Thursday, April 9th 2020

Acer Swift 3 Could Bring Ryzen 4000 8-core to the Masses at $629

AMD's 8-core Ryzen 4000 "Renoir" mobile processors could see an affordable implementation with Acer's latest Swift 3 notebook model (Acer Swift 3 SF314-42). At an MSRP of $629, the upcoming Acer Swift 3 could be a typical implementation of the Ryzen 7 4700U processor - a notebook with just the processor (no discrete graphics), yielding a battery run-time of up to 11.5 hours along with quick charging (4 hours in 30 minutes of recharging).

The Acer Swift 3 SF314-42 is a 14-inch conventional form-factor notebook with a 1.57 cm thickness when closed, and 1.20 kg weight. Its display offers Full HD (1080p) resolution. Memory and storage details are still under the wraps, but it's likely that the notebook is equipped with 8 GB of hardwired DDR4 memory, and a single DDR4 SODIMM slot for further expansion. Acer is also working on the Aspire 5 A515-44, a 15.6-inch Full HD notebook powered by a Ryzen 5 4500U (6-core) processor, priced at $519.
Source: DigitalTrends
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Acer Swift 3 Could Bring Ryzen 4000 8-core to the Masses at $629

#1
Logoffon
While I'm fine with 16:9 displays, I wish they would also make the 3:2 version as well, instead of forcing me to get that 10nm version just for 3:2 display.
Posted on Reply
#2
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
How fast is the IGP?
Posted on Reply
#3
notb
Well, the competing i5-1035G1 model was $680 at launch, but today I'd pay something like $580 + tax (I've actually considered this).
Looking forward to the reviews. Acer will probably drop official pricing on Ice Lake models.
Posted on Reply
#4
ShurikN
That 6 core for 500 bucks looks like a killer deal
notb
Well, the competing i5-1035G1 model was $680 at launch, but today I'd pay something like $580 + tax (I've actually considered this).
Looking forward to the reviews. Acer will probably drop official pricing on Ice Lake models.
That i5 is a quad with base clock at 1GHz and 400MHz less boost. It's not comparable in any way shape or form other than price. Not even to the 4500u let alone the 4700u
Posted on Reply
#5
Valantar
Frick
How fast is the IGP?
Considering this uses DDR4 and not LPDDR4X, not as fast as it could be. A shame, really, though being stuck with 8GB of non-expandable, shared RAM would also be a shame.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
ShurikN
That i5 is a quad with base clock at 1GHz and 400MHz less boost. It's not comparable in any way shape or form other than price. Not even to the 4500u let alone the 4700u
This reality hasn't sunk in quite well with everyone. AMD now competes on price, but also has the performance crown at every price point.
Posted on Reply
#7
notb
ShurikN
That i5 is a quad with base clock at 1GHz and 400MHz less boost. It's not comparable in any way shape or form other than price. Not even to the 4500u let alone the 4700u
It's still a capable CPU and will offer plenty performance for most use cases. I.e. people who don't run benchmarks for fun may not notice any difference.

4700U is obviously a faster SoC. That said, Swift 3 has a very slim and light body, with fairly mediocre cooling. We'll see how much of 4700U's potential is available.
Posted on Reply
#8
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
notb
It's still a capable CPU and will offer plenty performance for most use cases. I.e. people who don't run benchmarks for fun may not notice any difference.
The same can be said of most modern CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheLostSwede
But why is the power button next to the delete key on the keyboard, while also being the same size? It's a terrible design.
Posted on Reply
#10
specopsFI
Acer themselves have stated that the SF314-42 will start at $629. Even the source (Digital Trends) acknowledges this, but then goes on to headline that it's the 8-core version... When of course it is not. In Europe, there are already specs published for a 4300U version, and even in the US there is bound to be at least a 4500U model as well. So when Acer says 'starting at', everyone should be able to deduct that the headline of 8-core at $629 is not true. Still affordable at the likely $750 range, so why not just say that?
Posted on Reply
#11
ARF
TheLostSwede
But why is the power button next to the delete key on the keyboard, while also being the same size? It's a terrible design.
The design is fine. Probably saves cost with a cheaper key :laugh: and to be honest you are not going to touch the wrong key, but even if you do so, there is the option to make it "do nothing" ;)
Posted on Reply
#12
notb
ARF
The design is fine. Probably saves cost with a cheaper key :laugh: and to be honest you are not going to touch the wrong key, but even if you do so, there is the option to make it "do nothing" ;)
Actually people miss keys all the time - even on keyboard they own and know well.
It isn't a great design choice, but it saves space and lowers cost. We have to live with it.

And making the power button "do nothing" is a pretty original approach.
TheLostSwede
But why is the power button next to the delete key on the keyboard, while also being the same size? It's a terrible design.
It's not great, but it's ubiquitous in modern small laptops.
Dell XPS 13, Macbook Air - it's not like they couldn't spend the extra $1 for a separate switch. :)

That said, it's still better than a power button on the side (e.g. HP Dragonfly, Lenovo C930).
Posted on Reply
#13
TheLostSwede
specopsFI
Acer themselves have stated that the SF314-42 will start at $629. Even the source (Digital Trends) acknowledges this, but then goes on to headline that it's the 8-core version... When of course it is not. In Europe, there are already specs published for a 4300U version, and even in the US there is bound to be at least a 4500U model as well. So when Acer says 'starting at', everyone should be able to deduct that the headline of 8-core at $629 is not true. Still affordable at the likely $750 range, so why not just say that?
Because, marketing.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
notb
It's still a capable CPU and will offer plenty performance for most use cases. I.e. people who don't run benchmarks for fun may not notice any difference.

4700U is obviously a faster SoC. That said, Swift 3 has a very slim and light body, with fairly mediocre cooling. We'll see how much of 4700U's potential is available.
Irrelevant, isn't it. I know you're desperately looking for ways to give Intel products benefit of doubt (or relevance), but really, its time to let go. Its clear as day they're the underdog now, and mobile is no longer an Intel bastion either. High refresh gaming is also up in the air. Its a bit of a Ryzen 1st gen in reverse now for them, really... yes, you can buy Intel and it'll do the job, but realistically there is a better alternative available.

Its over. Let's accept that. The inadequate cooling example... it is precisely INTEL that has built up a decade of history with temperature throttling laptops. Why would that be the norm for a Ryzen chip that is proven to have a much more refined power management? Even with the same cooling solution, any 4xxx Ryzen chip will boost better and perform better, as it has better perf/watt under any load.
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
Vayra86
Irrelevant, isn't it. I know you're desperately looking for ways to give Intel products benefit of doubt (or relevance), but really, its time to let go. Its clear as day they're the underdog now, and mobile is no longer an Intel bastion either. High refresh gaming is also up in the air. Its a bit of a Ryzen 1st gen in reverse now for them, really... yes, you can buy Intel and it'll do the job, but realistically there is a better alternative available.

Its over. Let's accept that. The inadequate cooling example... it is precisely INTEL that has built up a decade of history with temperature throttling laptops. Why would that be the norm for a Ryzen chip that is proven to have a much more refined power management? Even with the same cooling solution, any 4xxx Ryzen chip will boost better and perform better, as it has better perf/watt under any load.
You might as well give up right off the bat, this is the same person who over in another thread says "I don't care about what lies behind the performance, I just care about how it performs, thermals, usability, other things I can experience" yet refuses to accept that a more efficient CPU with higher IPC then must perform better and/or run cooler under the same circumstances.
Posted on Reply
#16
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
Frick
How fast is the IGP?
It's still Vega 7 sadly. They made a mistake by downgrading the IGP (compared to the previous gen 3700U) when it should be Vega 10 or even Vega 11.
Posted on Reply
#17
ARF
Cheeseball
It's still Vega 7 sadly. They made a mistake by downgrading the IGP (compared to the previous gen 3700U) when it should be Vega 10 or even Vega 11.
It is the new Vega core which is 35% or something faster per clock. They didn't make any mistake - an IGP is not needed when there are so many processing cores on the same die. At the very least, there is no place on the die for more shaders.

Actually, Renoir is an insane piece of engineering, a true marvel. Perhaps the best x86 processor with integrated graphics and the best x86 chip ever created.
Up to 2.8 times the performance of previous gen Picasso.
Posted on Reply
#18
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
ARF
It is the new Vega core which is 35% or something faster per clock. They didn't make any mistake - an IGP is not needed when there are so many processing cores on the same die. At the very least, there is no place on the die for more shaders.
The 442 shaders refresh now is still GCN5, albeit on 7nm and support for DDR4-3200. The memory bandwidth bump is one of the major reasons why the Vega 8 (7nm) can someone match the Vega 10 (14nm) with lesser shaders (at least in Timespy). They should've dropped in an updated Vega 10 to be a complete successor to the 3700U... or they could be planning on releasing a 4900U (4800U exists, albeit only with the Vega 8 mentioned).
Posted on Reply
#19
ARF
Cheeseball
The 442 shaders refresh now is still GCN5, albeit on 7nm and support for DDR4-3200. The memory bandwidth bump is one of the major reasons why the Vega 8 (7nm) can someone match the Vega 10 (14nm) with lesser shaders (at least in Timespy). They should've dropped in an updated Vega 10 to be a complete successor to the 3700U... or they could be planning on releasing a 4900U (4800U exists, albeit only with the Vega 8 mentioned).
The new Vega 2 8 matches the old Vega 1 10.


www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_3700u-901


www.cpu-monkey.com/en/igpu-amd_radeon_8_graphics_renoir-12
Posted on Reply
#21
ARF
Cheeseball
And thats the reason why they should've dropped in a 7nm Vega 10 in the 4700U, so that it would fully succeed the 3700U in terms of graphics performance.
Vega 2 8 is 40% faster than Vega 1 10..

GTA V
Ryzen 7 3750H 35-watt (Vega 1 10): 38.1 FPS | 56 FPS
Ryzen 9 4900HS 35-watt (Vega 2 8): 51.9 FPS | 78.7 FPS (+40%)

Civilization VI
Ryzen 7 3750H 35-watt (Vega 1 10): 65.5 FPS | 78.5 FPS
Ryzen 9 4900HS 35-watt (Vega 2 8): 91.2 FPS | 107.8 FPS (+37%)

CS GO
Ryzen 7 3750H 35-watt (Vega 1 10): 19.3 FPS | 97.1 FPS
Ryzen 9 4900HS 35-watt (Vega 2 8): 25.9 FPS | 132.9 FPS (+37%)

Gear 5 (Medium settings)
Ryzen 7 3750H 35-watt (Vega 1 10): 14.8 FPS | 19.4 FPS
Ryzen 9 4900HS 35-watt (Vega 2 8): 19.9 FPS | 25.4 FPS (+31%)

Posted on Reply
#22
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
ARF
Vega 2 8 is 40% faster than Vega 1 10..


And as seen in the same video, that would be due to the CPU constraint of the low IPC of the 3750H (which I did personally use when I had the MSI Alpha 15). The 4900HS (along with the more efficient memory controller) allows the Vega 8 to run better. Now if it had 2 more CUs, that would be a better uplift.
Posted on Reply
#23
SomeOne99h
Valantar
Considering this uses DDR4 and not LPDDR4X, not as fast as it could be. A shame, really, though being stuck with 8GB of non-expandable, shared RAM would also be a shame.
"but it's likely that the notebook is equipped with 8 GB of hardwired DDR4 memory, and a single DDR4 SODIMM slot for further expansion. "
Posted on Reply
#24
notb
Frick
The same can be said of most modern CPUs.
Exactly.
SomeOne99h
"but it's likely that the notebook is equipped with 8 GB of hardwired DDR4 memory, and a single DDR4 SODIMM slot for further expansion. "
Yeah, it must be true because you've seen it on TPU...
It's single-slot or soldered just like most if not all Swift 3 to date.
IF you need 16GB of RAM, buy a laptop with 16GB of RAM...

Slim laptops are also fairly difficult to disassemble.
E.g. last year Swift 3:
Posted on Reply
#25
Melvis
I looked at the Swift 3 the other day close up and I thought it was such a lovely looking laptop (3500U?) and I was thinking one of these with a new 4000 series APU would be so gooooood! and here it is haha nice! but still very expensive as the current one is $1100 here. It was the only Ryzen laptop there out of 20.....sad.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment