unless AMD plans to release Raven Ridge that works @2Ghz, their APUs should score way more than that.

 

Eeeeh, the Overclockers article that PC World is actually citing, is much more reasonable, and expects this to be an APU powered notebook.

 

Why, do you like to, put commas in weird places, Iike Christopher Walken?

 

Several things to note:
'thin and light' - not a good indication of performance, considering that most notebooks which conform to those parameters are rather weak.

Its just a first glimpse. We don't know if these are just initial engineering sample tests with a certain type of APU (say lowest end)... and if they are, there's a chance the end product will be clocked much higher, and ergo, score better (especially if there are several versions of it).

AMD must know that it has to make a mobile solution capable of tackling Intel's top end as well... right now, I think its still early to tell definitively.

 

Proper English, my son.

 

LMAO where did you go to school.

 

Oxford comma.

 

I think I've already spent my laptop money for this console gen, but I'm really hopeful to see AMD succeed in mobile gaming again for my next purchase.

 

Well, finally:

ASUS ROG GL702ZC is world’s first Ryzen powered laptop

Oh, the site also lacks info that the rx 580 is only 65W, how the hell could they do that and most importantly will we see MXM of it?

 

What if it IS MXM? Yeah, I'm dreaming, relax

 

It has been confirmed that the RX580 is in fact MXM. As far as we know this is not planned by AMD as product, so expect it to be a customized ASUS solution for now.

How they did it ? Polaris runs far above it's perf / consumption sweet spot, reducing clock speeds and voltage only slightly can dramatically decrease overall power consumption. One can archieve great results by undervolting recent AMD GPUs such as Polaris or Fiji. My R9 Nano can hold its highest power state (1GHz, ame as Fury X) most of the time with only -32mV, without that it will be limited by the power target and throttles around 800-900 Mhz.

 

Where? That would be AWESOME if true! DELL is reading an AIO (with Ryzen as well - Inspiron 27 7775) and they use MXMs in there, so let's see how it would pan-out.

Shhh, don't break it for me, OK? Cool

Most of us around here know that, but thanks for sharing your personal experience. There are also binned chips as can be seen in a review from JayzTwoCents - RX480 that doesn't suck, also the mythical E9550 (95W RX480) that no one outside the embedded industry knows if it saw the light of the day, or it didn't.

 

ASUS always uses some weird perverted form of MXM, so don't get your hopes up.

 

There are a few exceptions though - M60j, C90 and the beast W90vp (I'm not sure if that's the entire list), so I have some hope. I agree though, most of their GPUs are WAY off of the standard, some were even flipped (and odd shaped, 'cus flipped wasn't crazy enough).

 

Leave it to ASUS to make the best AMD powered laptops, just like this thing https://www.asus.com/Laptops/X550IU/overview/


Also it took a while but it finally came to NA a month or two ago
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834234538


I think the only difference between the X and the FX is the FX is the gaming variant with 4GB RX460 vs 2GB and it comes with 8GB RAM stock, and also it's black.

 

Pffft is this a sick joke? The last time ASUS made an AMD GPU powered gaming notebook was the overheating, GSODing, horrible keyboard and trackpad POS called the G73JH. They had to deal with so many after-sales problems on that thing, they abandoned AMD for 7 years on their ROG G-Series lineup.

 

WOW, you are talking about something that was made in the previous decade, that wasn't even full AMD system and ROG brand doesn't even matter. Back then ASUS notebooks weren't good anyways, the N56 series and Zenbooks is when they stepped up their game big time. Even if they didn't make AMD gaming notebooks for a while their Trinity and Richland powered N series had mid range dGPUs and good quality, then the N551ZU which had FX-7600P (Kaveri) and R9 m280X which people that bought it liked it quite bit and some even wanted to buy but it wasn't available in NA, and the FX550IU with FX-9830P and RX460 is by far the best AMD laptop released so far, I know people hate on APUs but FX-9830P is quite good for a 35W chip being on par with A10 7850K and close to i5 6300HQ yet no one but ASUS used it. With the exception of the MSI GX60 variants and the Lenovo Y700 and on the non gaming side the HP Elitebooks all the other manufacturers have done is release crapbooks.

 

An RX580 with 4GB VRAM. Why gimp it like that?

 

It comes with a 1080p display, so I guess they think that 4GB would be enough, so - cost cutting. As long as it is socketed and MXM I'll give them a pass.

 

It looks like it's using normal desktop cpu: 65W Ryzen 7 1700 8c/16t

 

Which should, theoretically, annihilate Intel's mainstream 7700hq in all respects (but gaming?)

 

Gaming on 1700 shouldn't be that far off from 7700k to begin with (the differences aren't actually huge - and game devs have been releasing patches, and when combined with microcode updates from AMD, performance on stock 1700x for example has gone up dramatically on 1080p... whereas on anything above that resolution, its easily on par).

Any gaming differences won't be that noticeable anyway because the CPU will provide more than playable framerates at 1080p.
You can also output to 2k for example... and 580x is a decent 2k performer... which begs the question, why no option for 2k laptop screen?

 

My Bestbuy G73jh lasted 4.5yrs and was awesome. I didn't even think about an upgrade for over 3yrs and that in and of itself was longer than my previous 2 laptops combined.

 

Holy balls, 8c/16t Ryzen 7?! This is amazing, I just hope that the Mobile variant of the RX580 isn't gimped. A GTX 1080 with a R7 1700 would be extremely welcomed. Although, I'm not a fan of ASUS laptops.. Aesthetically they just remind me of 2010.

 

I really hope AMD succeeds and gives Nvidia and Intel some real competition

 

7700 K? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's really not that close. Keep in mind that:

1. The R7 1700 in this ASUS is only 3 GHz (no overclocking) vs. 4.4+ GHz of 7700K with better IPC on top of that, +50% clock speed advantage Intel
2. The 1080p screen is 120Hz which favors higher clocked Intel CPUs for gaming
3. AMD GPUs favor high single-threaded performance CPUs (AKA Intel) due to their driver architecture
4. RotTR Ryzen patch was nice and all, but that's the exception not the norm, especially among multiplat devs, and Nixxes is one of AMD's main partners ($$$)

Also, the RX 580 in this is 65W (!). The DT RX 580 is 185W. Did ASUS/AMD just pull a "Max-Q" on us where it's an RX 580 in name only, but performs more like an RX 560 in practice? If ASUS bundles this laptop with a 150W power supply that would complete the farce.

This ASUS laptop would make a mean mobile video editing rig assuming it can keep all 8 cores at 3 GHz under max load without thermal throttling, but that's about its only strength compared to the competition (for now).

The Best Buy G73JH SKUs were lower end and and released later after some of the initial issues were ironed out, so they were less problematic in general. But ASUS learned their lesson and phased out the G73JH just months later with the G73JW and then G73SW, although NOS and refurb G73JH units continued to be sold until the end of 2011.

 

I am hardly disputing the 7700k has higher clocks... but higher IPC is highly questionable.
At 3.9 GhZ OC (and even regular stock levels), a 1700x was able to hold on its own against 7700k in a few titles if I'm not mistaken (1080p wise) and also productivity wise, its single threaded performance was already on par with Intel (with similar or lower stock clocks).
That suggests that IPC wise, Ryzen is indeed on Intel's level or has the potential to go beyond it with proper software optimizations (microcode updates probably won't close the gap entirely but could help considerably in the meantime).

In that respect 1700 in a laptop should provide more than enough in terms of playable frame rates.
It also depends on how high 1700 will clock in a laptop, cooling, etc.
Keeping that in mind I think the differences between mobile 1700 and 7700hq will be similar to what desktop OC 1700 (3.9 ghz) and 7700k (4.5 Ghz) offer.
Translation = not that much of a difference at 1080p (which will still give fluid gaming levels) ... 0 difference on 2k most likely, and a HECK of a big difference in terms of productivity favoring 1700 (and incidentally, I use 3ds Max, so I look forward throwing 8 core mobile Ryzen at it with more than satisfactory gaming performance on High - who needs Ultra when its usually a minor eyecandy vs High with huge performance impacts).

 

Who needs ultra? Many PC gamers do lol. That's why we are PC gamers..

 

Sky/Kaby Lake has higher IPC than Ryzen. Ryzen is about Broadwell IPC. That's why AMD has been keen on comparing it versus BW-E (6900K specifically) since the beginning of the year. You can see here, 4 GHz Ryzen (1800X or 1700 OC) sits between BW-E and Sky/Kaby Lake. It loses to 6700K (also 4 GHz), but beats lower-clocked BW-E chips.

That's like saying who needs 120Hz gaming when 60Hz is "good enough"? The human eye can't see past 24 FPS anyway . Subjective opinion vs. objective fact, fact is that a properly Turbo Boosting (4.4 GHz before OC) 7700 K (not 7700HQ which is a measly 3.4 GHz low TDP mobile wimp but we're talking DT processors) will do 120Hz gaming much better than a base clock R7 1700 does. Looking at any Intel vs. Ryzen gaming benchmarks will show you that Intel takes a not insignificant lead 9.9 times out of 10 even over a properly boosting 1800X.

 

And 580x delivers at Ultra more than enough performance in combination with 1700 if the reviews are any indication.

I would personally use High settings on certain games that have been more optimized for Intel/Nvidia systems. No need to tax the system needlessly when the differences between High and Ultra are most of the time difficult/impossible to notice.

In that regard, I may have misspoke when I said 'who needs Ultra'... my point was that the visual differences between High and Ultra are practically non-existent or deliver a minimum or really unimpressive difference at a much higher FPS cost in less optimized titles.
1700 with 580x should still deliver more than playable performance.

But, by all means, let's trump on Intel and completely ignore that AMD FINALLY got an OEM to actually USE their hardware to create a PROPER system.
Oh, and on top of that, it would essentially be the first consumer grade laptop that has 8 cores/16 threads CPU in it (something which no one apparently cares about).

Also, Ryzen 1600 or 1600x should also be available in ASUS ROG's... so higher clocks at 6 cores and 12 threads - and this CPU is actually holding well in games in comparison to 7700k at 1080p.

And a final thing to note would be that even Intel's 8 core CPU's deliver similar/same/worse performance like Ryzen 8 core CPU's do... and they also do that at much higher price points.

Point is that this laptop won't simply be for gaming... it will be for a combination of things.

P.S. Just to note: 7700qh is clocked lower at base and turbo's by mere 100 Mhz higher compared to 1700.
1700 is also A LOT cheaper than 7700hq.
So, no, I don't think that 7700 hq will 'smash' 1700 in anything... 1080p gaming, or content creation for that matter.
RX 580 might affect gaming depending on where the clocks are on the mobile, but considering that it should be clocked close to reference RX 480 (desktop), then performance shouldn't be too low. In fact, I expect it to come fairly close to 1060 if not trade blows directly in various titles while quite possibly surpassing it in DX12 and Vulkan.

 

RX 580 may easily surpass mobile 1060 as there are couple of factors bottlenecking the performance of the latter - thermals and 7700hq. We may all not agree while comparing 1700 to 7700K, but 7700hq is going to be trashed, so 1700 and 580 may very well be better performers than 7700hq and 1060. Let's just wait and hope AMD or OEMs won't screw us up with pricing. $999 for 1700 and rx 580 would be a killer bargain.

 

Indeed it would.
I'm sick of the ridiculous prices we see with laptops that have 1060 inside (which is supposed to be a mid-range GPU in the first place).
A mid-range laptop in my signature costed £600 (with 3GB RAM and no SSD of course - but still..).
Today, you can barely find systems with 8GB RAM that cost £600 (which is ridiculous because 16GB RAM should be on standard offer by now) and that's WITHOUT even 1050ti.

That's price gauging right there.
Prices should be going DOWN... not up. So if AMD and Asus make an affordable 1700 with RX580... its should turn the laptop market on its head and force other OEM's to stop gauging prices.

Here's hoping.
I do at least expect a Ryzen 1700 with RX 580, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD and 1080p to cost between £1000 and £1200.
The more expensive versions would likely come with 512 GB SSD... in which case a baseline system with personal upgrades would be better (though these days in UK at least, there doesn't seem to be that much difference between upgrading yourself and configuring a laptop with higher specced hardware).

 

No, not a joke, @Link4 is correct, Asus has always been there supporting AMD - at least trying to - and my Asus / AMD W90VP was freak'n awesome in it's day.

Just because 1 model of the last AMD laptop before this generation from Asus had problems doesn't mean Asus doesn't support AMD, they know the benefits of supporting multiple sources to keep their costs down.

I just hope Asus / AMD can keep it up long enough to catch the eye of buyers to get market share back.

If the Asus GL702ZC AMD 580 / 1700 and other AMD laptop's can be price competitive in that very active 1050 / 1050ti / 1060 range, and buyers respond, I think AMD is going to do very well.

 

The price will definitely be interesting. It needs to be in the $1200 range to make an impact.

Not counting the well documented ATI driver issues?

 

Like the well documented Nvidia driver issues?

I waited till the Crossfire issues were worked out before I purchased, as soon as the driver was stable I ordered... that's how you do it right the first time

Actually it was right here on the NBR forums, oh so long ago...

 

Took it from my mouth! If I had a dollar for every time a Nvidia driver gave me a problem and had to pay a dollar for every time an AMD driver gave me a problem; I would have been a Millionaire.

 

Nvidia has its own share of driver issues.
AMD managed to change things around quite drastically with their Crimson software and are at this point better than Nvidia in terms of support and how fast things get fixed.

 

This may be true for current products. However, AMD doesn't like fixing bad bugs for older products (to be fair, AMD at least support newer features on their older products, while Nvidia often does not - see the Fermi/DX12 dilemma).

For example, roughly a year ago (since Catalyst 16.7.3, 16.7.2 was the last one without the bug) they introduced a driver bug for GCN 1.0 cards like the Radeon HD7970M in Crossfire Mode with ULPS where Windows 10 would crash/freeze on shutdown/restart. It can be worked around by disabling ULPS (requires a restart, though, so you have to disable crossfire first before the restart or you will get the crash!). If you forget to do this after installing a new driver, it crashes. If you have any windows or windows store software updates pending installation at that time, the shutdown crash can cause Windows 10 and/or your software to be no longer updatable and you basically have to reinstall Windows (System restore won't work in that case). Imagine how "fun" this is if you are clueless and you let the system update the display driver automatically...
People that have been affected (including myself until I got my new Nvidia based laptop a month ago, now my brother has to deal with my old system and AMD driver problems) have reported the bug with their bug report tool every new driver release since and tried to contact AMD representatives, but they don't care.

That said, being someone that isn't a loyalist to any brand and has used ATi/AMD and Nvidia cards in various systems ever since 3dfx went out of business, I can say that Nvidia's drivers have gotten worse in recent years, while AMD's have gotten noticeably better. However, Nvidia's still seem to be a bit ahead in that regard (but maybe I'm a bit swayed by the availability of Nvidia inspector/Nvidia Profile Inspector which makes tweaking drivers for games etc. so much more flexible where there is nothing truly comparable for AMD cards).

 

First of all I'd like to point out that Windows 10 is at the heart of all of these problems, so if you stop using Windows 10 you can save yourselves a lot of headache's.

Waiting for MS to stop screwing around with the current OS, and using the previous stable OS, are just wise moves all around.

IDK about Windows 10 though. MS said it's the "last OS", and they will continue updating there forever... so maybe Windows 8.1 will be the last Windows OS to be livable.

I hope you filed a ticket and posted a bug report with AMD for this latest bug with Windows 10 - and file it with Microsoft too

MS are good at coming out with little patch files to fix corruption in the Windows Update system. MS can't survive without the ability to give you updates so they will be happy to get it fixed for you.

 

Jeez guys, I was only remarking about one specific time where drivers were a major issue, which was the nightmarish launch of the W90P.

I wasn't making a commentary on either sides history of drivers, or trying to stoke a forum war over whether Nvidia or AMD is better than the other.

Stand down, soldiers.

 

No one is initiating a forum war over drivers from either AMD or Nvidia.
We simply pointed out that just like AMD, Nvidia had/has its own driver issues at the same time.
Also, not everyone apparently suffered from those issues on either hardware.

Anyway, do we have any further information on when the ROG with 1700 and RX 580 is due for a release?
Asus seems to have a working laptop already, so I'm just wondering when is the release date.

 

This thread can stay open as long as everyone sticks to the topic. The atmosphere is getting a little tense.

Charles

 

I think this needs to be about $250 cheaper than your typical Intel + GTX 1060 equipped laptop, to really make a splash.

 

Not having Intel and Nvidia on/in the laptop immediately credits this laptop's account by about $1M.

Same price, a little more, a little less, it's still not Intel+Nvidia.

Priceless.

 

I would prefer if the price was indeed lower than the competing Intel and 1060 laptop.
And realistically, we COULD get that considering the 1700 is cheaper than the 7700hq - but it would also depend on one's configuration (larger or lower capacity SSD for example and amount of RAM).

I would love the price to be at £1000 for a model with 256 GB SSD.

£1250 can also be dealt with.

Most expensive models in the range of say £1400 to £1600 would likely have 512GB SSD and 32GB RAM.

But much lower ROG prices with such hardware would definitely be a slap in the face to not just Intel but also other OEM's (and a well deserved one at that).

 

https://www.asus.com/Laptops/ROG-Strix-GL702ZC/specifications/

Pre-order prices:
1399£

• 17.3" HD IPS Freesync 1920x1080
• Ryzen 5 1600
• AMD Radeon RX 580 4GB GDDR5
• 256GB M.2 SSD
• 1TB 5400RPM HDD
• 8GB 2400MHz DDR4
• Windows 10 Home (64-Bit)

1589£

• 17.3" HD IPS Freesync 1920x1080
• Ryzen 7 1700
• AMD Radeon RX 580 4GB GDDR5
• 256GB M.2 SSD
• 1TB 5400RPM HDD
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• Windows 10 Home (64-Bit)

Bit too steep. It steps into GTX1070 prices. And I guess it doesn't really stand a chance against it...