AMD Carrizo Pre-release thread

[mikk]

I read 47W TDP on the left of the screen shot and i see 100W+ for the SoC on the right..

Not the first time you can't read properly.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I read 47W TDP on the left of the screen shot and i see 100W+ for the SoC on the right..

Where does it say 100W+?

Making up numbers again are we?

 

[jj109]

I read 47W TDP on the left of the screen shot and i see 100W+ for the SoC on the right..

LMAO.

Why are you adding the totals row (package power) to the subtotals. Is this where you're getting your crackpot theories? It explains a lot.

 

[mikk]

Where does it say 100W+?

Making up numbers again are we?

I think he is struggling to read it properly. Not the first time he adds max values from GPU and CPU Cores into one. Testing Furmark without CPU load gives more headroom for the GPU, same for CPU load without GPU load. Not hard to understand but he don't understand this obviously.

 

[Phynaz]

I read 47W TDP on the left of the screen shot and i see 100W+ for the SoC on the right..

People want to discuss technical matters about Carrizo and are not interested in your constant whining, post in Intel related threads since it s all about promoting Intel...

Now can you stop polluting this thread with your myths and other Intel propaganda..?..

Ahhhhhahaha. You don't even know how to read hardware monitor.

So much for all your arguments about posting numbers, when you are completely ignorant of what the numbers mean.

 

[maarten12100]

Abwx don't forget to read properly the max is 66W which is obviously before it throttles back and wouldn't last long. It's holding that 47W perfectly judging by the min it has already compensated for a longer period at 43W to keep within TDP.

No anomalies it's doing what it should. Other mobile parts I would tend to agree going by the number but in this case it's doing as it should.

 

[Abwx]

Where does it say 100W+?

Making up numbers again are we?

LMAO.

Why are you adding the totals row (package power) to the subtotals. Is this where you're getting your crackpot theories? It explains a lot.

Perhaps that you dont know what is included in a SoC.?.


IA Cores 40.06W
GT (GPU) 45.66W
Uncore 16.95W

Total 102.67w

That s the power the chip is allowed to drain if there s enough thermal headroom.

Intel largely exceed their TDP ratings and only some people reluctant to physics laws (and even to screenshots..) keep on flooding the threads with their desperate denials, what s the next excuse..?...

 

[jj109]

Perhaps that you dont know what is included in a SoC.?.


IA Cores 40.06W
GT (GPU) 45.66W
Uncore 16.95W

Total 102.67w

That s the power the chip is allowed to drain if there s enough thermal headroom.

Intel largely exceed their TDP ratings and only some people reluctant to physics laws (and even to screenshots..) keep on flooding the threads with their desperate denials, what s the next excuse..?...

Ahahah, it gets funnier. You weren't just trolling, you're actually that dumb.

The Max values capture the maximum at any point in time.

GT and CPU never pulled >40W at the same time. Package is the total. The total was 66W for a brief period and dropped to 47W.

 

[Shivansps]

Perhaps that you dont know what is included in a SoC.?.


IA Cores 40.06W
GT (GPU) 45.66W
Uncore 16.95W

Total 102.67w

That s the power the chip is allowed to drain if there s enough thermal headroom.

Intel largely exceed their TDP ratings and only some people reluctant to physics laws (and even to screenshots..) keep on flooding the threads with their desperate denials, what s the next excuse..?...

WTF?! CPU Package is the TOTAL power of everything. It did peak at 66W for a moment, but we cant be sure for how long.

 

[maarten12100]

Perhaps that you dont know what is included in a SoC.?.


IA Cores 40.06W
GT (GPU) 45.66W
Uncore 16.95W

Total 102.67w

That s the power the chip is allowed to drain if there s enough thermal headroom.

Intel largely exceed their TDP ratings and only some people reluctant to physics laws (and even to screenshots..) keep on flooding the threads with their desperate denials, what s the next excuse..?...

Well the maximums don't occur at the same point in time. But if they had you would be right. Obviously if they did the maximum value recored for the entire package would also be 102W

Ahahah, it gets funnier. You weren't just trolling, you're actually that dumb.

Yeah going ad hominem with personal attacks is totally going to help this discussion forward...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Perhaps that you dont know what is included in a SoC.?.


IA Cores 40.06W
GT (GPU) 45.66W
Uncore 16.95W

Total 102.67w

That s the power the chip is allowed to drain if there s enough thermal headroom.

Intel largely exceed their TDP ratings and only some people reluctant to physics laws (and even to screenshots..) keep on flooding the threads with their desperate denials, what s the next excuse..?...

This is epicly hillarious funny.

Package is everything. And it also shows in the current value. Note the torture tests are still running in your screenshot.

Package 46.84W
IA Cores 30.88W
GT 4.88W
Uncore 11.08W

Now what do you get when you add IA Cores+GT+Uncore? Funny isnt it. its EXACTLY the same as the Package value.

And then you talk about others flooding with desperate derails. And talking about how you know physics better. While you make the most flawed one ever.

No wonder you cant tell 15 and 35W apart. :biggrin:

 

[Abwx]

Abwx don't forget to read properly the max is 66W which is obviously before it throttles back and wouldn't last long. It's holding that 47W perfectly judging by the min it has already compensated for a longer period at 43W to keep within TDP.

No anomalies it's doing what it should. Other mobile parts I would tend to agree going by the number but in this case it's doing as it should.

Package power is not accurate, or it s not the sum of the three sub values if we are to look closely at its values in respect of the three sub elements i mentioned.

The min value is not accurate, as well, in respect of its three sub values while it is on point at the time the screenshot was taken.

At the precise moment the screenshot was taken the chip is at 47W, after more than 1/2h stress test...

The max values are the ones that were possible at the start of the stress test while there was headroom left, whatever what they loaded first, GPU or CPU, once they also loaded the second part none did throttle at first, hence the big power number.

Package is everything.

Package 46.84W
IA Cores 30.88W
GT 4.88W
Uncore 11.08W

Package is everything..?

You think that you have found a solid branch.?.

Can you do the same calculations for the average value, in the middle of the HWInfo window.?..

What happen, it seems that suddenly it s more than everything, lol...


Now if package power is really the SoC power i m afraid to have to point that those so called 4.5W Y BDWs get up to 59W package power according to the same NBC, and using Intel Power Gadget as measurement software, so what is the eventual Intel supporters opinion on this..?..

That it is a hard time supporting urban legends and myths nowadays.?..

 

[mrmt]

And OEMs shunning to me is more of an indication of how stupid/bribed OEMs are.

(...=

Also from all companies the lack of pursuing new and exciting technology baffles me. As a university student I have free access to Sciencedirect along with other databases and all those great ideas only get them patents but never actually products. We are talking things that have been established many years ago.

Maybe you should buy your own OEM to show all the dumb OEMs how to make good products. I'm sure AMD would be willing to sell you cheap Carrizo chips to start with.

 

[jj109]

Yeah going ad hominem with personal attacks is totally going to help this discussion forward...

There's no "discussion" to be had here with someone that can't read a table properly. He has a personal issue and I am simply pointing it out.

 

[maarten12100]

Package power is not accurate, or it s not the sum of the three sub values if we are to look closely at its values in respect of the three sub elements i mentioned.

I don't see it all that the max values give us are the max for a give portion at a certain point in time since the utility was opened. In other words you can't just ad them up as that would be like saying the gpu consumed 50W a couple of minutes ago so during a cpu bench the package is using 50W + However much the cpu consumes.

If the bench lasts long enough obviously the consumption is the TDP. Only in short benches where it boosts beyond TDP but the length of the benches is so short it doesn't cut back eventually is where they have an "unfair" advantage.

Not really that unfair AMD could do it to and be within TDP specs after all. AMD should maybe improve their boost mechanism just for the sake of winning benchmarks.

Maybe you should buy your own OEM to show all the dumb OEMs how to make good products. I'm sure AMD would be willing to sell you cheap Carrizo chips to start with.

I would love to really but I'm just a student for now. Despite me having no experience with laptop design going by the prices of materials and labour obviously it can be done better.

I gave the example of Apple using aluminium and being praised for it.

 

[monstercameron]

Get the Intel news outa this thread man, why the Intel trolls always come to amd threads? I have almost reported 2 or 3 pages worth of comments, discuss Intel in the Intel thread.

 

[AtenRa]

Ill just put this here, Its from the Haswell mobile.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ill just put this here, Its from the Haswell mobile.

You forgot something didnt you?

 

[AtenRa]

You forgot something didnt you?

What ??

 

[ShintaiDK]

Package is everything..?

You think that you have found a solid branch.?.

Can you do the same calculations for the average value, in the middle of the HWInfo window.?..

What happen, it seems that suddenly it s more than everything, lol...


Now if package power is really the SoC power i m afraid to have to point that those so called 4.5W Y BDWs get up to 59W package power according to the same NBC, and using Intel Power Gadget as measurement software, so what is the eventual Intel supporters opinion on this..?..

That it is a hard time supporting urban legends and myths nowadays.?..

59W Y parts? Now its completely rambling for you. Not even their dualcore desktop parts gets close to that.

 

[ShintaiDK]

What ??

Dont act surprised.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...obile-m-h-processor-lines-vol-1-datasheet.pdf

Lets start with the notes:

Now lets see an example, IB CPU tho:

 

[AtenRa]

Dont act surprised.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...obile-m-h-processor-lines-vol-1-datasheet.pdf

Lets start with the notes:

And ??

The fact remains that Haswell dual core 15W TDP could be operated at 25W TDP making any result not valid, unless we knew the TDP of the CPU cooling device.

 

[maarten12100]

In short benches it is why Intel gains a huge advantage compared to long benches. No denying that fact.

AMD should just go about it the same way to win benches. I mean who cares about how useful such aggressive short term boost is. Winning benches is more important after all!

The same goes for Intel's SDP. AMD has already adopted that and they should do it with everything else Intel comes up with.

"If you can't win playing fair do drugs just like the competition."
-Every professional cyclist ever?

 

[Abwx]

59W Y parts? Now its completely rambling for you. Not even their dualcore desktop parts gets close to that.

Peaked at 59W, despite an official 4.5W TDP that it didnt even manage to hold on average since it did so at 8-9W..

Software was Intel Power gadget and value displayed was Package power, with power, frequencies og GPU and CPU and temperature on four little dynamic graphs.

Now you want perhaps to know my version of what is package power, and why the average value in the HVinfo does seem innaccurate while it is not..??.

Package power is the power comsumption of the whole device, that is, of the full laptop seen from the DC input, but not seen from the CPU wich can drain power simultaneously from the PSU as well as from the batteries.

What we can see with the screenshot i posted is that when the 4780HQ drain 100W in the test laptop about 40W are provided by the batteries, the values in the middle show low power comsumption of the CPU but high Package power because the laptop is charging the batteries that were previously somewhat sollicitated to supply said 40W...

Does it seems reasonable as explanation..?.

 

[jj109]

You're completely bent backwards trying to justify 2+2 = 5.

Package power is the CPU package power. It's the power calculated from the output of the FIVR.

You know what, you sound like a pictures person so I'll draw a picture.

What's the min of uncore,GT, and CPU vs the min of package power?





Answer is 10 W, 0 W, and 0W vs 45 W.