Thursday, January 18th 2018

Intel Core i7-8705G with Vega M Obliterates 8th Gen Core + GeForce MX 150

It looks like Intel has achieved the design goals of its new Core i7-8705G multi-chip module, built in collaboration with AMD. Combining a 4-core/8-thread "Kaby Lake" CPU die with an AMD "Vega" GPU die that has its own 4 GB HBM2 memory stack, the ruthless duo put similarly-priced discrete GPU setups to rest, such as the combination of an 8th generation Core processor + NVIDIA GeForce MX 150. More importantly, entry-level discrete GPU combinations with high-end mobile CPUs have a similar power/thermal envelope as the i7-8705G MCM, but at significantly higher PCB footprint.

Dell implemented the Core i7-8705G on one of its latest XPS 15 2-in-1 models. The device was compared to an Acer Swift 3 (SF314-51), which combines a Core i5-8250U processor with GeForce MX 150 discrete graphics; and a Dell XPS 13 9370, which implements an 8th generation Core processor that has Intel's workhorse graphics core, the HD 620. The three devices squared off against each other at "Rise of the Tomb Raider" game benchmark. The i7-8705G averaged 35 frames per second (fps), while the MX 150 barely managed 24 fps. The HD 620 ran a bored intern's PowerPoint slideshow at 9 fps.
Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

50 Comments on Intel Core i7-8705G with Vega M Obliterates 8th Gen Core + GeForce MX 150

#1
ShurikN
Dial down the setting to medium, and you got yourself some solid gaming.
Waiting for that Ryzen/Vega mcm to pull the trigger.
Posted on Reply
#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
So they compared a 15" "ultra book" with an i7 against a 14" with an i5 low power cpu and a 13" with an i7 low power cpu and the results are supposed to impress me how?

Let's compare it to a pineapple next since finding a similar laptop with a similar form factor is impossible.
Posted on Reply
#3
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
They achieved their design target.
Posted on Reply
#4
RejZoR
cdawall said:
So they compared a 15" "ultra book" with an i7 against a 14" with an i5 low power cpu and a 13" with an i7 low power cpu and the results are supposed to impress me how?

Let's compare it to a pineapple next since finding a similar laptop with a similar form factor is impossible.
In other news, RX Vega is faster than GTX 1050Ti... What a shocker...
Posted on Reply
#5
the54thvoid
Not really a surprising result. It really just shows how poor Intel are at in house gfx solutions on their chips.
AMD are the most affordable option to collaborate with. What is an MX 150 anyway? Apart from an Nvidia ultra low performance GPU.
Posted on Reply
#6
Relayer
cdawall said:
So they compared a 15" "ultra book" with an i7 against a 14" with an i5 low power cpu and a 13" with an i7 low power cpu and the results are supposed to impress me how?

Let's compare it to a pineapple next since finding a similar laptop with a similar form factor is impossible.
The parameters they are comparing is perf/$ and perf/W. Both very important for the target devices.
Posted on Reply
#7
londiste
I mean, really? What's with these random comparisons?
Also, were these tests run under DX11 or DX12? What settings?

So, there is i7 8705g, a $503 CPU/GPU with 65W TDP. Note that GPU on that package is 150-ish mm².
On the other hand, there is $297 i5-8250U processor with GeForce MX 150. 15W (configurable 10-25W) CPU and a 30W GPU. GPU is 74mm². There is no public MSRP for MX150 but it's likely to be <$100.

At half the size and lower TDP, MX150 is not doing half bad. Wasn't the real competition supposed to be 1050? 1050 should be almost twice as fast in RoTS compared to MX150.

Edit:
Looking at prices, that Acer Swift 3 with 8250U and MX150 starts at $800. Dell XPS15 2-in-1 with 8705g is officially stated to start at $1300.
Posted on Reply
#9
LemmingOverlord
I wouldn't say "obliterates", this comparison faces-off different classes of hardware. I'm waiting someone to prove/disprove the claim that the Intel+AMD combo can outperform the Intel+mobile 1060. Until then this comparison doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Posted on Reply
#10
dj-electric
This comparison is a complete mess.
Why not put a desktop 8100 CPU + GTX 1050 while at it
Posted on Reply
#11
LemmingOverlord
Relayer said:
The parameters they are comparing is perf/$ and perf/W. Both very important for the target devices.
No, they're not. You have no idea about the price or power consumption on each one of those devices. If they'd stated the retail price on each configuration *AND* performed battery tests, I'd even accept your reply... but no.

@btarunr article states they are similarly priced, but I find that hard to believe. Core i7 vs. Core i5 vs. Core i3 vs. iGPU vs. dGPU vs. whatever. Is TPU the source for this actual article?
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
LemmingOverlord said:
I'm waiting someone to prove/disprove the claim that the Intel+AMD combo can outperform the Intel+mobile 1060.
Mobile 1060 was never mentioned. The one Intel used in slides was the 1060 Max-Q, which is fairly slower than a regular mobile 1060.
Posted on Reply
#13
LemmingOverlord
ShurikN said:
Mobile 1060 was never mentioned. The one Intel used in slides was the 1060 Max-Q, which is fairly slower than a regular mobile 1060.
Indeed, I should have been more specific. Max-Q then (it is still a mobile part). I still want to see the claim proved/disproved.
Posted on Reply
#14
Dante Uchiha
This i7 is equipped with Vega M GL (1280 SP).

I wanted to see the performance of the strongest version "Vega M GH" :P
Posted on Reply
#15
csgabe
Wow, it totally blows MX150 out of the water.
Posted on Reply
#16
jabbadap
RejZoR said:
In other news, RX Vega is faster than GTX 1050Ti... What a shocker...
Well yeah some of them might be, these numbers are a bit low for mobile gtx1050ti...
Posted on Reply
#17
Kaotik
ShurikN said:
Mobile 1060 was never mentioned. The one Intel used in slides was the 1060 Max-Q, which is fairly slower than a regular mobile 1060.
Yes, but even the Max-Q models TDP for just the GPU is the same as Core i7-8705G's TDP is for CPU and GPU (GTX 1060 Max-Q 60-70W configurable, i7-8705G 65W)
Posted on Reply
#18
londiste
Kaotik said:
Yes, but even the Max-Q models TDP for just the GPU is the same as Core i7-8705G's TDP is for CPU and GPU (GTX 1060 Max-Q 60-70W configurable, i7-8705G 65W)
1060 MaxQ is also faster then GPU in 8705G.
Intel's numbers were comparing 1060 MaxQ with GPU in 8809G that has 100W TDP which makes things comparable enough.
Posted on Reply
#19
plåtburken
I wonder about thermals and overall pricepoint.
Posted on Reply
#20
theoneandonlymrk
LemmingOverlord said:
I wouldn't say "obliterates", this comparison faces-off different classes of hardware. I'm waiting someone to prove/disprove the claim that the Intel+AMD combo can outperform the Intel+mobile 1060. Until then this comparison doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Indeed their including the hd620 is surely a piss take, there's no way people are paying the same for those three lapys, now where is notb to defend his mighty intel GPUs?.
Posted on Reply
#21
Gasaraki
Yeah, I'm not really impressed also. 35FPS vs 25FPS is like lipstick on a slow pig. If this has 1050Ti performance then then that would be awesome.
Posted on Reply
#22
Valantar
cdawall said:
So they compared a 15" "ultra book" with an i7 against a 14" with an i5 low power cpu and a 13" with an i7 low power cpu and the results are supposed to impress me how?

Let's compare it to a pineapple next since finding a similar laptop with a similar form factor is impossible.
londiste said:
I mean, really? What's with these random comparisons?
Also, were these tests run under DX11 or DX12? What settings?

So, there is i7 8705g, a $503 CPU/GPU with 65W TDP. Note that GPU on that package is 150-ish mm².
On the other hand, there is $297 i5-8250U processor with GeForce MX 150. 15W (configurable 10-25W) CPU and a 30W GPU. GPU is 74mm². There is no public MSRP for MX150 but it's likely to be <$100.

At half the size and lower TDP, MX150 is not doing half bad. Wasn't the real competition supposed to be 1050? 1050 should be almost twice as fast in RoTS compared to MX150.

Edit:
Looking at prices, that Acer Swift 3 with 8250U and MX150 starts at $800. Dell XPS15 2-in-1 with 8705g is officially stated to start at $1300.
Pulling ARK list prices when talking about OEM-made products is rather meaningless. Besides, Dell has officially stated that they can't cool 65W in the XPS 15 2-in-1. To quote Tom's Hardware:
[quote="Tom's Hardware"]Dell focused on a 2-in-1 15-inch device, so it didn't design the XPS 15 to reach the full 65W TDP of the Kaby Lake G processors. Dell is currently in the 50-55W range, but it's still tuning the device.[/quote]That's pretty darn close to the 45W of a 30W MX150 and a 15W U-series CPU, and far more performance than the ~10W differential would suggest. Thus, the comparison is very interesting for me at least (I wouldn't really consider a laptop with a 1050/Ti unless it was very small and thin, while this is right up my wheelhouse). Getting this kind of performance at this kind of power in this kind of chassis? That's impressive.
LemmingOverlord said:
No, they're not. You have no idea about the price or power consumption on each one of those devices. If they'd stated the retail price on each configuration *AND* performed battery tests, I'd even accept your reply... but no.
Well, actually, we do, given thermal dissipation limitations on the designs. The Swift 3 is a semi-slim 15" in the semi-budget range. Probably doesn't have the best cooling, but no reason it should be throttling given the size of the chassis. Dell has, as quoted above, stated how much heat the XPS is able to dissipate. Does maximum heat dissipation equal maximum power draw? Not at every moment, but over time, yes. According to Notebookcheck, the Swift 3 (whole system) draws ~55W under load. It's also worth adding that the Swift is thicker than the XPS, weighs roughly the same, and has a larger chassis. In other words: there's no reason it shouldn't cool as well as the XPS (given the need to, at least, and thus the addition of a matching HSF). What Dell are demonstrating here is their success in stuffing more power and cooling than ever before into a really small chassis - and a 2-in-1 to boot.

Is it more expensive? Sure. But so is a slim GTX 1050 design, and you don't get those this thin and light. The Acer Spin 5 is a 15" 8550U+GTX 1050 2-in-1, but comes in at 2.3kg and is probably far larger (at least it's far larger than the Yoga 720 2-in-1, which has slim bezels like the XPS), and it draws ~75W under load. It does 31.2 FPS in NotebookCheck's RotR 1080p high test (4xAF, FXAA), but of course we don't know how this compares here.

Would this have been a "more fair" comparison? Depends what you're looking for. Absolute performance? Sure. Performance per weight or size? No. Performance per watt? Possibly, but not necessarily.
Posted on Reply
#23
0x4452
"Obliterates" is a bit of a overstatement, no? ;-)

The article mentions 35 vs 24 fps respectively, but from the other articles online, I believe these are at different settings. On the same settings it is 29 vs 24, which when considering the respective TDPs, the 8705G is good but not that impressive.
Posted on Reply
#24
DRDNA
This is just "foot in the door stuff", AMD has now ample incentive to really invest into this and together with Intel make products that will shine very well towards Nvidia's entry level and as well as Amd's entry level which will spur higher lower end cards in the long run....Amd has really put the ramp up on it with this and consoles and being on Apples mobos and there's even more but you get the idea.
While i see it as foot in the door it still exceeds with the intended target for this release. I foresee this doing very well in future releases but who knows.
Posted on Reply
#25
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
0x4452 said:
"Obliterates" is a bit of a overstatement, no? ;-)

The article mentions 35 vs 24 fps respectively, but from the other articles online, I believe these are at different settings. On the same settings it is 29 vs 24, which when considering the respective TDPs, the 8705G is good but not that impressive.
too much horsepower in a Vega M GH to be 29 vs 24 against a mx150 same settings
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment