This is an embarrassing moment for amd actually... using older tech towards newer tech doesn't mean anything except your scared of newer tech being outdone... my old corei7 2600 performs really well as a 3.4ghz qaud core yet this corei3 9100 3.6ghz quad core does way better with these watts required... you can't put old tech against new and not expect the new to out do it. This is actually an embarassing comparison for amd.

Way to go AMD.
Keep fucking Intel right up their a** & tear it.
Don't forget to p*** & s*** in their mouth.
😂🤣

It's illarious to see all the intel fanboys rallying up in a desperate and non sensical attempt to deny facs...
Intel is KO get over it.

Lenovo Ideapad 3 Ryzen 7 4700U 8/0 cores 7 nm ~14,000 passmark speed. 512 GB ssd. ~$520 Office Depot web. win 10/1909. ~ 5 W idle. Runs xp under Oracle VM technology VirtualBox. mshearts deal runs order of magnitude faster under xp than than win 10.

Good to see more confirmation that AMD have reduced power consumption during light loads and are now on par with Intel. Combine that with being more efficient during heavy loads and AMD in laptops is now the clear choice.

This laptop is a beast.

QuoteLike duh dude we all know amd us better at multi-core performance. The 10th gen i7 would smoke amd in gaming performance and single core performance.

There is gaming and there is productivity tasks. In low end gaming Ryzen is better than Razer MX250 etc devices. In high end gaming your fps is limited by GPU performance. In productivity tasks Ryzen annihilates Intel.
tldr; 4600H is superior to anything from Intel

Quote from: Johnathan on August 03, 2020, 15:09:07
This really is a joke of an article. Click bait is very strong here. Like duh dude we all know amd us better at multi-core performance. The 10th gen i7 would smoke amd in gaming performance and single core performance. Like what's the point of this article besides to suck on the amd fan boys nuts. This is like me saying the sky is blue and the grass is green. Like wow really AMD has better multi-core performance incredible that's never happened before...oh wait no that's the standard... whoops.

Actually Intel doesn't 'smoke' AMD in single threaded or gaming performance at all.
Intel has a minor edge over AMD in gaming because it overclocked its processors to BEYOND 5 GhZ... and this still doesn't give them more than 10% edge in gaming (but it also comes at a MASSIVE power consumption).
Single core performance on Intel is barely 5% faster... and that's also with massive overclocking done on Intel.

Meanwhile, AMD is behind Intel by about 500 MhZ in raw clocks, and yet, single threaded performance is VERY similar (because AMD has better IPC than Intel) to the point where its negligible.
So you, see, AMD doesn't NEED high clocks to achieve raw performance... Intel is just resorting to ridiculous methods at this point in an attempt to convince people its still relevant and competitive (when in fact its not).

Also, when both AMD and Intel are equalized to run in the same power envelope (such as here in mobile), AMD is FAR faster in both single threaded and multi-core performance (not to mention gaming) and also more efficient.

Gotta love competition.   It's about time!  Way to knock it out off the park AMD!

Good article.

Customer's will benefit.

This really is a joke of an article. Click bait is very strong here. Like duh dude we all know amd us better at multi-core performance. The 10th gen i7 would smoke amd in gaming performance and single core performance. Like what's the point of this article besides to suck on the amd fan boys nuts. This is like me saying the sky is blue and the grass is green. Like wow really AMD has better multi-core performance incredible that's never happened before...oh wait no that's the standard... whoops.

Ryzen..?..is the best

Quote from: chandrasekaran Srinivasan on August 03, 2020, 06:14:56
A biased article how much vengeance these companies have against intel. ,Embrasses my foot.
Look at the transistor density and then talk.
Negative marketing by AMD and notebook chat eating leftover bread and bones.

You're joking, right?
Most companies were excessively biased against AMD (not Intel).
Intel also has a history of paying OEM's to NOT use AMD hw (for which they were charged a paltry amount of money - a drop in the bucket vs the damage they've done to AMD).

As for the transistor density... who cares?
Intel is presenting its 10th gen of CPU's as 'new'.
Also, most people don't care about transistor density when buying a laptop... what matters to them is price, performance and battery life (and AMD is superior in ALL of those areas).

Negative marketing by AMD?
Lol.
If you mean Intel, then yes...  I don't really recall AMD paying tech article writers to make Intel look bad.
Besides, article titles are usually written as 'sensationalist' (no matter what the topic is).
There's no going around the raw data that Zen 2 is far superior to anything Intel has.

Quote from: elektroroda on August 03, 2020, 09:10:35
Raw performance means nothing. Many years will pass till red team is able to catch up in mobile world. I was using AMD latest cpu's laptops, and ended up always doing more work with Intel platform due to better optimized drivers and way batter battery life. Not to mention v-pro, a must have for businesses. Still, AMD finally brought something we have been waiting for years, and I hope it will stay on track.

Honestly, this is second best biggest bag of nonsense I read recently (next to COVID-19 conspiracies floating about).

AMD Zen platform is more than capable and hasn't experienced issues with gaming, productivity, etc.
Drivers?
I have an all AMD laptop (Acer Predator Helios 500 PH517-61 with Ryzen 2700 and Vega56) and have had 0 driver issues.
Performance is excellent, no driver crashes or instabilities, and I've also set up other people's computers with all AMD hw (CPU and GPU) without any driver issues.

Better optimized drivers for Intel?
Uhm... first off, Intel's GPU (igP) drivers are really sub-par compared to AMD's and AMD's drivers have rather decent optimizations (not to mention the fact that AMD iGP's are much more powerful than Intel's).

Anything else is down to software developers... if a program isn't supporting AMD hw properly, then the support needs to be written into the software from its developers (all AMD can do is improve driver support if the software supports the hw in the first place - you cannot expect of AMD to fix developer's mistakes).

And I've seen that software devs are actually forced to optimize their software for multithreaded performance and even Zen platform specifically because Zen is really good.

In regards to battery life being better on Intel... this is just load of rubbish when reviews of Zen 2 Renoir (which is the latest Zen generation of mobile APU's from AMD) have SUPERIOR battery life and performance.

V-Pro?
Zen 2 CPU's natively support V-PRO (in case you didn't know).

So, in case of AMD you get better performance, better drivers, better battery life, superior security and V-PRO (all for a cheaper price).

I don't know where you get your info from but what you mentioned does not really have proper evidence to back it up.

Why does AMD always get all these garbage laptop wins ..if it is that good

Where is dell latitude (the default business laptop) AMD variant ?

Quote from: [email protected] on August 03, 2020, 09:10:35
Raw performance means nothing. Many years will pass till red team is able to catch up in mobile world. I was using AMD latest cpu's laptops, and ended up always doing more work with Intel platform due to better optimized drivers and way batter battery life. Not to mention v-pro, a must have for businesses. Still, AMD finally brought something we have been waiting for years, and I hope it will stay on track.

What work? Watching cartoons on YouTube? Drivers? Really? AMD drivers in 2020? Are you going to also tell us that AMD CPUs are incompatible because they are 64bit? Those are a bit old and forgotten excuses don't you think?

Worst battery life? With Renoir? Nope, sorry, it's the other way around now.

V-Pro? Don't forget to install those 56 needed patches that theoretically fix Intel vulnerability problems. Don't worry about performance issues after installing all those patches. You'll still be faster compared to a Core2Quad.

Quote from: robin12 on August 03, 2020, 08:44:56
If Intel has done such apple vs orange comparison, there would be 100s of news article and 1000s of youtube videos released bashing Intel. Just sayin...

Intel is investing in apple vs orange comparisons. They just go to the source. Look at Urerbenchmarks and lattest Passmark both trying to convince us that in 2020 what counts is single thread performance and the shiny logo on the computer to be blueish.