Clevo + Ryzen: possible?

By a lot. 100-600$ if not more, but really will depend on the laptop mobo...

 

And the cooling, the 8 cores are pretty power hungry.

 

Yeah that has to be stressed, a slight OC on Ryzen pulls upwards 140W, sometimes even more. Which is just insane.

With that said, I'd love to see sacrifice good looking laptops, thus creating maybe a ugly bottom tray to have a better cooling solution.

 

I know. I should be more specific But I wouldn't pay much more for BGA laptops. I use my phone/older well functioning 15 inches Clevo if I need really high portability(BTW not the cheapest phone aka BGA, lol). Or I can use my heavier P870 - the last real AW 17. But $150 BGA machines can work for portability. Hence no need paying more. A home desktop or socket beast are another matter. I pay gladly for power. Not high prices for BGA - aka in laptops.

 

Actually, your way of thinking is very sane!

Considering the prices of laptops, we most certainly shouldn't pay premium for BGA flawed designs.

Totally cool to pay the price for a desktop computer, even if it is brand - name any brand. But for laptops they should upp their game to get our hard warned money

 

I would never buy branded desktops... Talk with @Cass-Olé and yooo know what I mean. I know this Trash is from Dellienware aka AW, but expect similar SCAM from other names as well!! Always build your own brother. You can have it exactly the way yoo want... Cheap, medium or high end.

Edit: Dang: I think Dellienwares high horses have removed @Cass-Olé's critical post regarding the expensive AW desktops (+$5K), who the owner couldn't upgrade from Skylake to Kaby. Dellienware said they wouldn't upgrade the firmware. So he was screwed and couldn't use Kaby Lake. Same socket, but NO. Thanks Azor for all this. And we know very well he don't want sell *high end* with upgradability. And he wouldn't sell laptops with socket hardware, for similar reasons. It's crazy buying expensive desktops Who can't be upgraded although you can sometimes with LGA socket.

 

How do you use more power per watt exactly?

 

Yes Clevo can make a laptop with a desktop Ryzen. I wonder why they are so late. It should be on market till May. Ryzen with its 95tdp is a little bit higher that the oh 7700 that is at 91w.

As the only alternative solution that I found is an industrial portable 17.3" Screen computer chassis like this
http://www.trans2000.com/product/spark-s5/

It is expensive but if someone buy it for 1200 - 1300$ it will keep it for ever as he can update it with the latest pc parts every time they hit the market.

Imagine a Ryzen with 16 core and 32 threads next year that can fit on the same mb. You just upgrade the cpu and you have the latest desktop tech inside.

Is not as portable as a laptop but it is portable. There are not many people that they currying every day 6 kgr gaming or workstation laptop with the power brick every day in their backpack and this has almost the same weight. For occasionally travelling out of house or office is the same thing with better performance desktop parts.

 

R1700 is 65w , that and 1060 should make an awesome vr gaming / editing setup + homelab for what its worth

all under 130W.

clevo can shove that combo into their 650 series.. sigh if only they listened

 

Time to dig up this old nugget from a while back.

DO NOT COMPARE TDP VALUES STATED BETWEEN INTEL, AMD AND NVIDIA. They measure the values differently and so doing so is pointless. Look at the power tests an 8 core Ryzen is eating as much as a 10 core intel chip.

 

There was a big discussion at the start of this thread about the timeline for Ryzen appearing in mobile form factor i.e. laptops. Ryzen simply didn't exist on laptop roadmaps at the time that Kaby Lake came around and not a lot has changed since then.

 

Of course there are such "repairmen", but generally there are BGA rework station of various tiers, where even the entry level is miles away from the oven. Why? Because you can set profiles in order to reduce the stress to minimum and achieve perfect temperatures, without blowing-up something else in the process (uneven heating).

AMD with Fusion.

At stock it's a tie between 1800X and 7700K and even mild clock doesn't get them much apart in thermals, but it does in performance. So I don't know what you mean.

Only in certain cases/apps. In most cases it is well within the stated rating. Also quite a few of the reviewers mentioned that the heatsinks were warm to the touch, nothing burning or scorching. So, the power delivery is already there, the cooling should be up for the task (given some people overclock their 7700Ks)... I see no reason for clevo Ryzen to NOT happen.

H2 and I'm not the only one who knows that. It's just that clevo sold their behind to GrIntel and nGREEDIA and is making cheap excuses now.

 

And expect a decent numbers of people will OC the chips as well

 

I am talking about a laptop with a desktop CPU not one with the mobile version.

 

No offence, but I work in the industry and know and speak to all the companies that we are discussing here. Relationships with Intel and Nvidia have no bearing whatsoever on Ryzen in this regard - if I didn't value my job or my reputation in the industry and thus could directly quote the meeting discussions I have held, I could easilly prove this point. There is no conspiracy here.

- so am I ;-)

 

After spending some time reading all the posts of this topic my initial idea on investing to a transportable industrial case with an integrated screen is the only way to have something partially mobile with a desktop ryzen cpu...

 

Align the 7700K's overclocking potential in recent clevo machines with this chart. Then the fact that LGA1151 is more or less dead remains, the 7700K is the pinnacle you'll get out of it, maybe a six core if GrIntel changes their plans and releases yet another generation for this socket (doubtful, but we'll have to see, then comes the BIOS support).

None taken, but it goes the other way as well (don't be offended when I say) - I'll believe you when I see a clevo (XMG if you wish) with Ryzen and not a crippled POS at that, but a proper monster.

 

We're having a civilized discussion, no offence taken at all

But what I'm doing is to ask you to trust me; I'm not asking you to trust Clevo, AMD, Nvidia or Intel. If/when you see Clevo release a Ryzen chassis, BGA or socket, it won't prove that Clevo's relationship with Intel and Nvidia has changed in any way whatsoever, nor will it prove that Clevo are not in bed with Intel and Nvidia or why they haven't used AMD CPUs or GPUs for the last few years.

If/when Clevo do release a Ryzen laptop, all it would show is that the relationship between Clevo and AMD has changed, but this still wouldn't go so far as to prove who insigated this change.

The ball is in AMD's court.

 

I emailed all companies around the world that are using Clevo barebones no one knows if and when they will have a system with a ryzen desktop CPU.

I am crossing my fingers that MSI will make one

 

A lot of companies wouldn't know as they are not direct Clevo customers. But there's a difference between no one knowing and those that do know not being able to say because of NDA - assuming those who replied to you would be privy to that kind of information in the first place.

 

Cooling has to take into account what the CPU asks for under worst case at stock.

 

Well, that is a certain

Wish they would consider the option, but then again, by this time they already know whether this would work and if it works, Clevo would already had produced a good number of laptops with it. I expect the production to happen way before public info is released

 

No.

I said Intel very specifically because they were the first to integrate the GPU into the CPU die. Almost a year prior to AMD.

Westmere chips were the first generation where the Northbridge (which previously housed the Intel GPU) was integrated into the CPU. It was also when "Intel Clear Video" was introduced as the umbrella of hardware decoding support which ran on the iGPU.

 

As I said before, people overclock their 7700Ks (which ramps-up the power consumption). I'll take it even if it's a single GPU machine, if it really is that hard to manage it. I doubt it though. These systems almost deal with 2 non-binned 1080s and a non-binned 7700K. With better binned (or at least lower power GPUs), I see no problem what-so-ever.

's official release. Inform yourself when Fusion was announced. I have discussed quite a few times about ideas and money. GrIntel had (still has) the money to pull it faster, but they never got there, hence the recent contract with AMD to supply design for the GPU part. So yeah they are the ones catching-up, not the other way around.

 

Taking a designed platform and clocking it is different for designing kit at a base level to operate at that consumption.

 

Are you serious?

 

Yes, every properly designed product will have a margin built in. If you up the expected draw then you up the design.

Plus can you image clevo releasing a machine and saying:

"Here is your desktop socket processor and MXM GPU, btw we locked the CPU as the power draw goes silly high when OC, bye!"

 

Because the users of the apps that peak the CPU at more than the rated TDP overclock, right? Whatever. The conclusion is, I can build my own kick-@$$ cooling with my bare hands (and a spring) while clevo can't. Wont bother anymore.

 

Take for example AW's ceo Mr. Azor's statement for the new AW BGA systems. 15% headrom for OC with their new designed cooling. But unfortunately this is already eaten up by the wellknown TRIPOD mess

 

I did my research before making that statement.

Fusion was officially released Jan 2011 but there's bits and pieces of it being developed in 2010 and as far back as 2006. However this was not some "unique" development. The idea of merging the Northbridge with CPU was not an original idea. Furthermore, Intel had an on-die GPU as far back as 2008 with the first generation Intel Atom CPUs.

As far as the recent contract, it's function is entirely speculation. The only thing remotely confirmed is "a contract" was signed and the EXACT quote (who was entirely a 3rd party to the contact itself mind you) is: "The licensing deal between AMD and Intel is signed and done for putting AMD GPU tech into Intel’s iGPU".

First off, "tech" can mean anything both hardware and software. That can be anywhere from an entire GPU architecture (unlikely) or more likely just licensing some smaller things like FreeSync. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if they just licensed FreeSync usage (required for FreeSync over HDMI for example) and some architectural bits and pieces (execution paths etc). Basically it could be some new stuff, or some old stuff which happens to be built on Nvidia patents used in their cross-licensing deal. Since Intel had pre-existing GPU architecture, I doubt they would've built large amounts of their subsequent iGPUs with anything they gained through the cross-licensing.

Furthermore, it says "into Intel's iGPU" which implies Intel's own GPU will still be intact. The wording is wrong if they're going to replace it whole hog with an AMD part.

Keep in mind, ALL of this is based on the assumption that Intel's cross-licensing agreement with Nvidia is the trigger for this new contract. If you read the actual filing it has very little to even do with GPUs and was actually filed when the Nvidia ION came out. For those playing at home, the ION was a PCH built by Nvidia which had an integrated Nvidia GPU and replaced the standard Intel one (hence the legal battle.

Original filing can be seen here: http://investor.nvidia.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-11-5134&cik=1045810

 

Your 'kick-ass' cooling system, while it might work, is probably unreasonably large for most users. Now, if you can design and build a decent thermal dissipation apparatus that fits within the confines of a typical performance notebook, then hats off to you.

 

I wasn't talking about my Acer.

And took three internal iterations. So GrIntel had time to develop their own. And I'll give you a news flash, this technology was actually proposed well before that, but I can't find the article to see when and from who (IBM?).

It can also mean architecture. I think we all know that no matter how much money GrIntel threw at the GPU part, it's still miles away from AMD. On this one, we'll have to wait and see.

 

Building your own cooling units is not hard if you know how to solder stuffs . Otherwise , you can use thermal adhesive glue to glue all heatpipes together
I tried it on my tablet just for fun xD

 

So we've come full circle back to my original point which was:

1. No, it wasn't AMD's idea; and
2. Intel had a product before AMD did.

Citation needed
Also ignoring that Intel revealed development of the Atom processor late 2007. Just because Intel didnt announce any prior development doesn't mean it wasn't already happening.

Either way, if we're going to get pedantic then the first chip with CPU and GPU integrated may actually be the Cyrix MediaGX series in 1997. It even had an integrated memory controller.

 

Well the bending is not exactly easy. When you pass certain radius it gets REALLY tedious. The section from the right-most pipe, after the 45º bend, till the ~90º one costed me 2 days. Not only the the direction changes quite a few times in a matter of ~6cm, but also the elevation.

 

I don't really who had the idea first but who can implement it the best. I am interested if AMD can leverage a decent quad with a strong IGP and DDR4.

 

Indeed. Hopefully by the time they start making the APUs they've sorted out their clock-speed limitations. The Zen IPC is strong but hits a brick wall at 4ghz which theoretically applies to Ryzen 5 (given it's the same chip as Ryzen 7 with CCXs disabled). It's actually quite similar to their Polaris chips in that manner.

 

They always had decent (by definition - fairly good, since they were indeed fairly good, just not top, but top is not decent by definition) APUs, it's just that people that want to max-out, tell people that just need something for facebook, skype and the odd game, that they need something else. Now AMD would surpass the decent and be very close to the top in the CPU part (about 15% total performance behind (half from the lower clocks, the other half from lower IPC)). They hold the top place in the GPU part for a while (since day one).

 

Plus, where the heck are your heatsinks fins?

 

While the APUs were OK, they were always a compromise solution based on budget rather than form factor.

 

It's a work in progress. If you have anything better - I'm all eyes and ears.

 

Kindly behave and stay on topic.

 

Since you've edited something that WAS on topic - Why clevo changed the design from P870DM to P870DM2/3? They can redesign for Ryzen if they wanted to.

 

On topic. Intel vs. Amd doesn't matter. Only Clevo put in the best options available with next rebranding. And expect new models. P870 series is now in 3rd rebranding. Time for improvement

 

i'm reading about this old clevo P270WM (13.89 lbs or 6.30kgs)with i7-3960X Extreme Edition 6-core processor and 2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M 2GB GDDR5
http://www.notebookreview.com/noteb...wm-review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-675m-powerhouse/

http://www.notebookreview.com/notebooks/avadirect-clevo-p270wm/
https://ark.intel.com/it/products/6...ssor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/343/geforce-gtx-675m

 

Clevo being able or wanting to do this isn't the issue, or what's holding it back.

 

Well@ Meaker@Sager 's posts suggested that the need for redesign is the main issue and he's a company representative as well.

 

Yes of course, the need for a redesign is an issue - if it wasn't an issue then it could be done easilly. What I stated is specifically why a redesign is more complicated than just doing it if an ODM wants to, this is the point I have been making since the start of the thread.

Actually I didn't even see Meaker's post, I quoted your post ;-) If he said that a redesign is the main issue then of course he is correct, but what I refered to was your post "They can redesign for Clevo if they wanted to" - my point, as it has been through out this thread, is that it's not as simple as just wanting to do it - it is a case of being able to do it levo isn't the only party involved.

I respect Meakers insight as a company rep, but I work full time for the company I represent on nbr and have extensive knowledge of this thread's topic and many other areas. I can't say most of what I know in public as it would betray relationships with ODMs and OEMs that I have, but I do try and offer hints or advice on sensitive topics like this.

For example, a couple of days ago it was suggested that the reason there is no Clevo Ryzen laptop available is because they are in bed with Intel and Nvidia. This could be a reasonable argument to make if based on what people have seen over the last 4-5 years. However, the reason Clevo chassis haven't used AMD GPUs over the last couple of years is not in any way related to the relationship with other GPU manufacturers and the reason we don't have a Clevo Ryzen laptop now also has nothing to do with the relationship with Intel.

Without conjecture on topics like this, nbr would be a less interesting forum. However, I'm just trying to bring some clarity to topics which perhaps most people on nbr only have an outside view of the industry on.

 

People are creating conspiracies out of the blue whenever something doesn't make sense or is just a little bit suspicious.

What it all comes down to is a cost benefit analysis and nothing more. We are not dealing with billions of dollars here, neither is this rocket science.

 

In that case - enjoy overpriced non-binned parts. That's no conspiracy. It's a fact.