upcoming clevo laptops with skylake-X (HEDT)

If you are at Computex stop by Clevo booth and make some noise about Skylake-X laptop. They claim that nobody wants one other than Eurocom.

 

If this is true...

 

oh man that is disheartening. look at the vote ratio here shows that 4 core is way behind.. i guess we're safe to say we wont see it happen anymore then? i guess its finally time for me to go desktop..

 

I sent them a mail and then referred this thread

 

And it is official now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ging-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999

 

Was tempting to hit that buy button but will wait now and see if the price drops and whether clevo can fit any of the new i9 processor in the laptop.....be interesting to see the temperature

 

Considering the small number of people on here, an enthusiast community, that are requesting it over having more GPU power instead then I am not surprised.

 

I think it's more practical to request more power on CPU because of the zero price difference between a DTR and Desktop processor. You can't say that on gpu! Why not sacrifice sli set-up to accommodate an i9 or ryzen desktop cpu.

 

Sorry not skylake-x but I'll just leave this here
http://wccftech.com/asus-rog-strix-notebook-amd-ryzen-7-8-core-cpu/

 

This is what happens when a company either (a) doesn't know its customers well; or, (b) chooses the wrong customers for its target. Maybe what they really meant is that Eurocom is the only factory-direct Clevo distribution channel that is contemptuous and vocal in their expression of hatred for the status quo castrated BGA garbage the rest of the industry seems disgustingly content to put up with. We want real honest-to-goodness DTRs. Leave the BGA gamerboy STR (smartphone/tablet replacement) filth for the bottom feeders and the clowns that serve them.

 

Intel cut the prices on the Chips vs BWE but the Quality deliverance also drastically dropped. They saved a ton of dollars on that Gold, Iridium, Vanadium, Ti metals & offering the gimped 23 lane 8C HEDT i7 which is worst over than Ivy E+ i7 which had 40 lanes now pay more for the i9 and more lanes with this ^ do your own TIM job too which adds more cash into your budget and warranty gone on top of that.

Intels greed needs to be stopped and choked, for that we need the AMDs 64 lane Threadripper..
https://puu.sh/w5jID/f2992c6dc2.png

 

Because it would be destroyed in most workloads by the mainstream platform at the same cost. We are talking a huge initial tax just to put a single 1060 in it for the sake of adding cores most people won't even use.

 

you know what fascinates me the most about all this? the ease with which Intel was able to just "magically" pimp up their nextgen HEDT line-up, so Intel be like:

"AMD 16 cores threadripper eh? give our tech guys a call and get those 18 core cpus outta storage!"

and bam, done just like that!! whereas AMD needs years and years and years of research starting from scratch to just MATCH Haswell IPC....

imagine what intel could actually come up with with their balls to the wall / if their lives depended on it!!!

 

Right you are, jaybee83. Competition is good for the consumer. Welcome to my capitalist nirvana!

Similarly, I am waiting to see what effect Asus (and hopefully many other manufacturers) incorporating desktop CPUs in laptops will have upon the stagnating/withholding Clevo. Perhaps Clevo will change its tune.

Exciting times are ahead for laptops in terms of CPUs and GPUs. I so hope that AMD can compete and prosper in both areas, or we'll continue to be at the mercy of whatever Intel and Nvidia decide to give to us in dribs and drabs, and at the prices they command.

 

Hmmm...seems I heard this argument before when CPUs had but one core. "Who needs two cores?" "Four!? Who needs four cores?" "SIX CORES?!? Who needs SIX???" ...etc.
And the related: "What!? 32-bit operating systems? Who needs those?" "64-BIT OPERATING SYSTEMS? You must be joking!!"
Oh, and lest I forget: "A high-end GPU in a laptop? Who needs that??" "TWO high-end GPUs in a laptop? WHAT?!? Who would want THAT?!?"

We live in a mobile world now, Meaker. We want what we want/need, and we want/need to take it with us.

The question is fast becoming, "A DESKTOP?? Who needs THAT?!?"

I'm going home
And when I want to go home, I'm going mobile
~The Who

 

Is there news that ASUS is actually going to sell a laptop model (or laptop models) with a socketed desktop CPU? I had not heard that, but hopefully it is not a rumor it won't be paired with BGA video card(s) or have gimped cooling, power delivery or cancer firmware.

 

Fully locked. No processor overclocking. Aka cancer firmware!! No Prema, No Svet and most likely even more secure locked down than ever!! Wasted money. Buy you a $199 Turd!! Or rather use your smartphone!!

 

couldn't agree more mang
one thing is, asus had the ridiculous water cooling laptop for 2yrs now, MSI GT80 80S and 83VR thats 3 yrs straight, and now Acer coming out with 21x. big laptop is more popular than ever, clevo shouldn't be afraid not to make money especially if they are the only one offering HEDT CPU once again.

asus' laptop come with R7 1700 so it is likely unlocked. all desktop ryzen CPU is unlocked, with any mobo and chipset. now im not saying asus of course might have ways to restrict power going to cpu with bios/cancerware, with 1700 it likely won't be soldered, however im not so sure about RX580 GPU.

 

as much as i am looking forward to the near future of more than 4 core laptops it really sucks that Intel has held out this long and it took AMD finalllllllllly coming out with some decent cpus for them to get off their a**.

 

Well I think the best is to have more options to choose from bet GPU & CPU because every customer is different. This is what clevo should aim for since their flagship laptop targets enthusiast customers. Enthusiast should equates to not only high price but also high end product. We can say 1080 is the lowest high end of nvidia gpu, but can we categorize kaby lake 7700 k as high end? I don't think so!

But of course I do understand this is business and companies will go to the route of whatever benefit them the most ignoring the "small percentage" of customers who wants more.

 

The 7700K is high end in terms of per thread performance.

 

I put it here and here And have yoo ever seen Asusbook's with a massive OC'd hardware?


Don't have big hopes this max 1.3 inches thick chassis and cooling can handle +++ OC'd 7700K load!! And Ryzen 1700 will put out more heat if you push it. You can't change laws of physics!!

 

Fantastic to see 8-cores again in a Notebook after the P570WM went EOL with its 10&12 core CPUs!
That Asus sounds like a good mobile rendering, editing or server system, but bundled with a RX580 (<1060 performance) it's strange to see it bearing the ROG branding...a P5x00 would have made a great combo as a mobile workstation.

 

Asus has confirmed Overclocking of Processor's is not supported. Yes, this is a weird ROG product. It is the actual ROG branding that is going to sell this machine.



What do they mean with this statement? BGA?

"The Strix GL702ZC is practically a desktop under the hood. The top configuration comes with a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU based on the exact same silicon as current desktop parts. Variants of the laptop will also be available with the six-core Ryzen 5 1600 and the quad-core Ryzen 3 1200. Overclocking isn’t supported, though,"

 

I haven't researched this much yet: Are these ROG systems going to employ the whole APU + GPU dual graphics thing that AMD was pushing not long ago? Is that their angle?

 

At least AMD was honest that their laptop CPU is a dumbed-down piece of garbage. The reviewer thinking that overclocking doesn't matter on laptops only demonstrates that this person is a complete imbecile and guys like this are a major part of the reason that 99% of the laptops manufactured today are worthless castrated trashbooks.

There is absolutely nothing to celebrate or be happy about here. A big to do about nothing and another massively epic failure from Team Red on the mobile front.

 

Well, I'll admit that the information might not be as clear as we all would like, but ASUS has announced the upcoming ROG Strix GL702ZC gaming laptop. The following article states that it will offer a Ryzen 7 1700 processor (a socketed processor...as for whether or not it will be soldered to the board isn't exactly clear) and a discrete RX 580 video card:

http://www.techradar.com/news/asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-gaming-laptop-is-a-ryzen-powered-beast

Admittedly, overclocking does appear to be locked-down on this laptop.

My point is that I see this laptop (like the Tornado F5) as perhaps providing the impetus for other laptop manufacturers to venture into the "desktop CPUs paired with discrete GPUs" segment, which has been monopolized (for all intents and purposes) by Clevo up to the present time. As we have seen recently with Intel/AMD, this type of competition should hopefully lead to good things for all of us.

 

See my post above. Worthless from what I can see.

 

As well put in max 2x ram sticks and 2 ssd slots for 17,3 inches laptops is very high end!! Incredible they can't fit more hardware in this 1.3 inches thick chassis!! Yeah, I understand very well why they want the ROG naming for this piece of Trash

 

this hurts, all these computex showcase of skinny thin overheating laptops while limiting it's internal hardware. a real shame.

 

You have to remember that 130W is the total system power draw under P95. The CPU is likely pulling about 70W there (stock 1700), at least 5-6W go to the dGPU since Ryzen has no iGPU, a good 10W go to the motherboard + drive and about 10W in peripheral power. Factor in PSU inefficiency (about 10W if it's a 90+ unit) since power measurements are taken at the wall outlet, not internally and you have a CPU that is pulling 65-70W under load, convert that to heat and you've got 65W TDP. It's still half the power per core compared to Intel's 7600K/7700K (though clockspeeds are different so that also has to be factored in).

On a side note, Ryzen is based on Samsung's LPP+ design and we know that one becomes less efficient the more clockspeed goes up meaning at lower clockspeed (3GHz as in the GL702ZC) the effiency is actually better than what we see on desktop where it is tested at 3.5-4GHz

 

Intel need around 45W to maintain 3.5-3.6Ghz.

 

Which would still be about 50% less efficient than 65W for 8 cores. Though that is natural. Intel's current Kaby Lake CPUs are a refresh of Skylake which came out in 2015. It's a 2017 product vs a 2015 one. It's only natural that the newer one will be more efficient.

 

Except it's not, we know skylake on the intel's fabs is more efficient per unit of performance.

Newer is not always better, intel is ahead of the curve on the high performance process.

 

Not exactly. Skylake/Kaby Lake IPC is about 7-8% ahead of Ryzen since Ryzen is about 5-6% ahead of Haswell putting it in line with Broadwell. Even at that point, you're looking at a 30-40% efficiency delta. Now, the delta decreases the further you crank up clockspeed due to the way Samsung's node handles them. At 3GHz, the difference is much bigger than at 5GHz where efficiency between the 2 is very close.

 

agreed, limit of physics doing it's work. intel has better silicon and binned to clock higher not necessary mean its more efficient. efficiency also is a relative term, at what clock speed with what voltage and power draw etc.

 

But you buy a chip, not a design on your own process. Regardless of the design the two are packaged together for you.

 

lets be honest meaker im sure u'd love to have 6c/8c in a laptop rather than maxing out at 4c.. i think we all do lol

 

I had a P570WM after all, at the time it was the most no compromise machine out there

 

And for laptops where efficiency is important at moderate clockspeed, Ryzen is very much ahead of anything Intel have at the time of writing. Even on desktop, The 8-core 6900K @ 4.2 requires about 20W more than a Ryzen 1700 at 4GHz and 30W more than the stock 3.9-4GHz Ryzen 7 1800X. If you push the 1800X beyond its limits to 4.1GHz then power draw equalizes which proves my point. At lower clockspeed, Ryzen's effiency is seen thanks to Samsung's engineering. At high clockspeeds, they're identical.

 

Can you show your numbers on that one?

 

But, 4.1GHz OC is laughable, if not downright sad, in a desktop or laptop regardless of core count. All the efficiency mumbo-jumbo is as much fun as watching paint dry. I only care what they can do when overclocked to the edge of functionality. Stock, mild and moderate overclocking talk is a distraction. If AMD cannot keep up with Intel in that scenario, then it's an inferior product from an enthusiast's perspective and all of the other angles to rationalize that Ryzen is equal are just smoke and mirrors. If it takes a few extra watts, or 50W, to get the job done, that's just the price of admission to club awesome. As long as the power supply is up to the task, it doesn't matter how many watts it takes. If we're talking about high performance desktops and laptops, using fewer watts is just not important in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that matters are the numbers and which one wins the performance race. Close only counts when playing a game of horseshoes.

 

Well, there's a reason you need a massive beefy laptop for a 7700K - anything a regular layman would buy would result in thermal meltdown. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about such clockspeed. It's utterly irrelevant. A 1080 is the highest we can go on mobile and even a at 4GHz, Ryzen/Kaby are more than capable of handling it. Anything beyond that is not noticed or felt. For professional work, core count is MUCH more important and in order to achieve higher core count, efficiency is required. On the laptop market, efficiency dictates the flow of the industry. On desktop, sure, that's why we have i9s and Threadripper whose socket is larger than some laptop motherboards.

Check page 23 for Papusan's graphs

 

Hmmm... Well, I can definitely notice and feel it and so can all of my benchmarks. I essentially never run either of my 7700K CPUs lower than 4.7GHz. There's no reason to allow them to run any slower than that, and I bench at 5.2GHz. If Ryzen 1800X could do that, then I would want one.

 

You notice it? In what game? I sincerely doubt that you'd notice a difference between 200 and 220fps in any given game at 144p.

EDIT: Benchmark scores are also not a point in favour of the 7700K - the 1800X scores double what the 7700K is capable of even with a 1GHz difference in clockspeed purely because of the much larger die with twice as many cores and L3 cache

 

when will we ever see an 8 core laptop with 2 fans and a giant heatsink just like p570wm, its been way too long.

 

Well, the GL702ZC DOES have 2 heatsinks - and interestingly, the 580 inside is rumoured to be somehow reduced to 65W. That would be very interesting if they can halve the TDP by binning and reducing clockspeed by 15-20%

 

That's the thing. I'm not a gamer. I'm an overclocker/bencher. You can still have a good gaming experience with a 2720QM CPU and a 980M GPU. As long as it plays smoothly and holds 60 FPS or more, that's good enough. I do play games, but it doesn't take a tremendous amount of horsepower to do that. That's obvious based on the anemic junk that is being sold for notebook gaming.

If you were an overclock/bencher you would understand. It's not about 1800X being better than 7700K. It should be with more cores/threads and if it were not then nobody would want it. It's about not having a cookie cutter piece of crap that runs exactly the same as everyone's else's turdbox and pushing my system further than others do. It's about winning, improving ranking on the leaderboard and doing more than status quo. The other thing to remember is that the 1800X is competing against Intel HEDT processors (or attempting to) and the 7700K is just an ordinary consumer grade quad core used by Clevo as a workaround alternative to the pathetic BGA trash that is being used in other laptops. It is a lesser of evils and not what would be my first pick. I'd much rather have a laptop with something more impressive like a 5960X, but nobody offers that. I would never build a desktop with a CPU as wimpy as 7700K. From the looks of it so far, I don't think the 1800X would be good enough in that scenario either. It seems from what I have seen and read that it sucks at overclocking, so if that is the case it offers absolutely nothing of value to me. It can't meet my expectations.

Not soon enough. It has been too long. But, I am at the point now that I think I'm done with the idea of having high performance notebooks. It's just too expensive and carries too many compromises. I'm probably going to go back to desktops after my P870 and TF5 are too old and weak to be useful. I will replace them with a low-budget Dell or Acer turdbook from Walmart that costs less than $500. That way I can just toss it into a dumpster if it dies out of warranty... no great loss.

 

Here is just one example of what I am looking at. These are the #1 3DMark 11 Scores for AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and Intel 5960X equipped with 1080 SLI along with my own laptop (also #1 score for 7700K and 1080 SLI Notebook) right in the middle. As you can see, the physics performance is only a little bit better with the 1800X, and in every other measurement, including the my overall score in 3DMark 11 is already better than the highest 3DMark 11 score recorded for any desktop with 1800X CPU (I left the GPU search field blank). And, the 5960X CPU performance totally obliterates 1800X. I cannot see any reason that spending my money on an AMD CPU would make sense. It would be really stupid on my part to even consider it. (I am not saying others are stupid if they buy an 1800X, only that I would be stupid to waste my money on it when it's only marginally better than what I have now and nowhere close to being the best.) I'm not looking a cost to performance ratio. That doesn't matter to me. I only care about winning. Otherwise, I would be settling for something "good enough" just to save a few bucks and I would need to forget about having the best. And, since I own a laptop, I already do have the best one available anywhere. If I were a gamer, 1800X in a desktop would be "good enough" to get the job done with lots power to spare, but gaming is not my objective. I can get good enough for gaming results with something less than 1800X if saving money is the goal.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/12107157/3dm11/12199753/3dm11/11450774

 

We have Coffeelake upcoming later this year.

No plans for HEDT.