I Didn't Realize AMD Laptops Were THIS Crap

[thwikehu1990]

I have a client who brought in a Lenovo Y700-15ACZ. And so far here are the issues of which I have no answers:

- Run any game or any program that isn't a basic program (email, browser, word processor) the CPU throttles to 100%. I have seen some answers, but they're all sketchy. Such as messing with the voltage.

- GTA V sees only the onboard graphics (1GB) instead of the discrete graphics (4GB). I have tried uninstalling and reinstalling the graphics drivers. Switchable graphics WON'T work. I've even posted in the Radeon forums and they said, "Use Switchable graphics," even though I already told them it doesn't work. I put GTA V on high performance. I've used a supposed "hack" called commandline.txt that I put some commands in to make GTA V run the discrete graphics card. Nothing works.

Does anyone have a solution for either of these answers, or should I tell my client, "Now you know to not buy AMD laptops?"

 

[fencepost]

Interesting, I didn't even realize anyone was selling laptops with both an AMD APU and discrete graphics.

Anyway, have you checked the BIOS settings? Is the discrete graphics disabled there? Also, is there anything you can use to get temperatures for various parts of the system? Could there be a problem with the cooling that'd cause the system to keep the graphics off and throttle the CPU down (and would the throttled CPU appear to be at 100% of its lower speed?)?

 

[thwikehu1990]

Interesting, I didn't even realize anyone was selling laptops with both an AMD APU and discrete graphics.

Anyway, have you checked the BIOS settings? Is the discrete graphics disabled there? Also, is there anything you can use to get temperatures for various parts of the system? Could there be a problem with the cooling that'd cause the system to keep the graphics off and throttle the CPU down (and would the throttled CPU appear to be at 100% of its lower speed?)?

I have checked, and discrete graphics were enabled. My CPU is running at 72 Celsius. My GPU is running at about 80 Celsius (using GTA V right now).

 

[fencepost]

Is yours in a desktop? If so, that has separate cooling for the CPU and GPU even though they're both within the same metal box. In my limited experience with laptops with discrete GPUs is that they have a single copper heat pipe that connects the GPU, CPU and cooling vanes, so the GPU temperature may have a lot more impact on the CPU.

Edit: This thread (http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/ideapad-y700-15acz-review.783192/) discusses throttling issues and how once the GPU gets up to 85C the CPU throttles down because of temperature. Apparently there are also some notes on addressing some of that within the thread. The initial post bemoans not being able to get temperatures, but there might be a way to see some of that within the thread somewhere as well.

 

[Porthos]

Badly designed. Even though it might not be the fault of the processor manufacturer, AMD-based notebooks do not have the best reputation. The reviewed model of the new Lenovo Y700 confirms this statement. The alleged gaming notebook is hardly suitable for gaming, although the performance should be sufficient in theory.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-IdeaPad-Y700-15ACZ-Notebook-Review.158768.0.html

 

[GTP]

Have you done any diagnostics with HWMonitor, Hwinfo, CPUz/GPUz, or similar to see what they say?
If it's a laptop have you made sure the cooling system is clean and not choked with dust?
Have you tried running any sort of "benchmark" to see what fails?

 

[mr m]

Like suggested, check out the hardware before you go looking for demons.

Go into the UEFI and set it back to the factory defaults. Anytime I see the word "gaming" I expect that someone is trying to push the hardware past its point of stability.

 

[Diggs]

Although what you have sounds more like MB issues I've never found AMD stuff to be poorly designed, in fact quite the contrary. I do see AMD stuff being pushed too hard in an attempt to keep up/exceed with Intel.

 

[ohio_grad_06]

I wonder if it's an issue with drivers. I say this because I have an AMD RX 480 gpu in my gaming desktop at home that I fire up ever so often. On a certain game, World of Warships specifically, if I load up the game with AMD's drivers installed, instant crash.

If I take AMD's drivers out of the equation and use the one provided by Microsoft, flawless. I do have a return warranty on the card from Microcenter, so it may be going back... I spent about 2-3 hours troubleshooting that last weekend to find that out. So unless they improve their drivers quick, I may be using the warranty on it. Card is in great shape, but the drivers leave something to be desired. And this is from an AMD fan mind you.

 

[Kirby]

I haven't sold AMD CPUs for years. They used to have about a 15% performance edge on graphics, but Intel crushed them literally everywhere else, especially number crunching. Then right about the time Intel took the edge in graphics AMDs prices were also going up to being comparable with Intel and every reason I had for selling AMD disappeared.

Since I started selling exclusively Intel a few years back I've also noticed that Intel systems last a lot longer before they slow down to the point of being useless. 2 or 3 years longer, if memory serves. Definitely worth a few extra bucks, IMO.

 

[SAFCasper]

In terms of raw performance (benchmarks) that CPU is about 10-15% ahead of an i3-7100u. Not the most powerful but certainly shouldn't be struggling with basic tasks like browsing.

If you have the laptop in your workshop I would be tempted to throw in a temporary HDD and clean install W10 just to see if it behaves the same on a clean install. Rules out any corrupt drivers or settings.

 

[johnrobert]

Never could tell the difference only that Intel costs more

 

[sapphirescales]

AMD offers the best ban for the buck. It always has. It's only the newer AMD A-series chips that suck serious balls. The FX series desktop processors, the new Ryzen processors, and the older Athlon and Turion processors were fine performance-wise. I avoided AMD in laptops for the most part because they ran hotter. But before the A series the AMD laptop processors performed just fine.

 

[Kirby]

AMD offers the best ban for the buck. It always has. It's only the newer AMD A-series chips that suck serious balls. The FX series desktop processors, the new Ryzen processors, and the older Athlon and Turion processors were fine performance-wise. I avoided AMD in laptops for the most part because they ran hotter. But before the A series the AMD laptop processors performed just fine.

That's not completely true. When the Sempron processors first came out they had a high price tag and a massive performance drop. I remember customers complaining to me that a computer cost so much for a lousy Sempron processor.

I stopped selling AMD when I had been open long enough to start seeing computers I first sold get replaced. Computers with Intel processors were always considerably faster than computers with AMD processors. But when I first noticed a difference was, must be about 15 years ago now when I was unzipping a file (I may have told this story recently). It took 20 seconds at work, with an Intel processor and several minutes at home with an AMD processor.

As for being "the best bang for your buck", that actually has not historically been true, according to what I found, anyway. I found this article: http://www.techradar.com/news/best-processors which says, "When AMD released its Zen architecture-based Ryzen chips back in June, they relied on the promise of a price-to-performance ratio that finally knock Intel off of their untouchable throne." That right there says it all. The price-to-performance ration IS the "bang for your buck". Maybe they delivered on that promise and maybe the article isn't accurate in what they stated. I don't know. But if they were promising a price-to-performance ratio to FINALLY beat Intel then, no, they have not been the best bang for your buck. But I'm not a hardware guy. Admittedly I'm going from anecdotal evidence of what I've seen and an article I uncovered in a quick search.

For context, I used to be a big AMD fan. And I'm talking way back, in the original Pentium (586) vs AMD 4X86 days. One of those "in the beginning" things. I was for years. But more than a few times between then and now I have seen massive speed differences, always, without a single exception EVER, in Intel's favor. If you still love them, great. Competition is good. I just stopped seeing the benefit of AMD a few years ago and it began with the original Sempron. It was a crappy processor and the price was way too high. These days, I'll pay extra for quality, and I feel I get that with Intel. That's me, personally, though, based on nothing even close to scientific analysis.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Sadly many hardware vendors (OEM's like HP) are still chincing out on proper design on mobile systems. When you have a platform that benefits from active cooling then shrink it, they often skip certian design elements to reduce costs.

Nvidia back in the day complained about this how partners were ignoring the spec sheets and not building proper support. It goes both ways. I've never really seen an AMD laptop I like.

 

[sapphirescales]

That's not completely true. When the Sempron processors first came out they had a high price tag and a massive performance drop. I remember customers complaining to me that a computer cost so much for a lousy Sempron processor.

Sempron's were the Celeron's of AMD. You EXPECTED absolute crap performance. I saw very few computers with Sempron processors, just like with Celeron's. When either a Sempron or a Celeron computer came in, I'd recommend trading it in because there's nothing I can do to make it perform acceptably.

That right there says it all. The price-to-performance ration IS the "bang for your buck".

Not for your average consumer. It's not 1995 anymore. The average person uses only a small fraction of a processor's power these days unless they buy a $300 Walmart special. Your average client won't see a difference between an AMD FX-8320 processor and an i7-7800X. They're both MORE than powerful enough to do anything the VAST majority of the population needs them to do.

For the average consumer, buying an i7 is like buying a car just because it has a top speed of 180Mph vs 120Mps. Seeing as the fastest speeds they're ever going to be able to legally reach is 70Mph, it's just a waste to buy the i7. That being said, they don't want to buy the moped (AMD A Series) that can get up to 25Mph because they need to get up to 70Mph on a regular basis.

Looking at it this way, you can't beat the $80 FX-8320e. The closest you can get is the i3-7350, but that's $150+. The average person is going to see NO difference in processors past a certain point. I've found that to be about a 5,000 Passmark score. The FX-8320e scores a 7,518 and the i3-7350 scores a 6,715. But compare that to the AMD A8-7410, which has a Passmark score of only 2,722. Now THAT's a slow processor. Heck, a 3rd gen i5 laptop processor is faster! For comparison, the 3rd gen i5-3210M has a Passmark score of 3,809. Keep in mind that this is a 6 YEAR old LAPTOP processor!

Yes, there are other factors when considering PC performance (most noticeably whether or not it has an SSD), but the processor is still very important. But your average consumer isn't going to notice any difference between DDR3 and DDR4 memory. The only thing that the newer processors have going for them is the motherboards that go with them support NVMe SSD's. But you can always just use an adapter and plug it into the PCI slot on the motherboard. And again, your average consumer won't see a difference between a 500MB/s SSD and a 3,000MB/s SSD. There was a HUGE difference going from SATA HDD's to SATA SSD's, but not much difference going from SATA SSD's to NVMe SSD's (for the average person).

 

[Kirby]

While I agree with most of that, the general assessment doesn't necessarily hold true 6 years down the road when Windows has undergone hundreds of updates, Firefox has undergone thousands and web pages have gotten bigger and more script-heavy. Since I started selling Intel exclusively my customers generally wait 8 or 9 years to replace a computer now. Granted, it's generally something I would have thrown away long before then, but the AMDs were generally lasting about 6. No, the customer isn't going to use all that power today, generally speaking. But you never know what a customer is going to do. I had one customer last week who was having issues with her 2 year old computer, which she got from me, slowing down massively when she got into hour 3 of the DVD she was adding subtitles to.

I think the main issue is that we look at things differently. You are looking at it from the perspective of what is "good enough" for most users, and you're not wrong. But I am looking at it from the perspective that if a customer is complaining about a computer being too slow, they aren't complaining about one of my computers being too slow.

Over the years I have tried several times to put together a cheaper computer using parts I trust and would be willing to put a 3 year warranty on. I simply can't get a cost much below $500. For $500 you can get a cheap HP with an i5 processor at Walmart. Walmart does cheap, and they do it very well. You can't out-cheap Walmart. So if a customer want cheap, I send them to Walmart. They can beat the hell out of any price I can do on a cheap system. I don't use generic parts. EVERY motherboard is Asus (and no $50 mini-ATX, either) and EVERY power supply is Antec. If that weren't true then, yeah, maybe I could build a decent cheap system using AMD. But there is no way I could build one which beat the $500 systems at Walmart, even at $500. So instead I build computers which last nearly a decade before they need replaced. It makes sense for me and my customers.

 

[fencepost]

Interestingly, the ~$500 range is where the first i3 processor shows up on the Logical Increments site as well - below that (Destitute, Poor, Minimum, Entry, Modest) they have a Sempron, some Kaby Lake Celerons and Pentiums, and one of the cheaper Ryzen processors.