Intel Comet Lake-H Core i7-10875H performance comparison: Tangible single-core benefits get evened out by multi-core gains from the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS

[Redaktion]

Our first benchmarks of the 10th Comet Lake-H Core i7-10875H seem to indicate that Intel's benefits in single-core performance over the 9th gen, though appreciable, are offset by the inroads AMD has made with the Renoir Ryzen 9 4900HS in both single and multi-core tests. The Core i7-10875H powering the Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR XB laptop looks to be more suited for those looking at the maximum clocks possible for games or workflows that require short bursts of boost. For almost every other practical purpose, the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS looks to be a better bet.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Comet-Lake-H-Core-i7-10875H-performance-comparison-Tangible-single-core-benefits-get-evened-out-by-multi-core-gains-from-the-AMD-Ryzen-9-4900HS.461631.0.html

[fdsofldmos]

Even by today's standards there are nice CPUs. Given they are based on Skylake which was launched 5 years ago, they do damn well, at least from a performance perspective.
Too bad they are still built on 14nm process. Intel should go to TSMC like AMD if they can't make their next nodes work, because it starting to cost them too much.

[toven]

Am I looking at 3000US 17" laptop vs 1300US 14" comparing benchmark? Why are these 5 year old tech still selling at a premium high margin price then. Intel should accept lower profit and go to TSMC now.

[william blake]

question..are they mobile? :)

[william blake]

Even by today's standards there are nice CPUs. Given they are based on Skylake which was launched 5 years ago, they do damn well, at least from a performance perspective.

ryzen 3xxx is also nice cpus. outdated 14nm+ but do danm well. we can see is in the recent schenker and matebook models.

[John Doe]

Am I looking at 3000US 17" laptop vs 1300US 14" comparing benchmark? Why are these 5 year old tech still selling at a premium high margin price then.

Because Intel invests a big chunk of those high margins into marketing and incentives to undermine AMD. So, even when AMD has a decent (e.g. mobile 3XXX quad core CPU's) or even great products (e.g. these new mobile 4XXX CPUs), OEMs are not really offering them in their laptops apart from a budget model here and there.

[Vajra]

A good article should include also how much power the new cpus draw in Full load, because we are speaking about laptop cpus and the max W power draw is very important.

[Vaidyanathan]

A good article should include also how much power the new cpus draw in Full load, because we are speaking about laptop cpus and the max W power draw is very important.

Reviews of these notebooks are under way, which will include all those test results. This has been indicated in the article.

[JMac]

Because Intel invests a big chunk of those high margins into marketing and incentives to undermine AMD. So, even when AMD has a decent (e.g. mobile 3XXX quad core CPU's) or even great products (e.g. these new mobile 4XXX CPUs), OEMs are not really offering them in their laptops apart from a budget model here and there.

This could be true but Intel has built thoughts relationships over years of consistent offerings. It's understandable OEMs aren't jumping ship the second AMD finally has a competitive product.

It's going to take years of competitive products from AMD before we see widespread adoption. There's no guarantee that will be the case once Intel gets its processes but on track and AMD is no longer able to increase core counts so drastically.

[k]

so close in benchmark difference is no longer deciding. even 40-50% never is deciding in real time performance. even double the pass-mark creates difference of few fps in actual games for graphics card.its purely arbitrary number. for professional software even trend cannot be predicted by such benchmarks, as they miss on important aspects including but not limited to memory bandwidth etc.  what matters now is who offer better value. don't forget that intel had more options and better resale value, whereas AMD better power efficiency, if that matters in high H series processor.

[Vaidyanathan]

so close in benchmark difference is no longer deciding. even 40-50% never is deciding in real time performance. even double the pass-mark creates difference of few fps in actual games for graphics card.its purely arbitrary number. for professional software even trend cannot be predicted by such benchmarks, as they miss on important aspects including but not limited to memory bandwidth etc.  what matters now is who offer better value. don't forget that intel had more options and better resale value, whereas AMD better power efficiency, if that matters in high H series processor.

Real-life usage does not usually push the components as much as benchmarks do. Synthetic benchmarks serve to give you an idea of what is the maximum potential of the product. A discerning buying decision will balance insights from these benchmarks with overall value, longevity, workflow requirements etc.