I found that strange as well. Since it doesn't appear to be an error perhaps Acer was able to drop the price of the 4700U (and get it so close to that of the 4500U unit) by pairing the 4700U unit with a panel of a quite lower quality. The monitor of the 4700U unit scored the worst in nearly all of the tests, so it's possible that it has a poorer panel than its smaller sibling.
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Maybe not overcharging for any of them, considering the apparently poor cooling and the display that can't even bother to cover the ancient paltry sRGB standard with even decent results.
The Samsung PM991, not sure if this is a 2242 drive? I have one running in my laptop and it is super toasty. Under non disk intensive load, I saw temp readings in HWMonitor up to 74 degs after 5 to 10 mins of use. As a result, the keyboard just above the SSD is super hot as well. It doesn't cause burns, but it is uncomfortable to leave your hands/ fingers on it.
The teardown pic of the internals on Tom's Hardware shows what looks like a 2280 M.2 SSD.
FWIW, the PM991 board is almost completely bare and it looks like all the components would probably fit on a 2242 size M.2 board if they cut down on all the bare area on the board.
MSRP prices are never rational, especially on commodities who often sell much less than their MSRP. While "branded / halo" items rarely deviate from their MSRPs.
"and allows them to compete not just on performance, but battery life as well" - how it allows them to compete when we clearly see in the normalized test that they are 25% worse compared to Intel?
Nevertheless, the implementation is disappointing since it cannot sustain a stable frequency, so gaming will be hard on this...I guess that 650$ price is not without of reason...
They are OK, but could be better. iGPU can keep the frequences in CPU-light games, but drops them in CPU heavy games like Forza Horizon, Dota2, and especially Battlefield V multiplayer. Also, in case of GTA5 benchmark you posted- note that the video starts with APU at 25W, which is while APU is still boosting (several minutes). Then it goes to sustained power limit of 18W, and will stay there, with lower power and clocks.
Low priced thin and lights with integrated graphics are all pretty much useless for gaming. It's not a reasonable or use case... at least according to notebook designers.
Gaming on a laptop with an IGP will never be a great experience because you either have to turn the quality settings down a lot or play older/less graphically complex titles; but that doesn't mean people don't do it. There's no easy way to get a desktop/mobile split, but ~10% of systems in the Steam HW Survey use some Intel GPU; I suspect a majority of them are laptops because it's where you're stuck with the IGP and can't slap in even a cheap discrete GPU for faster speeds.
The GPU here isn't a 200W discrete card, or even a 40W discrete card; but it is a step above Intel's IGPs. That makes it an attractive option for someone who wants to be able to game on a laptop without spending a lot more and sacrificing profitability.
I do it some of the time when away from home on an old XPS13 with a i7-6xxx. It's a limited experience, especially after this many years, but is still better than mobile gaming on my phone.
It has always been the case that if you want a decent gaming laptop, you're paying big bucks. I think the pricing here is pretty damned awesome. I'd never buy a laptop like this for gaming. It's that simple. The Vega GPU is kinda nice to have but integrated graphics are simply not meant for decent gaming. It's that simple. If you're looking at this and thinking "ooh gaming machine", you need to recalibrate your expectations.
Well, gaming does not have to be the latest AAA specifically. Majority of best games will run on this integrated Vega very well. Most E-sports are also playble. And even a lot of best latest AAA will run well enough to experience and enjoy the game (if the game has to offer more than just graphics).
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Not being able to cover the pathetic old sRGB color space with even a slight level of accuracy is not awesome.
It’s the heat issue on heavy load. Looking at HSF with the back cover opened on TH, I was thinking how to modify it for a better heat dissipation. There’s only one heatpipe running about 3 inches to the fins. I doubt repaste will help much.
Because battery life is also about the rest of the components in the laptop as well. The screen especially so. Those results are normalised battery size, not normallised with rest-of-system power draw in mind.
I don't think AMD has the bargaining power (or marketing clout) to force OEM's to use expensive, lower power components the same way Intel does. But they have done something similar by requiring certain specs with their HS series processors.
Exactly. The XPS 13 2 in 1 is one of the most efficient Intel devices out there due to its screen and other components. The Swift 3 beats the Yoga C930 in the normalized test, so AMD is roughly in the same ballpark as Intel on power consumption. But its up to the OEM's to do the rest. With their HS series processors AMD pushed certain requirements on ASUS and the ROG G14 provides great battery life. Also the leaked specs of some Renoir Thinkpads point to a proper lower power display being an option, I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of the T14s.
If I understand correctly, we're talking about battery life from an 8-core processor being only 25% off that of a 4-core processor. That's actually pretty good.
Yes, you do. This is why it would be great to have $600ish Intel review units to compare to rather than $1500 plus devices. LPDDR4 vs. DDR4 may explain a part of the difference.
Still, it's eight cores vs. four cores and the interesting value that imho is missing is power consumption / battery life during the actual benchmarks.
This is not a premium device - it isn't a premium device with AMD or Intel processors. Regardless of whether you choose AMD or Intel - it's still a low cost device.
The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise - no one using this laptop will be doing anything that even requires 4 cores. For $649, you get a very good laptop.
Deicidium cannot read the benchmarks. Sure Ice Lake is better in Spec. However, in the application benchmarks the best Ice Lake laptops lose far more than they win against a budget laptop.
Deicidium doesn't care that the benchmarks invalidate his talking points. As long as Intel only have 4 cores at 15W, 4 cores will be enough. Once Intel get 8 cores at 15W, he'll find a reason why it suddenly makes sense.
Regardless of whether or not 8 cores is necessary in a budget device, I think its a good policy to get as much CPU as you can for the money, especially in a non upgradable laptop. I have a usable 10 year old laptop because I got more CPU power than i needed at the time of purchase.
“ The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise - no one using this laptop will be doing anything that even requires 4 cores. ”
I open 15 tabs on average with web browser(s). I also transcode movies very frequently. So the more cores the better. We know you’re full of BS, Intel shill.
Having millions of tabs open doesn't require lots of cores, just enough memory. You aren't going to be transcoding movies on a cheap laptop with a little SSD.
@Dribble Obviously you’ve never worked with browsers before. More cores is better for multitasking but someone on here said otherwise. Yes, I’m transcoding a few Disney movies every week for my 4 years old son so he can watch them with his iPad. I’m not going to explain to you in technical details. If you think “the extra cores are useless...” like Deici does, you’re totally in a different league.
"The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise" Maybe, maybe not. Not really your place to say how other people are supposed to use their laptops, is it?
Bear in mind that we only got 4 cores at 15W from Intel *after* AMD announced the original Ryzen APU. Your logic now sounds like theirs when they designed Kaby Lake.
Browser tabs, virus checkers, malware, that stream you have going in the corner on your secondary monitor - all of those things take up cores. A lot of software has been redeveloped to use all the cores available to it nowadays.
Is it because the 8-core throttles more to an even lower power state, spending more time to cool down?
I'm also curious to see evaluations of how much of that 25% battery time is consumed by wasted cycles in actual application performance. Probably not a lot on a benchmarks, since the SoC is designed to be shut down idle cores, but in real life the OS probably fires them up for no good reason, probably just because they they're there. I mean this is a mix of apps with legacy UI's and libraries we're talking about, not server optimized cloud applications.
Accordingly, from a software and sustained performance perspective, is it better just to focus on single core performance?
I have a tendency to get a more predictable Core i3-8145U sans Turbo Boost, or a Ryzen 3-3200U with fewer cores, despite them looking poor on benchmarks. I have no idea what I'm missing, but hopefully it's a worthy trade-off. At least there's less throttling due to quicker heat up of quad/hex/octa-cores, longer battery life due to less cores to address, and wasted cycles due to inefficiencies in the application/OS.
Hope this is something Anandtech can investigate? Too many brilliant minds are trained on phone topics, but not the state of affairs in PC land.
Because over in Mac land they finally got the butterfly keyboard revolt over with and now talks can resume on the finer points of systems design. But it's not looking good for fine arts because the front burners have been conscripted for the A15 (MacOS on ARM) revolution.
Buying a CPU that doesn't have turbo is *not* a worthy trade-off unless you simply cannot afford anything better, because you'll be leaving a whole ton of performance on the table - especially when the device is plugged in.
The 25% battery deficit isn't as simple as "more cores, more power" either - check out the Zephyrus G14 vs the Razer Blade 15 for a more appropriate comparison of well-designed devices. Put simply, that deficit has more to do with how this particular notebook was designed than it does to do with Ryzen 4000.
Focusing on single-thread performance when the vast majority of applications users interact with are multi-threaded doesn't really make sense, either. I'd recommend reading in a little more depth.
Looks like we've got another piece of crap Intel fanboy here intent on spreading FUD on AMD's new mobile processors. So far reviews of the ASUS TUF featuring the new procs do far better on battery life and gaming performance.
Actually the Dell's "as reviewed" price on At was $ 1,749.99, the Surface Laptop 3 with a 512GB SSD costs $ 2,199, so we are talking three times the price. The Yoga C930 is almost budget, costing only slightly less than twice as much as the Swift.
Number of cores is of less importance. Intel makes 16-core processors using 30W and 6-core chips using 100W.
Comparison of 8-core SoCs are between chips made on TSMC 7N and Intel 14nm, which makes AMD much more efficient. This comparison is for TSMC 7N vs Intel 10nm.
What matters is performance vs power and average these are similar. The gap will be minimal when Intel launches 6 or 8-core models later this year.
Is there any evidence that Intel will be releasing 10nm 15W 6-8 core CPUs this year? I thought they were sticking with 4 cores on 10nm and releasing 6-8core 15W 14nm CPUs.
There's a "normalized" comparison with battery capacity impact removed. Don't look at the number of cores. It doesn't matter. Look at performance: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15762/the-acer-swif... Ryzen is faster, but not twice as fast.
These aren't relevant to the "normalized" scores. What is relevant is: smaller screen, lower-power screen, platform design optimised over several generations, and that the device costs nearly 3 times as much. You can do a lot more selective component sourcing and rigorous platform optimization for that price difference.
1) Competing doesn't mean winning, and an improvement that gets AMD to the point of working-day battery life from an inexpensive device is a significant one. It's definitely competing.
2) Based on the results in other areas (like sustained frequency) I'm inclined to believe this isn't a particularly well-optimised example of the platform - meanwhile, the Intel hardware it's up against has been well-characterised by the OEMs at this stage. It doesn't matter to a consumer or a buyer of this specific device, but it does affect overall comparisons. The numbers from the Zephyrus G14 are much more positive (although it does use a better bin of the chip).
I'd be more than happy to pay $300 - $400 more if it comes with 1) bigger battery 2) double the RAM 3) better display and 4) better cooling but $649 is still a really good deal for those who prioritizes CPU performance.
Check the Lenovo Slim 7. It is a bit more expensive to start with, and weighs 1.4kg, but comes with 100% sRGB Freesync IPS 300Nits+ display, bigger battery, has option for 16GB of RAM (LPDDR4X 4266), and much higher power profiles that allow sustained ~28W APU power.
I think Acer look to appeal to a certain class of people that don't want to pay too much for a decent PC and don't really know a lot about them either - I guess that's your typical consumer who doesn't read AnandTech. So all these additions would undoubtedly add value to the notebook but whether the increase in perceived value is enough to justify an increase in price is a matter of risk. Evidently they think it's better to stick to a formula (compact form, good APU, plenty of RAM and SSD storage with decent battery life) to make it a no-brainer of sorts at that price point.
The price is outstanding for an 8C performance-leading laptop.
But yes, if Acer could do a version of this but: (1) 16GB LPDDR4X on board (2) Upgrade the screen quality (or at least offer a screen upgrade or two at online purchase time) (3) better battery option (if space allows).
The screen is the real let down in this device however - which is a shame considering the performance.
Imagine being a "fanboy" and being so shocked at how well some other brand does against your favorite that you think the review is literally rigged. Just imagine being so wrapped up in some random brand that couldn't care less about you. Crazy.
No man, these cpus are actually that good... Actually if you even have a bind of technical understanding you'll know why...7nm vs broken 10nm, the results couldn't be otherwise...
yep, broken, FUBAR, still not working right, cant make cpus that are more then 4, maybe 6 cores, and frequencies that a much lower then anything on 14+++++, but you being a blind intel shill, wont let you see it, as you have proven in many other posts where others have called you out on your BS
Yup. It took 3 years to ramp to a limited run of a 4-core low-power CPU, and it still can't match the density *or* the power characteristics of the supposedly-inferior 7nm TSMC process.
LOL - pretty fair review for a laptop that is positioned as an alternative to a chromebook. The almost identical Ice Lake version is just as underwhelming.
It appears that the Acer Swift design philosophy just doesn't translate for anything that requires a high steady-state power draw and thermal load. The Swift had the same issues with the 2XXX and 3XXX series chips as well, so this is nothing new. This is something that Acer has deliberately chosen to make a design trade-off for: sacrifice some thermal dissipation ability to keep the product in the size class that it is intended for.
It will be interesting to see the benchmarks on the 4500U in this platform. It was shown in benchmarks of previous versions of the swift that lower end APUs actually performed better in gaming than the top end parts because the system was better able to manage the thermal output and the APU was better able to keep consistent clocks. While the absolute performance was still lower than notebooks with better thermal management implementations, it was a better gaming performer than the top end SKU.
Generally, you are not complaining about Acer, but about U-series chips from both Intel or AMD. The philosophy of laptops with ~15W chips is that these chips are used in ultrabooks that are responsive and fast in short boosts, and not made for steady power (even if there are some premium devices that offer both).
The 2019 Swift 5 and LG Gram series were matched to the thermal promises of Intel 10nm chips that took 2 generations to arrive, and maybe 5nm AMD SoCs in 2021 since AMD decided to rush to market with last generation GPU architecture in early 2020. Perhaps with software or AI based optimization, there can be a more optimal mix of processes split between the CPU versus the GPU for best performance within thermal constraints. Not every task is as clear cut as gaming routines, where more of the work is performed more efficiently on the GPU. I'm not sure that will happen though, as such software optimization has the least return on investment outside cloud and data center applications. Not even Apple wants to do it for the 2020 Macbook Air, thermally crippling a fine Intel chip and resolving the issue by sticking a more powerful cooling solution in a Macbook Pro (and charge more).
For 2020, Acer managed to get the Swift 3 down to 1.2kg from 1.45kg of the 2019 model through the use of aluminum AND magnesium (not just aluminum as the article states). The 2020 Swift 5 maintains a 1kg weight while including a rare-breed matte touch screen. The Swift 5 is the model you want to get for 100% sRGB at a $300 premium. I think the only reason these fine machines sell for $600 to $900 for a mid-range configuration is the thermally constrained performance of the more stubbornly ambitious SoCs.
Which if they can think outside the box can easily resolve by selling a fan-assisted cooling dock and unleash the full potential of the SoC we already paid for (and charge more).
while Vega here is based on GCN 5 and not RDNA, it doesn't mean it's an outdated architecture. AMD did enhance the Vega arch for Ryzen 4000, with 56% improvement over Vega arch found in Ryzen 3000. overall, with enhanced arch, reduced core count, and higher clock, AMD did deliver 2020 Vega 8 that performs 28% better than 2019 Vega 11.
All irrelevant when the laptop's cooling is so pathetic:
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Acer Swift 3 and 5 are in the market for lightweight, cool & quiet laptops within thermal constraints, thus ~ 18W tdp, and throttling under stress test.
For the same budget of Acer Swift 5 ~ $900 you can find laptop models with the same quality display or better and also better thermals ~ 28W-35W at the expense of weight 1.3-1.4kg and noise/heat during heavy loads. Examples Lenovo Ideapad S540-13 both AMD or Intel, or Yoga Slim 7 both AMD or Intel.
When you buy low power laptops - Y or U series TDPs - you are really looking out for these things
1) Sustained Single Core Clock 2) Sustained All-Core Clock 3) Race-To-Sleep Single Core Turbo Boost (and the time it can sustain this) 4) Race-To-Sleep All-Core Turbo Boost (and the time it can sustain this)
1 and 2 are what your gaming sessions will occur in. 3 and 4 might help in some particularly CPU-heavy parts, but only for small periods of time.
This is the problem Intel have with their 14++++ chips - 1 and 2 cannot be raised in the TDP they are restricted to (unlike desktop, where they can simply lie about the figures, in a laptop this will affect battery life and be easily detected), so they hype 3 and 4 to compensate.
AMD on 7nm does well in all four measures, but you should never think you'll get long-term turbo clock performance from any mobile chip. I don't know if Renoir has a 4C turbo that can last longer than the 8C turbo for lightly threaded loads.
Can a Y or U series SoC be considered the equivalent of an H series SoC internally, with a beefier cooling solution and reduced I/O capabilities externally? I imagine not just the I/O or cooler but also the capacitors and power circuitry need to be higher specified for the higher sustained load.
It's just that few makers even try to create a balanced system around the U or Y series, letting Turbo Boost go wild to impress for the first minute or two, or restraint the system thermally to achieve longer battery life even when you can plug it in.
Acer has consistently impressed me with their attention to detail. There are so many moronic OEMs that put in a single module of RAM but even my 2016 Acer E5-553-T4PT came with 2 modules of 2GB DDR4 RAM to enable the A10-9600P to run in dual channel mode. I suppose they don't get paid to debilitate AMD setups.
Yeah, but then you're stuck with two small SODIMMs to replace when you want more memory...
My 2700U HP came with 1 8GB stick, buying another stick later on when I needed to double capacity was a lot cheaper than rebuying the full desired capacity.
OTOH 16GB isn't a lot these days - and I'd prefer to get the 16GB in soldered fast LPDDR4X form with Renoir and hope I never need 32GB!
So I guess you'd have to plan ahead, then. I was going to upgrade to 4x2 initially but I went with 8x2 after some consideration. But would you really need more than 16 if you're a casual user? What are your workloads like? I do light gaming, web browsing and that sort and even 8 would've been enough for me.
Lenovo Yoga series was the worst with their single channel atrocities, hope they come to their senses in 2020.
Swift 5 2020 (only offered with Intel, no AMD configs I know of) has 8GB onboard with an empty slot running in single channel, but I'm curious how many users think to add another stick. In that case 16GB of onboard RAM is better, at least it reduces BSOD from mismatched RAM.
BTW, if you add a 16GB SO-DIMM to the 8GB onboard, do you get at least the same performance and benefits as 16GB in dual channel mode, or does it create instabilities and other system-wide complications?
Adding a 16GB SO-DIMM to a system with 8GB soldered gives you dual-channel performance for the first 16GB pool of system RAM, with the remaining 8GB running at single-channel performance.
Regarding RAM: at least in China, Swift 3 models with 8GB come with LPDDR4 3200, but there is also a 16GB version, and that uses LPDDR4X 4266, costing ~15% more. It came a ~month later than the 8G model.
For who? Most business and casual users 8gb is plenty.
My company has 10's of thousands of 8gb laptops deployed and we rarely see the need for more and my users love their huge ass spreadsheets and Chrome. Most home users like my family and friends would be fine with it as their workloads are not as robust.
Me personally I would like 16gb for home use as I game. At work I am happy with my 4th gen Intel processor and 8gb of RAM.
Umm... don't forget that system RAM will be shared with iGPU, so, most likely you'll only get 6-7 GB free for windows which I'm sure it won't be enough even for most
That's going to have been the same for his existing systems, though. Your numbers are off too - the amount used by the iGPU is flexible. Right now on my 8GB system with a pair of 1080p screens connected, it's losing 128MB to the iGPU.
For the price of a Xiaomi Mi 10 you get 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, almost too good to pass up. But for 300USD more the Swift 5 has Thunderbolt 3 (vs full-function USB-C alt), full-gamut AUO matte touch screen (vs plain IPS and if it's BOE panel probability is high it flickers), bigger battery (48Wh vs 56Wh), 8GB RAM onboard with an empty slot, and is 200 grams lighter... decisions decisions...
sorten, Deicidium369 doesnt care, he bases his post on his own person anti amd opinions, not facts. he cant get his own personal facts straight, why would he get these facts correct ?
ive noticed, his post there, like here are pure fiction, and comedy gold, specially when others refute is BS, and he has no way to counter it, and just runs away, and doesnt reply back
Re: Power button location. "It's a horrible design, but everyone else is doing it, so we won't knock them for this." No, just because everyone else does a horrible design does not excuse you from having a horrible design.
This year- there is a further, almost universal move to soldered RAM in consumer laptops. It is not totally bad, as we are often getting better LPDDR4(X) RAM. But while last year it became popular to have 1 channel soldered and 1 channel slot- this year almost everything midrange is lighter but all soldered. Exceptions are mostly in cheapest 15.6 inchers like the Aspire3 (only 1 channel soldered, but DDR4 2400, so that is even worse). And business models are also the ones that still get SO-DIMM slots.
Impressive for $650. I am considering the Zephyrus G14, but for less than half the price this looks interesting. Yes, I am comparing apples to oranges: The Swift 3 is a budget/barely-mid-range laptop, the G14 is high-end/gaming. Still, you can game on the Swift 3. The main issue for me is the small battery.
Glad to see the 1065G7 wiped out: bring on the competition: let's see what can Intel come up with in Tiger Lake.
If you don't mind extra weight for better performance for light gaming you might consider the Ideapad 5 15 inch new Ryzen model in the same Swift 3 budget. The same 4500U cpu will not be throttled because of better thermals/bigger case. Performance mode works at 25W tdp
I wish Anandtech would review a good quality laptop with better thermals and screen. No point buying overspecced laptop with horrible screen and thermals. Otherwise 4700U is impressive.
I hope we have a surface 4 with this chip and Dell also releases XPS with AMD chip. I am also curious about Tigerlake with much higher clock speeds.
they did already review an expensive laptop. I think it is good to see what is available in the part of the market where most people buy. Even though yes I'd like to see an xps 13 like laptop with the latest AMD apu to see what it can do.
Spelling and grammar errors: "...not the fullest memory configuration possible as the SoC also support LPDDR4X up to 4266 MHz." Missing "s": "...not the fullest memory configuration possible as the SoC also supports LPDDR4X up to 4266 MHz."
"...but is still an improvement over Picasso." Missing "it": "...but it is still an improvement over Picasso."
Wow, so basically, someone releases a model for $750, takes that extra hundred bucks to improve the display a bit and work on the thermals and you have a premium ultrabook for half the price we are used to. Freaking impressive SoC, and obviously AMD is selling it for a mere fraction of what Intel is asking for there's.
What it does show is that you really need to also review a couple of Intel based notebooks in the $600 range. Until you do, showing the price as tested next to the different models would be great.
Until then, some results like the not so great screen look bad until you realize that the units with a much better screen cost 2-3 times the amount you pay for the bargain notebook tested here. So that's kind of to be expected.
Other than that, the results look good but it shows that if you want to get the most out of an eight core Ryzen 4000 APU, spending a little bit more may not be a bad idea.
https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/acer-swift-3-202... Something like this you're looking. $50 more for an Intel model, slower and less battery life than cheaper Ryzen, but the same average display and other aspects.
There is something funny happening with cooling of this device, and it is best visible in the first power chart. Temperatures are going up slowly from 65C to 70C, but then, at constant power, they shoot up to 95C. This should not be happening unless some component (heatpipe? power delivery?) starts failing, or if fan is speed reduced mid-work (big error in tuning). Also, I have not seen such behavior in other reviews of this laptop- temperatures on them are normally high only during the initial, several minute long 25W boost, but then settle to ~65C once SPL of 18W turns on.
8 Ryzen 4000 series cores with a laptop wrapped around it for $649 USD seems bonkers cheap to me, we were stuck on 4 for so long and two in ULVs until very recently. Why anyone is against competition doing well is beyond me.
U series laptop has roller coaster performance because of the temp tdp small. After several second it will drop significantly. Maybe better had value over a hour in historical pulse continuous benchmark. But this 10 hour acer battery perform is awesome than my s460u i5-8250u. Acer is constantly giving nvme slot ssd than sata low price Asus or Msi notebook since 8th Intel gen cpu released.
Thanks Brett and Andrei! Did you have a chance to remove the bottom cover of your test unit and have a look at the heatpipe and heatsink? Curious what's there, how big or small it is, and how well it fits. Thermal performance is a definite fly in that laptop's ointment, still good value at $ 650 for eight cores, though.
Forgot to add: if you can take the bottom cover of, would be great if you could re-run a limited version of your thermal measurements without that (of course, with the unit supported at least 5 cm above the desk). Really bad case design messes with air flow and venting, and that "test" would pick that up in a heartbeat. I am sometimes amazed how poorly "high tech" companies engineer their enclosures.
If you are interested in such things- check this video about the same laptop: https://youtu.be/awPI4RzKMvY?t=386 (use autotranslate). Basically- he put a thermal pads on the heatpipe so it transfers heat to the aluminum back cover. This allowed higher Cinebench result from cold and also higher and more consistent results in Cinebench loop. Before this modification- two of the 30 CB results were ~10% and 7% lower than others (4:40), while after the modding- all scores were higher, and without drops. Also- with this modification, bottom obviously got warmer, so this is not a solution for everyone.
Thanks, that is an interesting review and modification. As you stated, the reviewer mentioned (assuming I can trust Google translate of the captioning) that this simple addition of thermal pads reduced the erratic thermal throttling a lot, and how little it would add to the BOM costs. Too bad Acer hasn't taken him up on his suggestion! I would pay an extra $5 for that; it's well worth it.
Any chance of memory latency and memory bandwidth comparison charts between the machines used in the SPEC2017 page? Would be interesting/useful to see these charts taking into account the performance on memory bound workloads, even if the Ice Lake part is using LPDDR4 and not DDR4 like the other two.
What the hell is the laptop doing with its thermal management? The SoC Temp FC5 just doesn't match up with the wattage it is drinking. Is the fan curve bad? Does the chip just flips out when it needs to balance CPU and iGPU powerdraw while it is hovering around the hard throttle temp limit?
I found that link posted by neblogai a few comments up really informative! Apparently, Acer left a lot of potential, yet straightforward heat dissipation on the table.
"AMD is obviously on a roll but looking at these Ice Lake results I'd say Intel ain't dead yet. We have a fight on our hands!"
Firstly, I don't think it is a good comparison between a top end laptop running the top end Intel Ice Lake chip, and this low end Swift 3, running a mid high end Renoir chip. Top end laptops normally put in more care when it comes to cooling, and I believe this Dell model may be using a dual fan cooling solution despite its small and slim size. The cooling will certainly help improve sustained and burst performance, which in turn affect the benchmark scores. From my experience, Acer Swift 3 typically employs a single fan, single heatpipe cooling solution, which is woefully poor in cooling. If you look at some reviews out there on Ice Lake performance on lower end laptops, you noticed that the sustained clockspeed can go below 2Ghz, which will certainly hurt performance.
Secondly spec wise, the i7 and faster RAMs on the Dell will also give it an edge, against the Ryzen 7 4700U with slower RAM.
In this case, just as the review pointed out in the thermal section, I feel the Ryzen 7 4700U is actually very thermally limited to show its full potential. Hopefully we see other PC makers/ models that will provide better cooling.
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Not sure if anyone pointed out as a feedback, but the legend and the numbers on the axis on the thermal related graphs are too small to see.
Anyway, I actually don't find it surprising the performance is once again held back by poor cooling. Considering this is a 1.2KG 14 inch laptop, it should not come across as surprising. We need to consider the fact that this is a proper 8 core processor with a fast GPU. While light is good, but I feel we have gone passed a reasonable/ sensible pushed for slimmer and ligher laptops. Slimmer/ lighter generally means compromising on battery, and/or, cooling.
There may be an issue with the sample Anandtech got. Cooling is generally praised in other reviews of the same laptop, it does not go over 70C at sustained loads (18W). Also, here is FarCry5 running perfectly fine of Swift3 (4500U, but same at the same 18W): https://youtu.be/TvVaJ5jlgsQ However, if you look at the graphs Anandtech posted- especially the first graph is telling: at 18W, temps go up slowly from ~65C to ~70C, but then suddenly jump to ~95C, with a hard throttle as a result. Something is failing in their unit, a properly functioning cooling would not be behaving like this.
Can someone explain: According to Wikipedia, the 4700U iGPU gives 1433.6 GFLOPS raw performance and the 3780U iGPU gives 1971.2 GFLOPS. Why does this review seem to give the 4700U the win every time in real world performance? Is the review selective? Is Wikipedia wrong? Is the CPU/GPU I/O better in Zen 2?
1. TFPLOPs is just one paramether- Renoir has higher bandwidth, 2x IF width with iGPU, higher Pixel rate, etc. 2. Those Picasso TFLOPs in Wiki, and in AMD slides, are theoretical/marketing speeds, not real life ones. Picasso can not run games at that clock/those TFLOPs, as there is not enough power for it. While Renoir/ is mostly able to keep it's boost/TFLOPs (at least in CPU/light games).
If you are looking for better monitor and longer battery life, I think you will need to move up to the Swift 5 series. I observed that Acer have been using very dim monitors (250 nits or lower) on their Swift 3 series for a number of years now and I doubt they will give you a better option to maintain the product segmentation.
I found phones like Hisense A5c, A5pro cc and Hisense tablet Q5 very unique for their E-ink / RLCD screen, could you please do a review when they are available on the market? Thanks!
I'm a bit disappointed in the GPU testing suite here. A combination of synthetics and AAA titles of various ages seems an odd fit for an iGPU - where are the lighter titles, esports titles, etc? _A lot_ of people would want to know how a notebook like this handles LoL, Rocket League, CS:GO, etc.
Still, interesting how DDR4-3200 Renoir Vega 7 beats (or sometimes matches) LPDDR4X-3733 Ice Lake G7 - at 15W vs 25W no less, if the comparison is the Dell XPS 13. Makes me very interested in seeing an in-depth review of a 25W-configured 4700U or 4800U with LPDDR4X-4266.
Also good to get confirmation that a 25W cTDP-up laptop is what you want for gaming - those bouncy frequencies would make for poor frametime consistency.
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
I saw that, but an average due to crazy throttling spikes can't be seen as representative (nor can the FPS in that case be used; that's why you have 1% and .1% minimums.). Hopefully there will be a firmware/BIOS update to improve this.
Turd screen, turd battery, turd cooling. This things a turd. Price is irrelevant. You can buy second hand for half the price with similar compromises if that's what you want.
It only bogged down while playing certain games. It was fine for decently hard work loads, encoding and light gaming. If you want to play Far Cry 5, this is a turd, as is any laptop with IGP.
So, this laptop apparently doesn't show the performance of the AMD processor at all, because it has garbage cooling.
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
8 watts versus Intel's 25?
"performance here will be strongly impacted by the TDP as well as cooling of the systems. Both AMD parts are 15W TDP designs, while the Intel chip sustains 25W."
Does it sustain 25 watts or is that merely the TDP? Knowing Intel, I assume it goes beyond that.
"The generational improvements here aren’t enough to catch up to Intel’s Sunny Cove cores in the Ice Lake i7-1065G7. Although that core might be running at higher single-core TDPs and power consumption, it still makes for a big gap in some of the more instruction pressure and cache pressure high workloads such as 500.perlbench_r and 502.gcc_r where the Intel chip still has a considerable lead in."
Forgot to leave a comment. This laptop is almost perfect for me, 8 core and I don't need discrete. But, the cooling is abysmal. It reaches 100 degrees and stays at 90C?! I have a cheaper Lenovo but its cooling is overkill for an Intel-U TDP SoC.
Something was probably wrong with the sample Anandtech got. Here is a video of FarCry5- Swift 3 4700U temps stay at nice and cool ~69C even in the long and action packed scene: https://youtu.be/8A2XFdAZLPQ . There is also another test with a 4500U model from the same channel- no temperature issues there either, nor in any of the ~20 games tested. Other channels, like Dave Lee, also say that cooling is just so capable and quiet, that Acer should have upped cTDP higher.
The throttling is to be expected when you see a 1.2kg laptop. Where can they cut in order to lose few hundred grams, when the battery size is the same? Surely its got to be the cooling solution. If you are looking for performance, these ultra slim laptops are not for you. The same problem plagues Intel based laptops as well. As PC maker/ manufacturers go crazy about cutting weight and size of laptops, a lot of these thin laptops suffer from thermal throttling, poor upgradeability and missing port convenience.
In this case, I think there may be something wrong with the fan curve and should be resolved through some software updates. The cooling solution looks normal to me after cracking open a few of these laptops with low power processors. Only observation is that the heatsink is getting thinner over the years, which will certainly impact cooling. Mid end models should have a longer heatsink with slightly bigger fan to cover the longer heatsink, while high end models may end up with dual heatsink and fan cooling solution to get around the slimness.
"The throttling is to be expected when you see a 1.2kg laptop. Where can they cut in order to lose few hundred grams, when the battery size is the same? Surely its got to be the cooling solution. If you are looking for performance, these ultra slim laptops are not for you."
I don't buy this excuse.
When a company sells a product it shouldn't be a bait and switch deal.
If Acer wants to post "8+ watts" as the TDP of the CPU in a prominent place that's one thing. If it lists 15W and/or just the CPU model then that's not good enough.
Moreover, it should be made clear to the consumer that the CPU is throttled to get to that 8 watts, not that it's just so efficient it can function at 8 watts to do the equivalent of what should take 15 for the same CPU because of something special about the machine's design.
If the machine can't handle a 15 watt CPU then it should be throttled to what it can handle and that should be the spec sold to consumers, not the spec it can't handle.
What you guys don't get is the internals are great at the price of a very CRAP display. Just look up the srgb and the Adobe rgb its terrible. The brightness nits are 250 which is pretty much as dark as you can go with laptops. SO if the display doesn't mean that much, this an awesome deal. If it does all the power in the world isn't going to make that Display any better. It's also made out of plastic......It's up to you ......
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
191 Comments
Back to Article
nandnandnand - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
$629 USD $649 USDWow, faster processor and double the SSD for $20... X.
ingwe - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Wow yeah that pricing makes absolutely zero sense to me. A typo maybe?neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Yes, it is interesting. In other cases (Lenovo, or HP)- 4500U to 4700U costs ~€100 extra.n_gu - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link
acer is currently sell it in my country and the price is aroud us $650 and $750Santoval - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I found that strange as well. Since it doesn't appear to be an error perhaps Acer was able to drop the price of the 4700U (and get it so close to that of the 4500U unit) by pairing the 4700U unit with a panel of a quite lower quality. The monitor of the 4700U unit scored the worst in nearly all of the tests, so it's possible that it has a poorer panel than its smaller sibling.Namisecond - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Or they could be overcharging for the lower tier model.Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."Maybe not overcharging for any of them, considering the apparently poor cooling and the display that can't even bother to cover the ancient paltry sRGB standard with even decent results.
watzupken - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The Samsung PM991, not sure if this is a 2242 drive? I have one running in my laptop and it is super toasty. Under non disk intensive load, I saw temp readings in HWMonitor up to 74 degs after 5 to 10 mins of use. As a result, the keyboard just above the SSD is super hot as well. It doesn't cause burns, but it is uncomfortable to leave your hands/ fingers on it.MrCommunistGen - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
The teardown pic of the internals on Tom's Hardware shows what looks like a 2280 M.2 SSD.FWIW, the PM991 board is almost completely bare and it looks like all the components would probably fit on a 2242 size M.2 board if they cut down on all the bare area on the board.
sonny73n - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I’ve been looking to buy this laptop but it’s not available anywhere.Roland00Address - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link
MSRP prices are never rational, especially on commodities who often sell much less than their MSRP. While "branded / halo" items rarely deviate from their MSRPs.yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
"and allows them to compete not just on performance, but battery life as well" - how it allows them to compete when we clearly see in the normalized test that they are 25% worse compared to Intel?yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Nevertheless, the implementation is disappointing since it cannot sustain a stable frequency, so gaming will be hard on this...I guess that 650$ price is not without of reason...Steve1992 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The frequencies are fine: https://youtu.be/Xyns9jjEt5MSteve1992 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Better example: https://youtu.be/pGgY-Aw2dZoneblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
They are OK, but could be better. iGPU can keep the frequences in CPU-light games, but drops them in CPU heavy games like Forza Horizon, Dota2, and especially Battlefield V multiplayer. Also, in case of GTA5 benchmark you posted- note that the video starts with APU at 25W, which is while APU is still boosting (several minutes). Then it goes to sustained power limit of 18W, and will stay there, with lower power and clocks.Flunk - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Low priced thin and lights with integrated graphics are all pretty much useless for gaming. It's not a reasonable or use case... at least according to notebook designers.DanNeely - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Gaming on a laptop with an IGP will never be a great experience because you either have to turn the quality settings down a lot or play older/less graphically complex titles; but that doesn't mean people don't do it. There's no easy way to get a desktop/mobile split, but ~10% of systems in the Steam HW Survey use some Intel GPU; I suspect a majority of them are laptops because it's where you're stuck with the IGP and can't slap in even a cheap discrete GPU for faster speeds.The GPU here isn't a 200W discrete card, or even a 40W discrete card; but it is a step above Intel's IGPs. That makes it an attractive option for someone who wants to be able to game on a laptop without spending a lot more and sacrificing profitability.
I do it some of the time when away from home on an old XPS13 with a i7-6xxx. It's a limited experience, especially after this many years, but is still better than mobile gaming on my phone.
philehidiot - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
It has always been the case that if you want a decent gaming laptop, you're paying big bucks. I think the pricing here is pretty damned awesome. I'd never buy a laptop like this for gaming. It's that simple. The Vega GPU is kinda nice to have but integrated graphics are simply not meant for decent gaming. It's that simple. If you're looking at this and thinking "ooh gaming machine", you need to recalibrate your expectations.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Well, gaming does not have to be the latest AAA specifically. Majority of best games will run on this integrated Vega very well. Most E-sports are also playble. And even a lot of best latest AAA will run well enough to experience and enjoy the game (if the game has to offer more than just graphics).Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
8 watts is not awesome:"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Not being able to cover the pathetic old sRGB color space with even a slight level of accuracy is not awesome.
sonny73n - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
It’s the heat issue on heavy load. Looking at HSF with the back cover opened on TH, I was thinking how to modify it for a better heat dissipation. There’s only one heatpipe running about 3 inches to the fins. I doubt repaste will help much.uzzi38 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Because battery life is also about the rest of the components in the laptop as well. The screen especially so. Those results are normalised battery size, not normallised with rest-of-system power draw in mind.Jorgp2 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Isn't that still up to AMD?Intel helped spec out low power displays to use with Athena devices
They also make their own chipsets.
SolarBear28 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I don't think AMD has the bargaining power (or marketing clout) to force OEM's to use expensive, lower power components the same way Intel does. But they have done something similar by requiring certain specs with their HS series processors.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Not, it's up to the OEM.OEM's don't even *have* to use Athena, though it looks like they're being heavily "persuaded".
yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
D'oh, obviously. That is where the 650$ price is. In cheap components.SolarBear28 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Exactly. The XPS 13 2 in 1 is one of the most efficient Intel devices out there due to its screen and other components. The Swift 3 beats the Yoga C930 in the normalized test, so AMD is roughly in the same ballpark as Intel on power consumption. But its up to the OEM's to do the rest. With their HS series processors AMD pushed certain requirements on ASUS and the ROG G14 provides great battery life. Also the leaked specs of some Renoir Thinkpads point to a proper lower power display being an option, I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of the T14s.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
This. It's not entirely a fair fight.neogodless - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
If I understand correctly, we're talking about battery life from an 8-core processor being only 25% off that of a 4-core processor. That's actually pretty good.yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
We're talking here about the whole platform, not the cpu only. What I am saying is that you pay with some shortcomings for that 650$ price.Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Yes, you do. This is why it would be great to have $600ish Intel review units to compare to rather than $1500 plus devices. LPDDR4 vs. DDR4 may explain a part of the difference.Still, it's eight cores vs. four cores and the interesting value that imho is missing is power consumption / battery life during the actual benchmarks.
Deicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Acer Swift SF314-57-59EY - identical to the review unit - uses Ice Lake i5-1035G1. $679.00.Intel shows 10hrs - AMD shows 11 hours.
https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/NX.HJF...
SolarBear28 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Thanks for the linkDeicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
This is not a premium device - it isn't a premium device with AMD or Intel processors. Regardless of whether you choose AMD or Intel - it's still a low cost device.The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise - no one using this laptop will be doing anything that even requires 4 cores. For $649, you get a very good laptop.
Korguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
still believe the BS intel keeps feeding you huh Deicidium369 ? intel shillDeicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
still believe the BS amdkeeps feeding you huh Korguz? amd shill.Jimmy - have you cleaned up the basement?
Korguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
better then intels, you should work on keeping your personal facts straight, instead of posting BS posts on here.Korguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
but i will talk your comment as you still believe intel and their mainstream only needs 4 cores BS marketing crapschujj07 - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Deicidium cannot read the benchmarks. Sure Ice Lake is better in Spec. However, in the application benchmarks the best Ice Lake laptops lose far more than they win against a budget laptop.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Deicidium doesn't care that the benchmarks invalidate his talking points. As long as Intel only have 4 cores at 15W, 4 cores will be enough. Once Intel get 8 cores at 15W, he'll find a reason why it suddenly makes sense.SolarBear28 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Regardless of whether or not 8 cores is necessary in a budget device, I think its a good policy to get as much CPU as you can for the money, especially in a non upgradable laptop. I have a usable 10 year old laptop because I got more CPU power than i needed at the time of purchase.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
This. If you're keeping a device for more than 4 years, you're buying for the software made then, not now.0iron - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I wish I could give 👍 to your comment!sonny73n - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
@deici“ The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise - no one using this laptop will be doing anything that even requires 4 cores. ”
I open 15 tabs on average with web browser(s). I also transcode movies very frequently. So the more cores the better. We know you’re full of BS, Intel shill.
Dribble - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Having millions of tabs open doesn't require lots of cores, just enough memory. You aren't going to be transcoding movies on a cheap laptop with a little SSD.sonny73n - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
@DribbleObviously you’ve never worked with browsers before. More cores is better for multitasking but someone on here said otherwise.
Yes, I’m transcoding a few Disney movies every week for my 4 years old son so he can watch them with his iPad.
I’m not going to explain to you in technical details. If you think “the extra cores are useless...” like Deici does, you’re totally in a different league.
Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
"The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise"Maybe, maybe not. Not really your place to say how other people are supposed to use their laptops, is it?
Bear in mind that we only got 4 cores at 15W from Intel *after* AMD announced the original Ryzen APU. Your logic now sounds like theirs when they designed Kaby Lake.
GreenReaper - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Browser tabs, virus checkers, malware, that stream you have going in the corner on your secondary monitor - all of those things take up cores. A lot of software has been redeveloped to use all the cores available to it nowadays.fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Is it because the 8-core throttles more to an even lower power state, spending more time to cool down?I'm also curious to see evaluations of how much of that 25% battery time is consumed by wasted cycles in actual application performance. Probably not a lot on a benchmarks, since the SoC is designed to be shut down idle cores, but in real life the OS probably fires them up for no good reason, probably just because they they're there. I mean this is a mix of apps with legacy UI's and libraries we're talking about, not server optimized cloud applications.
Accordingly, from a software and sustained performance perspective, is it better just to focus on single core performance?
I have a tendency to get a more predictable Core i3-8145U sans Turbo Boost, or a Ryzen 3-3200U with fewer cores, despite them looking poor on benchmarks. I have no idea what I'm missing, but hopefully it's a worthy trade-off. At least there's less throttling due to quicker heat up of quad/hex/octa-cores, longer battery life due to less cores to address, and wasted cycles due to inefficiencies in the application/OS.
Hope this is something Anandtech can investigate? Too many brilliant minds are trained on phone topics, but not the state of affairs in PC land.
fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Because over in Mac land they finally got the butterfly keyboard revolt over with and now talks can resume on the finer points of systems design. But it's not looking good for fine arts because the front burners have been conscripted for the A15 (MacOS on ARM) revolution.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Buying a CPU that doesn't have turbo is *not* a worthy trade-off unless you simply cannot afford anything better, because you'll be leaving a whole ton of performance on the table - especially when the device is plugged in.The 25% battery deficit isn't as simple as "more cores, more power" either - check out the Zephyrus G14 vs the Razer Blade 15 for a more appropriate comparison of well-designed devices. Put simply, that deficit has more to do with how this particular notebook was designed than it does to do with Ryzen 4000.
Focusing on single-thread performance when the vast majority of applications users interact with are multi-threaded doesn't really make sense, either. I'd recommend reading in a little more depth.
Omega215D - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Looks like we've got another piece of crap Intel fanboy here intent on spreading FUD on AMD's new mobile processors. So far reviews of the ASUS TUF featuring the new procs do far better on battery life and gaming performance.yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Looks like we've got another piece of crap AMD fanboy that cannot read the damn graphs.yankeeDDL - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The XPS and the Surface cost about twice as much as the Swift 3: they are high-end systems with high-end components, especially screens.Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Actually the Dell's "as reviewed" price on At was $ 1,749.99, the Surface Laptop 3 with a 512GB SSD costs $ 2,199, so we are talking three times the price. The Yoga C930 is almost budget, costing only slightly less than twice as much as the Swift.yankeeDDL - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Thanks. You're right of course.Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Eight cores vs. four cores....You have surely seen the battery life comparisons between Ryzen 4000 and Intel's eight core counterpart.
notb - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Number of cores is of less importance. Intel makes 16-core processors using 30W and 6-core chips using 100W.Comparison of 8-core SoCs are between chips made on TSMC 7N and Intel 14nm, which makes AMD much more efficient.
This comparison is for TSMC 7N vs Intel 10nm.
What matters is performance vs power and average these are similar. The gap will be minimal when Intel launches 6 or 8-core models later this year.
Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Is there any evidence that Intel will be releasing 10nm 15W 6-8 core CPUs this year? I thought they were sticking with 4 cores on 10nm and releasing 6-8core 15W 14nm CPUs.12345 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The dell xps has half the cores and a slightly bigger battery...notb - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
There's a "normalized" comparison with battery capacity impact removed.Don't look at the number of cores. It doesn't matter.
Look at performance:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15762/the-acer-swif...
Ryzen is faster, but not twice as fast.
Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
These aren't relevant to the "normalized" scores. What is relevant is: smaller screen, lower-power screen, platform design optimised over several generations, and that the device costs nearly 3 times as much. You can do a lot more selective component sourcing and rigorous platform optimization for that price difference.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
1) Competing doesn't mean winning, and an improvement that gets AMD to the point of working-day battery life from an inexpensive device is a significant one. It's definitely competing.2) Based on the results in other areas (like sustained frequency) I'm inclined to believe this isn't a particularly well-optimised example of the platform - meanwhile, the Intel hardware it's up against has been well-characterised by the OEMs at this stage. It doesn't matter to a consumer or a buyer of this specific device, but it does affect overall comparisons. The numbers from the Zephyrus G14 are much more positive (although it does use a better bin of the chip).
warisz00r - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I'd be more than happy to pay $300 - $400 more if it comes with 1) bigger battery 2) double the RAM 3) better display and 4) better cooling but $649 is still a really good deal for those who prioritizes CPU performance.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Check the Lenovo Slim 7. It is a bit more expensive to start with, and weighs 1.4kg, but comes with 100% sRGB Freesync IPS 300Nits+ display, bigger battery, has option for 16GB of RAM (LPDDR4X 4266), and much higher power profiles that allow sustained ~28W APU power.psychobriggsy - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
That looks really nice! And Freesync on an APU powered laptop makes sense as frame rates can dip.ads295 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I think Acer look to appeal to a certain class of people that don't want to pay too much for a decent PC and don't really know a lot about them either - I guess that's your typical consumer who doesn't read AnandTech. So all these additions would undoubtedly add value to the notebook but whether the increase in perceived value is enough to justify an increase in price is a matter of risk.Evidently they think it's better to stick to a formula (compact form, good APU, plenty of RAM and SSD storage with decent battery life) to make it a no-brainer of sorts at that price point.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The price is outstanding for an 8C performance-leading laptop.But yes, if Acer could do a version of this but: (1) 16GB LPDDR4X on board (2) Upgrade the screen quality (or at least offer a screen upgrade or two at online purchase time) (3) better battery option (if space allows).
The screen is the real let down in this device however - which is a shame considering the performance.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Oh, yeah... Throttling the CPU to 8 watts is a recipe for being "performance-leading".PeterCollier - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
So how much were you paid by AMD for this Intel hitpiece?Brane2 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Why did they have to pay him for that ?Intel hits itself for free.
It's a security nightmare.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
What a ridiculous comment.vanilla_gorilla - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Imagine being a "fanboy" and being so shocked at how well some other brand does against your favorite that you think the review is literally rigged. Just imagine being so wrapped up in some random brand that couldn't care less about you. Crazy.yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
No man, these cpus are actually that good...Actually if you even have a bind of technical understanding you'll know why...7nm vs broken 10nm, the results couldn't be otherwise...
Deicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Broken 10nm? Really? LOLKorguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
yep, broken, FUBAR, still not working right, cant make cpus that are more then 4, maybe 6 cores, and frequencies that a much lower then anything on 14+++++, but you being a blind intel shill, wont let you see it, as you have proven in many other posts where others have called you out on your BSSpunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Yup. It took 3 years to ramp to a limited run of a 4-core low-power CPU, and it still can't match the density *or* the power characteristics of the supposedly-inferior 7nm TSMC process.If that's working, who needs broken?! 🤣
Deicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
LOL - pretty fair review for a laptop that is positioned as an alternative to a chromebook. The almost identical Ice Lake version is just as underwhelming.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
How much do you get paid to write this crap? Or are you doing it for free? That would be S A D.lightningz71 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
It appears that the Acer Swift design philosophy just doesn't translate for anything that requires a high steady-state power draw and thermal load. The Swift had the same issues with the 2XXX and 3XXX series chips as well, so this is nothing new. This is something that Acer has deliberately chosen to make a design trade-off for: sacrifice some thermal dissipation ability to keep the product in the size class that it is intended for.It will be interesting to see the benchmarks on the 4500U in this platform. It was shown in benchmarks of previous versions of the swift that lower end APUs actually performed better in gaming than the top end parts because the system was better able to manage the thermal output and the APU was better able to keep consistent clocks. While the absolute performance was still lower than notebooks with better thermal management implementations, it was a better gaming performer than the top end SKU.
neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Generally, you are not complaining about Acer, but about U-series chips from both Intel or AMD. The philosophy of laptops with ~15W chips is that these chips are used in ultrabooks that are responsive and fast in short boosts, and not made for steady power (even if there are some premium devices that offer both).fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
The 2019 Swift 5 and LG Gram series were matched to the thermal promises of Intel 10nm chips that took 2 generations to arrive, and maybe 5nm AMD SoCs in 2021 since AMD decided to rush to market with last generation GPU architecture in early 2020. Perhaps with software or AI based optimization, there can be a more optimal mix of processes split between the CPU versus the GPU for best performance within thermal constraints. Not every task is as clear cut as gaming routines, where more of the work is performed more efficiently on the GPU. I'm not sure that will happen though, as such software optimization has the least return on investment outside cloud and data center applications. Not even Apple wants to do it for the 2020 Macbook Air, thermally crippling a fine Intel chip and resolving the issue by sticking a more powerful cooling solution in a Macbook Pro (and charge more).For 2020, Acer managed to get the Swift 3 down to 1.2kg from 1.45kg of the 2019 model through the use of aluminum AND magnesium (not just aluminum as the article states). The 2020 Swift 5 maintains a 1kg weight while including a rare-breed matte touch screen. The Swift 5 is the model you want to get for 100% sRGB at a $300 premium. I think the only reason these fine machines sell for $600 to $900 for a mid-range configuration is the thermally constrained performance of the more stubbornly ambitious SoCs.
Which if they can think outside the box can easily resolve by selling a fan-assisted cooling dock and unleash the full potential of the SoC we already paid for (and charge more).
Fulljack - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
while Vega here is based on GCN 5 and not RDNA, it doesn't mean it's an outdated architecture. AMD did enhance the Vega arch for Ryzen 4000, with 56% improvement over Vega arch found in Ryzen 3000. overall, with enhanced arch, reduced core count, and higher clock, AMD did deliver 2020 Vega 8 that performs 28% better than 2019 Vega 11.https://www.anandtech.com/show/15324/amd-ryzen-400...
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
All irrelevant when the laptop's cooling is so pathetic:"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
csp4me - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Acer Swift 3 and 5 are in the market for lightweight, cool & quiet laptops within thermal constraints, thus ~ 18W tdp, and throttling under stress test.For the same budget of Acer Swift 5 ~ $900 you can find laptop models with the same quality display or better and also better thermals ~ 28W-35W at the expense of weight 1.3-1.4kg and noise/heat during heavy loads. Examples Lenovo Ideapad S540-13 both AMD or Intel, or Yoga Slim 7 both AMD or Intel.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
When you buy low power laptops - Y or U series TDPs - you are really looking out for these things1) Sustained Single Core Clock
2) Sustained All-Core Clock
3) Race-To-Sleep Single Core Turbo Boost (and the time it can sustain this)
4) Race-To-Sleep All-Core Turbo Boost (and the time it can sustain this)
1 and 2 are what your gaming sessions will occur in. 3 and 4 might help in some particularly CPU-heavy parts, but only for small periods of time.
This is the problem Intel have with their 14++++ chips - 1 and 2 cannot be raised in the TDP they are restricted to (unlike desktop, where they can simply lie about the figures, in a laptop this will affect battery life and be easily detected), so they hype 3 and 4 to compensate.
AMD on 7nm does well in all four measures, but you should never think you'll get long-term turbo clock performance from any mobile chip. I don't know if Renoir has a 4C turbo that can last longer than the 8C turbo for lightly threaded loads.
fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Can a Y or U series SoC be considered the equivalent of an H series SoC internally, with a beefier cooling solution and reduced I/O capabilities externally? I imagine not just the I/O or cooler but also the capacitors and power circuitry need to be higher specified for the higher sustained load.It's just that few makers even try to create a balanced system around the U or Y series, letting Turbo Boost go wild to impress for the first minute or two, or restraint the system thermally to achieve longer battery life even when you can plug it in.
T1beriu - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
>the mobile chips here only feature half the L3 cache compared to its desktop counterpartsSmall correction. Ryzen 4000 actually has a quarter.
ads295 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Acer has consistently impressed me with their attention to detail. There are so many moronic OEMs that put in a single module of RAM but even my 2016 Acer E5-553-T4PT came with 2 modules of 2GB DDR4 RAM to enable the A10-9600P to run in dual channel mode.I suppose they don't get paid to debilitate AMD setups.
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Yeah, but then you're stuck with two small SODIMMs to replace when you want more memory...My 2700U HP came with 1 8GB stick, buying another stick later on when I needed to double capacity was a lot cheaper than rebuying the full desired capacity.
OTOH 16GB isn't a lot these days - and I'd prefer to get the 16GB in soldered fast LPDDR4X form with Renoir and hope I never need 32GB!
ads295 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
So I guess you'd have to plan ahead, then. I was going to upgrade to 4x2 initially but I went with 8x2 after some consideration.But would you really need more than 16 if you're a casual user? What are your workloads like? I do light gaming, web browsing and that sort and even 8 would've been enough for me.
fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Lenovo Yoga series was the worst with their single channel atrocities, hope they come to their senses in 2020.Swift 5 2020 (only offered with Intel, no AMD configs I know of) has 8GB onboard with an empty slot running in single channel, but I'm curious how many users think to add another stick. In that case 16GB of onboard RAM is better, at least it reduces BSOD from mismatched RAM.
BTW, if you add a 16GB SO-DIMM to the 8GB onboard, do you get at least the same performance and benefits as 16GB in dual channel mode, or does it create instabilities and other system-wide complications?
csp4me - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
please check your sources man, Swift 5 2020 under 1 kg can never have empty slots, everything is soldered. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-5-Laptop-...fmcjw - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
You're right, thanks, I got it mixed up with the LG Gram (2020). Acer is soldered.Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Adding a 16GB SO-DIMM to a system with 8GB soldered gives you dual-channel performance for the first 16GB pool of system RAM, with the remaining 8GB running at single-channel performance.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Regarding RAM: at least in China, Swift 3 models with 8GB come with LPDDR4 3200, but there is also a 16GB version, and that uses LPDDR4X 4266, costing ~15% more. It came a ~month later than the 8G model.eddieobscurant - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I don't understand why they don't offer a model with more ram. 8gb, non-upgradable ram is too low.Holliday75 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
For who? Most business and casual users 8gb is plenty.My company has 10's of thousands of 8gb laptops deployed and we rarely see the need for more and my users love their huge ass spreadsheets and Chrome. Most home users like my family and friends would be fine with it as their workloads are not as robust.
Me personally I would like 16gb for home use as I game. At work I am happy with my 4th gen Intel processor and 8gb of RAM.
RinzImpulse - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Umm... don't forget that system RAM will be shared with iGPU, so, most likely you'll only get 6-7 GB free for windows which I'm sure it won't be enough even for mostSpunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
That's going to have been the same for his existing systems, though. Your numbers are off too - the amount used by the iGPU is flexible. Right now on my 8GB system with a pair of 1080p screens connected, it's losing 128MB to the iGPU.Icehawk - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
My enterprise loads so many agents a typical machine sits at 4-6gb at boot. 16gb is plenty for almost anyone though.fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
You're talking about this one, right? Looks like the same model bring reviewed here.https://item.jd.com/100006461093.html#crumb-wrap
For the price of a Xiaomi Mi 10 you get 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, almost too good to pass up. But for 300USD more the Swift 5 has Thunderbolt 3 (vs full-function USB-C alt), full-gamut AUO matte touch screen (vs plain IPS and if it's BOE panel probability is high it flickers), bigger battery (48Wh vs 56Wh), 8GB RAM onboard with an empty slot, and is 200 grams lighter... decisions decisions...
eek2121 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
“ To see how the Acer Swift 3 with Ryzen 7 4700U performs, we have run it through our laptop test suite to see how it performs.”Grammar.
sorten - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Whew, the news for Intel is as bad as we expected.Deicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/NX.HJF... Identical except for the APUsorten - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
LOL ... The i7 got pounded into the dirt, and even the i5 is more expensive than the AMD powered version.Korguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
sorten, Deicidium369 doesnt care, he bases his post on his own person anti amd opinions, not facts. he cant get his own personal facts straight, why would he get these facts correct ?schujj07 - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
He was banned from Tomshardware forum. He posted mostly false information and had the attitude of a cyber bully.Korguz - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
ive noticed, his post there, like here are pure fiction, and comedy gold, specially when others refute is BS, and he has no way to counter it, and just runs away, and doesnt reply backKorguz - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
i also noticed, he has been unbanned too, and he doesnt know why he was banned in the 1st place ? come onjardows2 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Re: Power button location. "It's a horrible design, but everyone else is doing it, so we won't knock them for this." No, just because everyone else does a horrible design does not excuse you from having a horrible design.Holliday75 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
He did knock it.....in a passive aggressive way by simply mentioning it.icalic - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Any update about AMD 25x20 progress?JustMe21 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Is the RAM soldered? That's a deal breaker for me as I like to put in better RAM than what is usually installed.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
This year- there is a further, almost universal move to soldered RAM in consumer laptops. It is not totally bad, as we are often getting better LPDDR4(X) RAM. But while last year it became popular to have 1 channel soldered and 1 channel slot- this year almost everything midrange is lighter but all soldered. Exceptions are mostly in cheapest 15.6 inchers like the Aspire3 (only 1 channel soldered, but DDR4 2400, so that is even worse). And business models are also the ones that still get SO-DIMM slots.Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Laptop makers have noticed that most Mac owners, for instance, upgrade the RAM in their machines to extend their lifespan.They can't have that. The landfills and the shareholders, are hungry.
yankeeDDL - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Impressive for $650.I am considering the Zephyrus G14, but for less than half the price this looks interesting.
Yes, I am comparing apples to oranges: The Swift 3 is a budget/barely-mid-range laptop, the G14 is high-end/gaming. Still, you can game on the Swift 3. The main issue for me is the small battery.
Glad to see the 1065G7 wiped out: bring on the competition: let's see what can Intel come up with in Tiger Lake.
R3MF - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
A half way house: the Lenovo S540 13-ARE for ~$750, and with thermals capable of cooling the U series at 25W.yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Tigerlake will probably close the performance gap with 4700U, but 4800U/4900U will still be better in perf/efficiency.Deicidium369 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
LOL doubt it. Tiger Lake Xe LP will wipe the floor with the 4900U.Korguz - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
you have proof of this ? of course not, you have no way to prove ANYTHING you say, cause its your own personal anti amd BS.csp4me - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
If you don't mind extra weight for better performance for light gaming you might consider the Ideapad 5 15 inch new Ryzen model in the same Swift 3 budget. The same 4500U cpu will not be throttled because of better thermals/bigger case. Performance mode works at 25W tdptrivik12 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I wish Anandtech would review a good quality laptop with better thermals and screen. No point buying overspecced laptop with horrible screen and thermals. Otherwise 4700U is impressive.I hope we have a surface 4 with this chip and Dell also releases XPS with AMD chip. I am also curious about Tigerlake with much higher clock speeds.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
But then Intel wouldn't look competitive, most likely.jospoortvliet - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
they did already review an expensive laptop. I think it is good to see what is available in the part of the market where most people buy. Even though yes I'd like to see an xps 13 like laptop with the latest AMD apu to see what it can do.ballsystemlord - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Spelling and grammar errors:"...not the fullest memory configuration possible as the SoC also support LPDDR4X up to 4266 MHz."
Missing "s":
"...not the fullest memory configuration possible as the SoC also supports LPDDR4X up to 4266 MHz."
"...but is still an improvement over Picasso."
Missing "it":
"...but it is still an improvement over Picasso."
Thanks for the great laptop review Andrei!!!
gijames1225 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Wow, so basically, someone releases a model for $750, takes that extra hundred bucks to improve the display a bit and work on the thermals and you have a premium ultrabook for half the price we are used to. Freaking impressive SoC, and obviously AMD is selling it for a mere fraction of what Intel is asking for there's.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Acer themselves could do that by offering another screen option. But maybe they are segmenting it for Swift 5 and 7.PixyMisa - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
They have Swift 3 models with a 2256 x 1504 3:2 screen. That screen with the 4700U would make a great combination.Dug - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I had no idea they had a 3:2 aspect ratio (my favorite). Thanks!Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Nice review, thanks !What it does show is that you really need to also review a couple of Intel based notebooks in the $600 range. Until you do, showing the price as tested next to the different models would be great.
Until then, some results like the not so great screen look bad until you realize that the units with a much better screen cost 2-3 times the amount you pay for the bargain notebook tested here. So that's kind of to be expected.
Other than that, the results look good but it shows that if you want to get the most out of an eight core Ryzen 4000 APU, spending a little bit more may not be a bad idea.
csp4me - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/acer-swift-3-202...Something like this you're looking. $50 more for an Intel model, slower and less battery life than cheaper Ryzen, but the same average display and other aspects.
neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
There is something funny happening with cooling of this device, and it is best visible in the first power chart. Temperatures are going up slowly from 65C to 70C, but then, at constant power, they shoot up to 95C. This should not be happening unless some component (heatpipe? power delivery?) starts failing, or if fan is speed reduced mid-work (big error in tuning). Also, I have not seen such behavior in other reviews of this laptop- temperatures on them are normally high only during the initial, several minute long 25W boost, but then settle to ~65C once SPL of 18W turns on.gggplaya - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
That price cant be right, for $20 you get twice the ssd storage and 2 full more cores. Why would anyone bother with the 6 core model?tipoo - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
8 Ryzen 4000 series cores with a laptop wrapped around it for $649 USD seems bonkers cheap to me, we were stuck on 4 for so long and two in ULVs until very recently. Why anyone is against competition doing well is beyond me.hanselltc - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Why does swift 3 not come with a chip with SMT lolrealbabilu - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
U series laptop has roller coaster performance because of the temp tdp small. After several second it will drop significantly.Maybe better had value over a hour in historical pulse continuous benchmark. But this 10 hour acer battery perform is awesome than my s460u i5-8250u. Acer is constantly giving nvme slot ssd than sata low price Asus or Msi notebook since 8th Intel gen cpu released.
eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Thanks Brett and Andrei! Did you have a chance to remove the bottom cover of your test unit and have a look at the heatpipe and heatsink? Curious what's there, how big or small it is, and how well it fits. Thermal performance is a definite fly in that laptop's ointment, still good value at $ 650 for eight cores, though.eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Forgot to add: if you can take the bottom cover of, would be great if you could re-run a limited version of your thermal measurements without that (of course, with the unit supported at least 5 cm above the desk). Really bad case design messes with air flow and venting, and that "test" would pick that up in a heartbeat. I am sometimes amazed how poorly "high tech" companies engineer their enclosures.neblogai - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
If you are interested in such things- check this video about the same laptop: https://youtu.be/awPI4RzKMvY?t=386 (use autotranslate). Basically- he put a thermal pads on the heatpipe so it transfers heat to the aluminum back cover. This allowed higher Cinebench result from cold and also higher and more consistent results in Cinebench loop. Before this modification- two of the 30 CB results were ~10% and 7% lower than others (4:40), while after the modding- all scores were higher, and without drops. Also- with this modification, bottom obviously got warmer, so this is not a solution for everyone.eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Thanks, that is an interesting review and modification. As you stated, the reviewer mentioned (assuming I can trust Google translate of the captioning) that this simple addition of thermal pads reduced the erratic thermal throttling a lot, and how little it would add to the BOM costs. Too bad Acer hasn't taken him up on his suggestion! I would pay an extra $5 for that; it's well worth it.anonomouse - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Any chance of memory latency and memory bandwidth comparison charts between the machines used in the SPEC2017 page? Would be interesting/useful to see these charts taking into account the performance on memory bound workloads, even if the Ice Lake part is using LPDDR4 and not DDR4 like the other two.wordlv - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Xps 13 runs @25w. This is known fact!hanselltc - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
What the hell is the laptop doing with its thermal management? The SoC Temp FC5 just doesn't match up with the wattage it is drinking. Is the fan curve bad? Does the chip just flips out when it needs to balance CPU and iGPU powerdraw while it is hovering around the hard throttle temp limit?eastcoast_pete - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
I found that link posted by neblogai a few comments up really informative! Apparently, Acer left a lot of potential, yet straightforward heat dissipation on the table.Hulk - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
AMD is obviously on a roll but looking at these Ice Lake results I'd say Intel ain't dead yet. We have a fight on our hands!watzupken - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
"AMD is obviously on a roll but looking at these Ice Lake results I'd say Intel ain't dead yet. We have a fight on our hands!"Firstly, I don't think it is a good comparison between a top end laptop running the top end Intel Ice Lake chip, and this low end Swift 3, running a mid high end Renoir chip. Top end laptops normally put in more care when it comes to cooling, and I believe this Dell model may be using a dual fan cooling solution despite its small and slim size. The cooling will certainly help improve sustained and burst performance, which in turn affect the benchmark scores. From my experience, Acer Swift 3 typically employs a single fan, single heatpipe cooling solution, which is woefully poor in cooling. If you look at some reviews out there on Ice Lake performance on lower end laptops, you noticed that the sustained clockspeed can go below 2Ghz, which will certainly hurt performance.
Secondly spec wise, the i7 and faster RAMs on the Dell will also give it an edge, against the Ryzen 7 4700U with slower RAM.
In this case, just as the review pointed out in the thermal section, I feel the Ryzen 7 4700U is actually very thermally limited to show its full potential. Hopefully we see other PC makers/ models that will provide better cooling.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Yes, if you limit the AMD chip to 8 watts:"The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
supdawgwtfd - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
"channels if your router is has the correct capabilities."Wanted! Proof reader/editor.
Samus - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Wow.watzupken - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Not sure if anyone pointed out as a feedback, but the legend and the numbers on the axis on the thermal related graphs are too small to see.Anyway, I actually don't find it surprising the performance is once again held back by poor cooling. Considering this is a 1.2KG 14 inch laptop, it should not come across as surprising. We need to consider the fact that this is a proper 8 core processor with a fast GPU. While light is good, but I feel we have gone passed a reasonable/ sensible pushed for slimmer and ligher laptops. Slimmer/ lighter generally means compromising on battery, and/or, cooling.
Brett Howse - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
You can click on the image to get a full-sized version of the thermal graphswatzupken - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Yeah, I figured out later, but unable to amend my post. Perhaps you folks should consider putting in an edit button here.neblogai - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
There may be an issue with the sample Anandtech got. Cooling is generally praised in other reviews of the same laptop, it does not go over 70C at sustained loads (18W). Also, here is FarCry5 running perfectly fine of Swift3 (4500U, but same at the same 18W): https://youtu.be/TvVaJ5jlgsQHowever, if you look at the graphs Anandtech posted- especially the first graph is telling: at 18W, temps go up slowly from ~65C to ~70C, but then suddenly jump to ~95C, with a hard throttle as a result. Something is failing in their unit, a properly functioning cooling would not be behaving like this.
SkillTim - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Can someone explain:According to Wikipedia, the 4700U iGPU gives 1433.6 GFLOPS raw performance and the 3780U iGPU gives 1971.2 GFLOPS. Why does this review seem to give the 4700U the win every time in real world performance? Is the review selective? Is Wikipedia wrong? Is the CPU/GPU I/O better in Zen 2?
neblogai - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
1. TFPLOPs is just one paramether- Renoir has higher bandwidth, 2x IF width with iGPU, higher Pixel rate, etc.2. Those Picasso TFLOPs in Wiki, and in AMD slides, are theoretical/marketing speeds, not real life ones. Picasso can not run games at that clock/those TFLOPs, as there is not enough power for it. While Renoir/ is mostly able to keep it's boost/TFLOPs (at least in CPU/light games).
Peskarik - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Good monitor and bigger battery for 100g more weight and 300 more cost would be welcomed.watzupken - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
If you are looking for better monitor and longer battery life, I think you will need to move up to the Swift 5 series. I observed that Acer have been using very dim monitors (250 nits or lower) on their Swift 3 series for a number of years now and I doubt they will give you a better option to maintain the product segmentation.Peskarik - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
thanks, watzupkenx86koala - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Hi anandtech,I found phones like Hisense A5c, A5pro cc and Hisense tablet Q5 very unique for their E-ink / RLCD screen, could you please do a review when they are available on the market? Thanks!
deil - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
I really hope 8GB is upgradable. Ram is cheap and right now I am painfully constrained on 12 GB, and I have dedicated gpu.for work my 32GB box is also sometimes to small, and that 8 core should be able to lift, even games.
Steve1992 - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Far Cry 5 runs pretty cool:https://youtu.be/TvVaJ5jlgsQ
Maybe an issue with your test sample?
Valantar - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
I'm a bit disappointed in the GPU testing suite here. A combination of synthetics and AAA titles of various ages seems an odd fit for an iGPU - where are the lighter titles, esports titles, etc? _A lot_ of people would want to know how a notebook like this handles LoL, Rocket League, CS:GO, etc.Still, interesting how DDR4-3200 Renoir Vega 7 beats (or sometimes matches) LPDDR4X-3733 Ice Lake G7 - at 15W vs 25W no less, if the comparison is the Dell XPS 13. Makes me very interested in seeing an in-depth review of a 25W-configured 4700U or 4800U with LPDDR4X-4266.
Also good to get confirmation that a 25W cTDP-up laptop is what you want for gaming - those bouncy frequencies would make for poor frametime consistency.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
How about 8 watts."The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
Valantar - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I saw that, but an average due to crazy throttling spikes can't be seen as representative (nor can the FPS in that case be used; that's why you have 1% and .1% minimums.). Hopefully there will be a firmware/BIOS update to improve this.alufan - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
the 4900HS is 35w not 45qwertymac93 - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
Turd screen, turd battery, turd cooling.This things a turd. Price is irrelevant. You can buy second hand for half the price with similar compromises if that's what you want.
kmmatney - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
It only bogged down while playing certain games. It was fine for decently hard work loads, encoding and light gaming. If you want to play Far Cry 5, this is a turd, as is any laptop with IGP.elzafir - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link
But will it be 2.65lbs? Some people need portability.Potatonoot - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
This integrated graphics is very impressive, and the performance is just amazing for a 650 USD laptop.It isnt intended for gaming tho, we all know that. I am mostly impressed that it is an 8 core laptop.
I am mostly happy things are getting cheaper and more powerful.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Throttling a CPU to 8 watts is amazing? Not being able to cover the ancient sRGB color space with even somewhat-decent accuracy is amazing?Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
So, this laptop apparently doesn't show the performance of the AMD processor at all, because it has garbage cooling."The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run."
8 watts versus Intel's 25?
"performance here will be strongly impacted by the TDP as well as cooling of the systems. Both AMD parts are 15W TDP designs, while the Intel chip sustains 25W."
Does it sustain 25 watts or is that merely the TDP? Knowing Intel, I assume it goes beyond that.
"The generational improvements here aren’t enough to catch up to Intel’s Sunny Cove cores in the Ice Lake i7-1065G7. Although that core might be running at higher single-core TDPs and power consumption, it still makes for a big gap in some of the more instruction pressure and cache pressure high workloads such as 500.perlbench_r and 502.gcc_r where the Intel chip still has a considerable lead in."
Might?
Oxford Guy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
It seems that your "15W" information in the article graphic is inaccurate.Shouldn't it be 8+ watts?
mazz7 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
What do you expect from 600ish dollars guys, cmon get reality check, this product is clearly punching above it's own weight.Nikhil Reddy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
What's the exact price of this thing in India? When it will be available?Oingles - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
They have packed in a lot for the price, I would buy this if it had a much better display option. 16GB would be good too. Happy to pay more for that.defaultluser - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Does anyone know if this thing has a sodimm upgrade slot?8GB ram is so last-year for a $700 laptop (especially one where you have to share ram with the APU)!
Dug - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Did you guys ever consider you got a bad unit?I don't see any of the issues you had in other reviews.
If you did, it would be prudent to announce that at the beginning of a re-review.
zodiacfml - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link
Forgot to leave a comment. This laptop is almost perfect for me, 8 core and I don't need discrete. But, the cooling is abysmal. It reaches 100 degrees and stays at 90C?! I have a cheaper Lenovo but its cooling is overkill for an Intel-U TDP SoC.LaMpiR - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link
So, a 649$ laptop costs in Europe 890$. How is this possible?neblogai - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link
Something was probably wrong with the sample Anandtech got. Here is a video of FarCry5- Swift 3 4700U temps stay at nice and cool ~69C even in the long and action packed scene: https://youtu.be/8A2XFdAZLPQ . There is also another test with a 4500U model from the same channel- no temperature issues there either, nor in any of the ~20 games tested. Other channels, like Dave Lee, also say that cooling is just so capable and quiet, that Acer should have upped cTDP higher.Oxford Guy - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link
Maybe it's just me, but the whole article seems very deceptive.The headline should be: "The Acer Swift 3 SF314 Notebook Review: Swift Gets Slower With Kneecapped Ryzen 4000"
The little TDP graphic should be 8+ watts, not 15.
neblogai - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link
It is just you. Acer would not be wrong to call Intel models 'Swift 3', and AMD models - 'Swifter 3'.watzupken - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link
The throttling is to be expected when you see a 1.2kg laptop. Where can they cut in order to lose few hundred grams, when the battery size is the same? Surely its got to be the cooling solution. If you are looking for performance, these ultra slim laptops are not for you. The same problem plagues Intel based laptops as well. As PC maker/ manufacturers go crazy about cutting weight and size of laptops, a lot of these thin laptops suffer from thermal throttling, poor upgradeability and missing port convenience.In this case, I think there may be something wrong with the fan curve and should be resolved through some software updates. The cooling solution looks normal to me after cracking open a few of these laptops with low power processors. Only observation is that the heatsink is getting thinner over the years, which will certainly impact cooling. Mid end models should have a longer heatsink with slightly bigger fan to cover the longer heatsink, while high end models may end up with dual heatsink and fan cooling solution to get around the slimness.
Oxford Guy - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link
Yes, it's "just me" because apparently 8 watts is "Swifter" than the 15 it's supposed to run at.At least the 15W graphic appears to have been removed. That's something.
Oxford Guy - Monday, May 11, 2020 - link
"The throttling is to be expected when you see a 1.2kg laptop. Where can they cut in order to lose few hundred grams, when the battery size is the same? Surely its got to be the cooling solution. If you are looking for performance, these ultra slim laptops are not for you."I don't buy this excuse.
When a company sells a product it shouldn't be a bait and switch deal.
If Acer wants to post "8+ watts" as the TDP of the CPU in a prominent place that's one thing. If it lists 15W and/or just the CPU model then that's not good enough.
Moreover, it should be made clear to the consumer that the CPU is throttled to get to that 8 watts, not that it's just so efficient it can function at 8 watts to do the equivalent of what should take 15 for the same CPU because of something special about the machine's design.
If the machine can't handle a 15 watt CPU then it should be throttled to what it can handle and that should be the spec sold to consumers, not the spec it can't handle.
ReallyBigMistake - Sunday, May 17, 2020 - link
"Key to this is a much-needed jump from GlobalFoundries' 12nm process to TSMC's class-leading 7nm process"I am calling it but GF days are numbered.
Cirecomputers12 - Sunday, June 7, 2020 - link
What you guys don't get is the internals are great at the price of a very CRAP display. Just look up the srgb and the Adobe rgb its terrible. The brightness nits are 250 which is pretty much as dark as you can go with laptops. SO if the display doesn't mean that much, this an awesome deal. If it does all the power in the world isn't going to make that Display any better. It's also made out of plastic......It's up to you ......AdriaticAdrian2 - Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - link
Does someone know if I charge it with anything lower than 65w through USB-C? I have it but I don't want to buy anything that will not work