Samsung Notebook

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#42
Fujitsu CPU options are the 8250U/8350U/8650U.
What are the thoughts on the VPRO CPUs, e.g., 8650U vs. the regular 8550U non-VPRO? (I rejected the low-grade Kaby LakeR i5-8250U.)
The 8650U is supposedly a bit faster than the 8550U, but it seems there are some possible security issues on the VPRO. Should I care?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Michigan
#43
Why did you automatically discard the i5-8250U? It's a real quad core. It just lacks hyperthreading. From my quick look, I certainly wouldn't pay more money for a 8650U over a 8550U.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#44
The clock speed is lower. I was comparing the data from the CPU marks recently. Passmark7th-8th.png

The Fujitsu has no option for the 8550U for some reason.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#45
...I certainly wouldn't pay more money for a 8650U over a 8550U.
Oddly enough the i7-8550U and 8650U are priced the same according to Intel as are the i5-8250U/8350U.
However, few laptops have the 8650U or 8350U options for whatever reason. Most 2018 thin/light and mid-sized laptops offer the option of 8250U or 8550U.
Of course the larger performance laptops offer the 45W CPUs, but that is another story.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Michigan
#46
The clock speed is lower. I was comparing the data from the CPU marks recently. View attachment 1260

The Fujitsu has no option for the 8550U for some reason.
Those results don't make any sense. Single threaded is only 5% faster max presuming you don't hit the TDP. Multi threaded will be TDP limited with both.

There can't be a greater difference between the i7-8650 and the i7-8550 than the i7-8550 and the i5-8250.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#47
Those results don't make any sense. Single threaded is only 5% faster max presuming you don't hit the TDP. Multi threaded will be TDP limited with both.

There can't be a greater difference between the i7-8650 and the i7-8550 than the i7-8550 and the i5-8250.
Perhaps the 8650U is used in laptops with better cooling solutions, other hardware differences, or the benchmark is bunk.
For practical purposes I also compare the clock speeds.
Sony Vaio claims that good cooling produces better performance on the 8250U than the usual 8550U and the well-cooled 8550U is better yet.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Michigan
#48
Perhaps the 8650U is used in laptops with better cooling solutions, other hardware differences, or the benchmark is bunk.
For practical purposes I also compare the clock speeds.
Sony Vaio claims that good cooling produces better performance on the 8250U than the usual 8550U and the well-cooled 8550U is better yet.
I think that's also unlikely. Perhaps the 8650u was used in laptops configured for the up TDP of 25W.

My experience with Intel Turbo Boost is that the temperature of the chip has pretty much nothing to do with the clock speed as long as you're not right at the very limit for CPU temp throttling the chip. I found with the E5 Xeon processors that it didn't matter if they were 50C or 75+C under load. They ran at the same speed limited by the TDP/power budget.

One review I saw of the i7-8550u showed it could turbo boost all cores loaded above the minimum 1.8gHz, but only by a few hundred MHz. That would presumably also be true for the 8650u which means there's no inherent advantage of the minimum guaranteed base clock of 1.8gHz vs. 1.9gHz pending no other issue.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#49
I think that's also unlikely. Perhaps the 8650u was used in laptops configured for the up TDP of 25W.

My experience with Intel Turbo Boost is that the temperature of the chip has pretty much nothing to do with the clock speed as long as you're not right at the very limit for CPU temp throttling the chip. I found with the E5 Xeon processors that it didn't matter if they were 50C or 75+C under load. They ran at the same speed limited by the TDP/power budget.

One review I saw of the i7-8550u showed it could turbo boost all cores loaded above the minimum 1.8gHz, but only by a few hundred MHz. That would presumably also be true for the 8650u which means there's no inherent advantage of the minimum guaranteed base clock of 1.8gHz vs. 1.9gHz pending no other issue.
Is the max clock of the Kaby Lake R reachable with single thread performance? The difference between the 8550U and 8650U is minimal, but the 8250U is not good at only 3.4GHz.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,250
Location
Michigan
#50
Is the max clock of the Kaby Lake R reachable with single thread performance? The difference between the 8550U and 8650U is minimal, but the 8250U is not good at only 3.4GHz.
The benchmarks I saw seem to show they can reach the max clock speed with single threaded performance in the 15W mode.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#53
What would you use for RAM in the KABY Lake laptops rated for the DDR4 2400?
There is only one socket due to the 4GB RAM chip being soldered.
I was looking at this Crucial SO-DIMM, but am unsure if that is the best option.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#55
Does Samsung have a certified RAM list for your laptop?

Typically for unknown or non-publised lists, I'll stick with Kingston Intel-Certified RAM, or visit: https://www.kingston.com/en/memory/desktop-notebook/system-specific or http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/advisor to find out...
Actually Samsung and LG have no RAM. :( I was thinking about the Fujitsu, but typically it takes months for the new models to appear in configuration lists.
If I understand correctly the regular KABY Lake used 2133, but the Type R uses 2400.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#57
Here is the Intel tested list... This should give a very high degree of confidence that'll just work...

DDR4-2400: https://www.intel.com.au/content/ww...ecc-tested-at-2400mts-validation-results.html

Main list for others: https://www.intel.com.au/content/www/au/en/platform-memory/platform-memory.html
Thanks. It is on the list, albeit for 7th generation CPUs. I feel better with the barebones SO-DIMM. Heatsinked SO-DIMMs may have some use in a large case, but the small, thin/light laptops have no extra space.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,303
Location
Monterey, CA
#62
I suspect it can charge at a lower draw. Perhaps it will limit performance when on battery (I hear most modern gaming laptops do). I've booked a bed at the very front (bulkhead in front of me), so there should be room for the sensors.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#63
Whoa! 180 Watt power adapter. Can you even run an adapter of that size on airplane seat power? IIRC DC connections at the seat are limited to around 75 Watts.
Forget the airplane, who wants to haul that big honking adapter around the rest of the time? I'm surprised it can't work off of a 90W adapter.

Meanwhile I'm hoping to charge the little KABY Lake R with a 30-40W USB-C charger if needed. The 65W charger is bit bulky to carry.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#66
I suspect it can charge at a lower draw. Perhaps it will limit performance when on battery (I hear most modern gaming laptops do). I've booked a bed at the very front (bulkhead in front of me), so there should be room for the sensors.
It only has 82WHr of batteries, so obviously the 180W is for the CPU/GPU. 65W is about right for charging.
Why is the resolution so low for 15.6' display? Is it for the gamers' vision?
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,303
Location
Monterey, CA
#67
Gaming mainly. They traded resolution for a higher refresh rate. Most of the time when I care about performance I'll be using an external monitor anyway.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#68
The F****** killed two CC, so I may be back to the Samsung/LG RAM-less options. :cursin:
The order was re-placed now with May shipping.
I'm not sure about the USB power since multiple voltages are available. Does the USB-C port need 19V to charge?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#70
Here is the Intel tested list... This should give a very high degree of confidence that'll just work...

DDR4-2400: https://www.intel.com.au/content/ww...ecc-tested-at-2400mts-validation-results.html

Main list for others: https://www.intel.com.au/content/www/au/en/platform-memory/platform-memory.html
I was able to obtain the Crucial Ballistix RAM more readily than the more basic Crucial.
It works just fine despite the stupid-looking decal that is a picture of a heat sink.
The laptop BIOS doesn't show any options for voltage, timings, etc.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#71
For some reason the display calibration is completely screwed after about 30 seconds on batteries. :( I cannot find any Windows settings that would account for it.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#73
No, it has some kind of LED LCD. It is 13.3" 1920x1080 matte without the stupid touch sensors.
The image is fairly good but not wide gamut. Color temp was 7300 before calibration to 5500K.
Of course there is a little grayscale ba ding since the blue and green are substantially diminished.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
14,935
Location
USA
#74
Is it by chance an OLED display?
I figured it out. Despite setting all the CP power management options to maximum, there are additional power settings in the UHD 620 graphics for battery saving that oddly screw up the brightness and contrast.
 
Top