Monday, April 20th 2020

GDP Win Max is an 8-inch Gaming Laptop with Intel's Ice Lake CPU

GDP, a company specializing in the creation of tiny laptops designed for gaming, has just announced the latest addition to its family of tiny notebooks - the GDP Win Max gaming laptop. This model is an 8-inch gaming laptop packing a lot for its size. On the outside, this laptop is equipped with joysticks on both sides, so there is even an option to directly play games using these joysticks instead of the built-in keyboard. The display of the device is an IPS screen that features a 1280×800 resolution, resulting in a 16:10 aspect ratio of the display. What's more important, however, is what is under the hood of the small body.

It is powered by Intel's latest Ice Lake CPU - the Intel Core i5-1035G7. Being a 4 core/ 8 threaded CPU with Gen11 Iris Plus 940 graphics it is accompanied by 16 GB of LPDDR4X RAM and 512 GB SSD. GDP has provided some of the benchmark results of this configuration which you can check out below, however, please take these with a grain of salt. As far as I/O goes, this small laptop is rather well equipped with plenty of ports. There is one Thunderbolt 3 port to connect to external GPU is it is needed. There is one USB Type-C 3.1 Gen2 port and two USB Type-A 3.1 Gen1 ports for the connection of external peripherals. If you wish to connect the laptop to the outside screen, there are options of HDMI, USB Type-C or Thunderbolt 3 ports for connection. A welcome addition to I/O is the inclusion of the RJ45 connector, meaning that if you have access to ethernet you can easily plug it into this laptop.
GDP Win Max GDP Win Max GDP Win Max Benchmarks GDP Win Max Benchmarks
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

24 Comments on GDP Win Max is an 8-inch Gaming Laptop with Intel's Ice Lake CPU

#1
Caring1
All it needs is a SIM card slot. ;)
Posted on Reply
#2
Cheeseball
Not a Potato
Way better than the previous gen (GPD Win 2 & GPD P2 Max) that had the m3-8100Y and LPDDR3X memory (also HD Graphics 615 :fear:).

Take note that it hits 162 FPS because its 1280x800.

The expected price is CNY 10,000, so around $1,400 USD. Nowhere near a good deal, but you are paying for the form factor.
Posted on Reply
#3
Roph
Eh, ryzen 4000U pease
Posted on Reply
#4
dj-electric
Roph
Eh, ryzen 4000U pease
You wil have it with possibly some 4500U, but don't whine about the Vega 6 you get with it, and its sizeable downgrade in graphics performance.
If you want to use a Ryzen chip, get AMD first to put beefier Vega configs into their midrange U mobility chips
Posted on Reply
#5
m6tzg6r
Why don't the benchmarks show the results for God of War? smh
Posted on Reply
#6
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Caring1
All it needs is a SIM card slot. ;)
Or just get a portable mobile wifi modem. They are pretty cheap on ebay for pre-owned ones. Its the data thats expensive but this varies from country to country so YMMV.
Posted on Reply
#7
IceShroom
dj-electric
You wil have it with possibly some 4500U, but don't whine about the Vega 6 you get with it, and its sizeable downgrade in graphics performance.
If you want to use a Ryzen chip, get AMD first to put beefier Vega configs into their midrange U mobility chips
Vega in Picasso is already faster and better frametime than Ice Lake i7 at 22 Watt. Vega6 i Renior 15W will be faster than this Ice Lake i5.

And you second part about bigger iGPU, bigger or smaller iGPU OEM like to put useless dGPU any away. See this : www.techpowerup.com/265989/asus-readies-zenbook-14-model-combining-ryzen-4000-and-geforce-mx350-graphics
Posted on Reply
#8
dj-electric
IceShroom
Vega in Picasso is already faster and better frametime than Ice Lake i7 at 22 Watt. Vega6 i Renior 15W will be faster than this Ice Lake i5.
The Vega 6 in the 4500U will not magically turn into an iGPU faster than what you found on the 3700U with its Vega 10 config, forget about that happening.
The iGPU config in that Intel CPU already beats what a 3700U can do by 10-20%. At 15W config, those ICL-U chips are creeping into MX150 territory.

Putting a geforce next to it has nothing to do with this topic, we're talking about an ultra compact device that uses exactly 1 silicon part for both tasks.

For that, i'll say it again, if people are begging for a midrange AMD chip in those GDP devices, they will first have to ask AMD nicely to beef up their iGPU configuration to be more gaming-friendly. Maybe create some special SKU parts with a 4c8t config that uses the fullest possible vega iGPU
Posted on Reply
#9
Vayra86
dj-electric
The Vega 6 in the 4500U will not magically turn into an iGPU faster than what you found on the 3700U with its Vega 10 config, forget about that happening.
The iGPU config in that Intel CPU already beats what a 3700U can do by 10-20%. At 15W config, those ICL-U chips are creeping into MX150 territory.

Putting a geforce next to it has nothing to do with this topic, we're talking about an ultra compact device that uses exactly 1 silicon part for both tasks.

For that, i'll say it again, if people are begging for a midrange AMD chip in those GDP devices, they will first have to ask AMD nicely to beef up their iGPU configuration to be more gaming-friendly. Maybe create some special SKU parts with a 4c8t config that uses the fullest possible vega iGPU
The big question remains though, how many people will be begging for it...

Those gaming oriented APUs never took off, I don't see why this changes now, tbh. Still, its pretty smart for them to lower that resolution to pretty much 720p, because at least then it looks like something and its not the most horrible res for this form factor.
Posted on Reply
#11
natr0n
They show GoW because these are used for emulation mostly.

If ppsspp can run GoW 100% then its a winner or something.
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
natr0n
They show GoW because these are used for emulation mostly.

If ppsspp can run GoW 100% then its a winner or something.
The GoW on the picture is the one for PS4 (2018), i'm not sure if this device has the cpu and gpu power as well as cooling capabilities to handle PS4 emulation. As a matter of fact, I dont think any "game running" emulators exist yet for the PS4
Posted on Reply
#13
notb
Vayra86
Those gaming oriented APUs never took off, I don't see why this changes now, tbh. Still, its pretty smart for them to lower that resolution to pretty much 720p, because at least then it looks like something and its not the most horrible res for this form factor.
Because they never offered acceptable performance for long term and now they do.
Last time AMD APUs made sense, gaming requirements were still rising quickly because of regular resolution bumps and maturing 3D rendering.

But today a laptop with 1050Ti (or even 1050) really lets you have a lot of fun - even in fairly modern games.
If you're OK with 1080p at 40-50fps and can live without RTRT, then 2019 was probably the last year you had to buy a dGPU.

If you want 4K or 144Hz, you'll have to keep spending a lot on graphics cards, but even that will be covered by fairly simple chips at some point.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
notb
Because they never offered acceptable performance for long term and now they do.
Last time AMD APUs made sense, gaming requirements were still rising quickly because of regular resolution bumps and maturing 3D rendering.
Of course, for the current content and going back, maybe. But that was never different. This is a moving target, and I don't see any accelerated performance growth that is going to be able to make a dent, if I'm honest with you. In fact, I'm seeing the bar for games rising faster than the die space for IGPs. Discrete GPU progress stalled for one gen and a half (Pascal ~ Turing pre SUPER) but IGP didn't really do much catching up at all. The gap has become larger. MUCH larger.

You say 'now they do'... and then came RT... :) The reality isn't really changing... you're always relegated to playing yesteryears stuff at low res and low settings. That wasn't any different when GTA V ran with decent FPS on an A10.

If APUs are really supposed to catch on, they will have to compete with budget discrete... there needs to be an economical advantage, because just the form factor is not enough. We have smartphones for that already, and they already run simple stuff at low settings, pretty much. The real gamer's games are not played by the demographic that doesn't want a gaming PC or laptop.
Posted on Reply
#15
notb
Vayra86
Of course, for the current content and going back, maybe. But that was never different.
Well, it kind of was. With every generation we had some small bumps in resolution. 720p, 800p, 900p, 1050p, 1080p (I know middle 3 names aren't technically correct ;)).
For a fun history tour: look at the resolutions TPU used in reviews between 2005 and 2016.
And in 2016 we got to the 1080p, 1440p and 2160p that hasn't changed since and probably will stay with us for quite some time.

But it really stopped at 1080p. And even if there are higher resolution and they add some image quality, you don't feel handicapped by 1080p. It provides enough details.

In the past, when your GPU couldn't handle 1080p and you had to go for 720p or lower, granularity did take away some of the fun.

1080p is really enough for casual gaming. Just like it's enough for typical casual/business laptop - at least until Microsoft somehow regulates scaling (i.e. forces developers to use a proper API).
This is a moving target
Absolutely not for casual gamers. For enthusiasts, who feel the need for more pixels and more fps than the average Joe - sure. There will always be some target that will make them spend $500 or $1000 on a graphics card.

For most people the resolution race stops now. That's why we're getting RTRT and it gets so much advertising. Otherwise most people would just stop buying expensive gear.
You say 'now they do'... and then came RT... :) The reality isn't really changing... you're always relegated to playing yesteryears stuff at low res and low settings. That wasn't any different when GTA V ran with decent FPS on an A10.
Sure, RTRT becomes the new sales driver (I guess VR will get more traction as well). This will last as long as games don't look like decent CGI movies.
But not every game really benefits from RTRT. More importantly, many gamers will need a lot of time to, nomen omen, see the light. ;)
And many of us quickly fell in love with RTRT, but can't afford the cost or size of the cards we have.

So, at least for me, it's probably IGP gaming until 2022-2023, when I hope to buy a slim laptop with RTX2080-ish performance. If I didn't like RTRT, I'd buy a 1660 today and call it a day a decade. :)
Posted on Reply
#16
danbert2000
It's interesting how this can be so much faster than the Switch and yet still not give as good of an experience. That thing looks tough to hold, expensive, and large. I guess there's some utility to having a whole PC to play around with, but that also means more headaches for getting games set up and running acceptably on battery. I would be curious about the battery life too.

Definitely an interesting product, but it has to be closer to $500 to be anything but a niche product.
Posted on Reply
#17
IceShroom
dj-electric
The Vega 6 in the 4500U will not magically turn into an iGPU faster than what you found on the 3700U with its Vega 10 config, forget about that happening.
The iGPU config in that Intel CPU already beats what a 3700U can do by 10-20%. At 15W config, those ICL-U chips are creeping into MX150 territory.
Can you point to a review where the gpu of Ice Lake iGPU beating Vega10? By the way I am talking about real game, not 3D Mark, cause according to 3D Mark RX 5700 XT is faster than RTX 2070 Super.
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
notb
Well, it kind of was. With every generation we had some small bumps in resolution. 720p, 800p, 900p, 1050p, 1080p (I know middle 3 names aren't technically correct ;)).
For a fun history tour: look at the resolutions TPU used in reviews between 2005 and 2016.
And in 2016 we got to the 1080p, 1440p and 2160p that hasn't changed since and probably will stay with us for quite some time.

But it really stopped at 1080p. And even if there are higher resolution and they add some image quality, you don't feel handicapped by 1080p. It provides enough details.

In the past, when your GPU couldn't handle 1080p and you had to go for 720p or lower, granularity did take away some of the fun.

1080p is really enough for casual gaming. Just like it's enough for typical casual/business laptop - at least until Microsoft somehow regulates scaling (i.e. forces developers to use a proper API).


Absolutely not for casual gamers. For enthusiasts, who feel the need for more pixels and more fps than the average Joe - sure. There will always be some target that will make them spend $500 or $1000 on a graphics card.

For most people the resolution race stops now. That's why we're getting RTRT and it gets so much advertising. Otherwise most people would just stop buying expensive gear.

Sure, RTRT becomes the new sales driver (I guess VR will get more traction as well). This will last as long as games don't look like decent CGI movies.
But not every game really benefits from RTRT. More importantly, many gamers will need a lot of time to, nomen omen, see the light. ;)
And many of us quickly fell in love with RTRT, but can't afford the cost or size of the cards we have.

So, at least for me, it's probably IGP gaming until 2022-2023, when I hope to buy a slim laptop with RTX2080-ish performance. If I didn't like RTRT, I'd buy a 1660 today and call it a day a decade. :)
All good points and I did consider some of them especially the 1080p argument.

It remains to be seen if these things really catch on for gaming or just because they're on a IT dpt purchase list that has trouble spelling anything other than Intel.
Posted on Reply
#19
dj-electric
IceShroom
Can you point to a review where the gpu of Ice Lake iGPU beating Vega10?
Sure, i googled that for you...
pcper.com/2019/09/ice-lake-benchmarks-1065g7-vs-3700u/ thin ICL vs thick 3700u benchmarks

Of course that beating RX Vega 10 isn't always the case with ICL G7 level graphics, but it shows how capable it is in its form factor.
Having an i5 variant with this G7 level is exactly what i was talking about, and i wish something like the 4500U had a brother that had a full Vega core so we could even theorycraft such device using it
Posted on Reply
#20
SiJiL
The company is "GPD" not "GDP" ;)
Posted on Reply
#21
AnarchoPrimitiv
Vayra86
The big question remains though, how many people will be begging for it...

Those gaming oriented APUs never took off, I don't see why this changes now, tbh. Still, its pretty smart for them to lower that resolution to pretty much 720p, because at least then it looks like something and its not the most horrible res for this form factor.
Personally, I would absolutely love if AMD made APUs that were graphical powerhouses... And the APUs powering the Xbox Series X and the PS5 definitely show that it can happen soon... If AMD offered that Xbox Series X APU on desktop, I'd buy it right now (substitute the Xbox GDDR6 for at least 4GB, but preferably 8GB, of integrated HBM2e)...just imagine the amazing SFF builds that'd be possible. Also, It'd be great if the option to not have to deal with the dGPU market.
Posted on Reply
#22
Caring1
SiJiL
The company is "GPD" not "GDP" ;)
Because Gross Domestic Product doesn't describe this right? :rolleyes: :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#23
watzupken
dj-electric
Sure, i googled that for you...
pcper.com/2019/09/ice-lake-benchmarks-1065g7-vs-3700u/ thin ICL vs thick 3700u benchmarks

Of course that beating RX Vega 10 isn't always the case with ICL G7 level graphics, but it shows how capable it is in its form factor.
Having an i5 variant with this G7 level is exactly what i was talking about, and i wish something like the 4500U had a brother that had a full Vega core so we could even theorycraft such device using it
I feel this is where you missed out on critical bits of this review. This review is not an apple to apple comparison. What I mean is, if you read the specs properly, you will noticed the huge discrepancy in RAM speed (3733 vs 2400). The Ice Lake GPU had plenty more memory bandwidth @ 3733, while the 3700U officially supports up to 2666, but was running at 2400 as limited by Lenovo. Because the integrated GPUs are so bandwidth starved, the faster memory will certainly give the Intel GPU a huge boost.

Ice Lake GPUs is pretty much similar to current UHD graphics except that this is on steroids (spammed with more EUs), so I am not expecting it to be faster than Vega. Its the Xe graphic in Tiger Lake that will give Intel a much needed upgrade.

With the new Renoir chips, memory support has gone up to DDR4 3200 and LPDDR4X 4266, and proven that even with 2 less CUs, it is still significantly faster than the older Vega 10.
Posted on Reply
#24
IceShroom
dj-electric
Sure, i googled that for you...
pcper.com/2019/09/ice-lake-benchmarks-1065g7-vs-3700u/ thin ICL vs thick 3700u benchmarks

Of course that beating RX Vega 10 isn't always the case with ICL G7 level graphics, but it shows how capable it is in its form factor.
Having an i5 variant with this G7 level is exactly what i was talking about, and i wish something like the 4500U had a brother that had a full Vega core so we could even theorycraft such device using it
Vega10 is still faster with many games. What is the TPD of Ice lake for that laptop?? 15W or 28W?
Anandtech's Surface 3 review with 15W gives different picture.
AnarchoPrimitiv
Personally, I would absolutely love if AMD made APUs that were graphical powerhouses... And the APUs powering the Xbox Series X and the PS5 definitely show that it can happen soon... If AMD offered that Xbox Series X APU on desktop, I'd buy it right now (substitute the Xbox GDDR6 for at least 4GB, but preferably 8GB, of integrated HBM2e)...just imagine the amazing SFF builds that'd be possible. Also, It'd be great if the option to not have to deal with the dGPU market.
The reason AMD is not making big APU is : If AMD made one, the OEM will not forget to pair with MX150, which will nullify the perpose of big APU.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment