Got to give it to intel, they have the fastest cpu, but big disclaimer, very few laptops with 4800h, 5900h, 5800h push the cpu above 70w, while intel will happily push up to 120w, on another leak a 1280p got close to a 6900hx (1280p boosts at 64w) so i would say that depending on the chassis and price the 6900hx will still have a good market.

Stuidly bias and cheating consumer comparing 100w vs 45w.

I bought intel laptop because these kind of bias when i knew little and I regreted since then. intel laptop run hot and loud all the time.

Be professional with your article please, especially when you put ur name as tech guy.

:)) This is funny. They compare (essentially) a desktop processor (Intel) with a laptop processor (AMD). Intel based laptops have been on the downtrend since more than 2 years. They run hot, really hot, and I doubt they will output anything relevant under 100W in the near future. They even have a CPU benchmark mode that one can select in the BIOS. Are you kidding me? I was shocked seeing that. Essentially, they are cheating. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with AMD. Same as Tesla.

Have to agree with the comments as well. A major concern I have with it is the fact the AMD chip benchmarked was in a laptop, and a Lenovo at that. If my Lenovo is any indication, they've done a sh*t job with the drivers and AMD processors are likely not running to full potential in their systems. Meanwhile, what type of system was the ADL chip tested in?

Furthermore, out of Intel, AMD, and Nvidia, AMD seems to be the only one lately getting more true performance out of their stuff versus just increasing the power draw and getting more performance simply by cranking things up. It's like using a higher wattage incandescent/CFL vs making a CFL/LED. One's real progress and the other is just throwing gas on a fire.

It does seem Intel has finally stopped dragging their heels and is trying to actually innovate and make real progress, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking they've turned things around. They still have a long way to go, and meanwhile AMD's real competition to ADL, while slightly behind, is just around the corner, and will likely put Intel right back where it's been the past couple years.

I agree with many of the comments. It's bottom of the barrel journalism to make such statements based on a Geekbench score from all synthetics. I guess we live in the clickbait non-researched era of tech press. Oh well.

Then it throttles because it cant keep running without melting down. Good chip if you undervolt it for sustained performance, but then its only as good as the AMD, maybe worse. Zen 4 is where its at.

You guys have to see its on balanced mode not on turbo mode and it can easily keep up with alder lake having 6 cores less

Lenovo were pretty notorious for having poor performing AMD systems as well but it would be hella stupid/unusual that the part is both worse than its predecessor and barely even competition for their primary competitor. Could the possibility of it being an engineering sample cross your mind before you set fire to it?

When Intel offers a ~25% generational uplift in a benchmark while using ~100W:
"Wow, so good, great products!"
When AMD offers a ~25% generational uplift in a benchmark while still only needing the typical laptop 45/54W:
"AMD offered close to nothing over last generation"

Okay fam, stellar tech journalism right there. Seems notebookcheck really is a mixed bag with their articles.

PS: I really hope they fix GB with it's eventual 6.x release. It's such a mess.

Geekbench is STUPID Intel biased vs actual real-world performance... It's really only useful for comparing chips of the same architecture,

Also, since when is ≈20-30% all-core performance gains gen-over-gen "nothing"?... -_- ... .

Not surprising. Zen 4 is the real competition. Zen 3 has been around for a while.

Needs that 3D Cache