LGA 2066 laptop rumors

Sorry gang, I've been away for a while with work, and only having 24 hours in a day have neglected my NBR browsing. Sorry if this is a duplicate post, but I have scanned the first few pages, and don't seem to see anything related to this...


Anyone have something substantial, but perhaps unofficial regarding a new Clevo laptop model where we can put something like the i7-7820x up to the i9-7900x or for that matter the AMD Ryzen Threadripper CPUs ? Or something from MSI in the Tornado line?

I haven't been following any rumors, and curious if @ole!!! and others are like me and still looking for this package in a laptop.

 

We had a similar discussion about it. With X299 going over 400W of power draw - I'd say it's safe to say that it's nigh impossible for such a laptop top exist. I mean, cooling the CPU is one thing, you'd also need to cool the VRM modules. The best we are scheduled to get is Ryzen 7 1700 (@65W)

 

Granted, wattage wise you would need a new PSU similar to the Eurocom 780W PSU.

But cooling wise, i7-7700k is about 95W TDP, correct? So, any cooling solution in regards to CPU only on i7-7820X to i9-7900x (140TDP) would have to be about 40% more effective for these new chips. OC'ing and GPU aside, is it really that far out of reach?

With a optimized design with better / larger blocks, vapor chambers, larger fans, or larger case to fit this stuff?

 

140W on X299 is a big fat lie. The 8-core models are well above 200W and closer to 300W. The only 140W SKEW is the stock 7740X and that is basically an OCed 7700K. Not to mention Intel's horrible TIM making even desktop cooling hard (most X299 owners have issues keeping temps under 70*C even at stock)

EDIT: Once you start OCing, the 10-core model pulls more power than 1080 SLI.

 

Unless Intel fix their TIM problems, you're better off on the Ryzen train as the R7-1700 is a significant amount of extra horsepower for the power.

 

imho, power draw isnt an issue because whichever oem can choose what CPU skus they put into their laptop lineup and design the heatsink for necessary TDP. for example p570wm was made for 6c however we could put 8c xeon and still overclock it, just not as high as 6c as it produces more heat.

kabylake and skylake-x are known to run hot, imho its still lower temp than sandy, further more those 400w that we see is an overclocked CPU on all 8-10 cores at a crazy 4.5-4.6ghz. laptop oems normally will only make laptop on stock or simple overclocking. well just my 2c ultimately its not up to me as im not the designer.

@jclausius only thing so far is this " http://community.acer.com/t5/Acer-Ideas/i9-7920x-high-end-gaming-laptop/td-p/501517" not sure if the guy is being sarcastic as it'd be rather weird attitude from acer support, maybe they are talking about it internally and trying to make it happen with updated 21x in the future? maybe try leaving them a message see how they respond.

 

Will these R7 laptops come with the options of GTX 1080 non MQ and Vega GPUs? I would prefer a ryzen desktop CPU with the choice of either GPUs from both teams.
Once I hear word on said laptop of choice I will sell my machine for one..

 

I believe the only currently known laptop is the ASUS GL702ZC which is paired with a RX580. No idea whether said RX580 is MXM either.

A theoretical Ryzen Clevo system would be pretty awesome though if they used the P700 chassis. Primarily because the CPUs have 24 PCIE lanes which means you can drive SLI GPUs at 8x lanes each and still have 8 lanes remaining for 2 NVME x4 drives without bottle-necking.

 

We have >200W GPUs being cooled, what fundamental differences in cooling that amount coming out of a CPU vs a GPU?

I think you mean P870 which is the SLI chassis

It's mostly able to cool two 200W GPUs, so why not a 200W CPU? Shift the CPU fan an inch towards the middle and have a two-rad-per-fan setup blowing exhaust out the side as well, like many MSI's do. The stock one-rad setup can handle 100W with a delid (and AMD haven't given themselves that particular problem)

Vega is looking like a writeoff on perf/W though unfortunately. However as with Polaris, binning undervolting and pricing might make it competitive.

 

I mean - the 1700 is a 65W TDP chip at stock clocks - it's easily going to fit even in the default cooling headroom. X299, on the other hand, is going to be one hell of a flambe.

 

Can we please ignore TDPs at this point please, as now Intel and AMD are basically ignoring the real figure.

 

Even then, X299 uses MUCH more power for what is basically identical performance. But that's normal, it's what happens when you milk the same architecture for 6 years or so.

 

It does so because the clocks are so aggressive to try and keep their thread speed lead. The clocks would have been much lower without AMD.

 

Even at similar clocks power consumption on X299 is MUCH higher. Check independent reviews such as HU and OC3D for those metrics.

 

There seems to be a lot of board variation out there but where have you seen clock for clock for Core numbers exactly as those would be really interesting.? I was not getting easy hits.

 

Ahhh. I didn't know these new intel chips were producing much more heat than advertised. Sounds like there's nothing rumored yet, so I'll have to keep vigilant to see if the next wave of DTR laptops will make it to the scene. Thx everyone for your feedback.

 

Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399; Xeon vs Epyc

AMD's Ryzen CPU's (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPU's

Intel’s Core-X i9 and i7 series (x299) & Xeon (1P/2P)

 

Currently with the Ryzen series, the TDP figure is actually pretty useful as an absolute worst case (which is usually what AMD's announced TDP is).

The most Tomshardware got out of it was 82W power draw under Prime95. From a thermal standpoint that's good news.

 

a terrible example. since tomhardware review the intel CPU overclocked to 5ghz vs ryzen's at 4ghz in gaming, power consumption is vastly different. there are very few ryzen 1800x cpus allow 4.2 and 4.3ghz overclock stable, ive seen the power draw of those chips and they are on skylake-x scale with except 500-700mhz lower in terms of clock speed.

once frequency hits a certain point the amount of power grows exponentially and that could be based on design, or just physics and the same applies for not just CPU but GPUs as well.

now im not saying ryzen isnt attractive because most server based cpu are lower in frequency regardless due to many cores, also if people are satisfied with just 3.8-4ghz overclock, their power consumption is pretty decent until you're trying to push higher ends.

i'd say no problem to 200w for skylake-x as long as they give us a giant heatsink with 2-3 fans for CPU only

 

I was referring specifically to the R7 1700 reviewed here against the 6900k and 7700k:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html

The R7 1700 is pretty much the most efficient use of their 8-core die which is why it's unsurprisingly the first laptop model announced. The 1700x and 1800x get significantly less efficient.

The overclocks are really only useful if you require single-core performance.

For well optimized multi-threaded applications, the 1700 will surpass a 7700k by a significant amount while using less power and generating less heat to do it. It's likely less useful for gaming purists who want maximum thread performance, but would be great for content creators or other HPC use cases.

 

i mean i just explained the article you refered showed different clock speed and explained at higher end frequency, each 100mhz increases power draw exponentially. so refer it back to the article is kinda pointless..

overclock is hella useful. if i can have a 8-10 core cpu clock 20% higher, i get close to 20% performance assuming perfect scaling. certainly makes my single threaded software loads faster, system snappier etc and just about everything else faster too.

lastly i agree the optimization part, which end up leading me to overclocking higher frequency anyway because dev not optimizing them, or will take yrs. ive also got a bunch of legacy software thats discontinued and long gone and no longer updated, these run great on high frequency.

 

Then you may be in for a disappointment as mobile CPUs are moving to 6-core i7s with a 2GHz clock (this is what we know so far from the Clevo threads). I'm not surprised, though. Everything is moving towards multi-core optimization. Single-core performance is becoming less and less relevant with each passing day.

 

Toms are not doing a good job of reading their own graphs though.

Autocad it's a watt or two behind in power but 10-20% behind in performance making it less efficient per watt than the 1700x and 1800x. Then they don't give the prime95 performance numbers as while it throttles back to 81W (over the listed TDP) it's likely even further behind the actual number of calcs/second of the 1700x and 1800x.

 

Who want mobile chips? I remember when Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 was the new must have. Now finally back to 2GHz clocks again Although it's just the base clock I love it

 

100% AGREE!!! With smart phones and more of the BGA based simple computing devices, laptops will need to adapt in the upcoming years. The laptop of yesteryear is dying.

However, a true DTR laptop or whatever form factor, with DESKTOP being the operative keywords, is where vendors should try to carve a niche.

 

Would you perhaps be putting forward that we need a "Colossus" laptop project, perhaps "The Forbin Project" ??

 

1970 called, it wants its movie back.

 

It's so true that to look forward from today's world, we need to look back for inspiration.

Spoiler: OT, but fun stuff

Times have changed to the point where the optimism's of the past that drove the dreams of our future are now mired down in the problems of today.

That's of course not true for everyone, but there isn't that same contagious excitement for the future I remember all around me when I was growing up.

Which is crazy since there is so much around today to build an even more imaginative, creative, and positive future. The materials, and knowledge needed for universal health and prosperity is orders of magnitude closer now than then.

Colossus the Forbin Project was first published in 1966, and made into a movie released just 4 years later!!

"New" movies like that are being made from writings from that same period! We are going back 40 years to imagine our future today!!

I was just reminiscing about "wild projects" of the past, and remembering the Spaceship that ran on Atom Bombs...

'To Mars by A-Bomb: The Secret History of Project Orion' (2002) BBC TV

@jclausius thanks for that Profile Avatar for the inspiration that started my looking back today.

 

I haven't spread the Rep Luv enough to grant +5. Sorry 'bout that. However, you do have an Excellent Eye for a fantastic movie!! Speaking of avatars, we'll see what this brave new world of our favorite Gallifreyan has to bring.

 

Some San Diego Comic-Con Doctor panel fun to tide you over
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/san-diego-comic-con-2017.807197/page-2#post-10571041

 

I will fix it for yoo @hmscott +rep for yoo bruh

 

I felt something did not quite click this series. I hope the change goes well

 

We're getting a bit off topic here. Time will tell (that's an intentional pun) if this bold change works or not.

 

QS9200 was the real one to have