AMD Ryzen 7 4800H is back on Geekbench putting Intel's Core i7-10750H and Core i9-9980HK to the sword

[Redaktion]

AMD's Ryzen 7 4800H has been spotted being tested on Geekbench again, with some new scores being recorded on version 5 of the well-known benchmark. The Ryzen 4000 series APU scored surprisingly well in the single-core test but really excelled in the multi-core test, where it managed to outmuscle Intel rivals such as the Comet Lake i7-10750H and the Coffee Lake i9-9980HK.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-7-4800H-is-back-on-Geekbench-putting-Intel-s-Core-i7-10750H-and-Core-i9-9980HK-to-the-sword.454969.0.html

[k]

could have been better if it was priced wisely. with asus machine costing $1600, it is far less appealing and not worth waiting that long. it is still struggling against more than year old 9gen intel in single core which will be deciding factor on laptop limit software. yes software do take advantage of multi-thread but than people go for desktop for those and moreover it is far from appealing just average(comparable to intel). than there is lots of positive with intel like better resale value, thunderbolt support, more options to choose from and .... Don't know what will be USP with poor value for money. is it low power consumption alone, by how much? why i will go for laptop with same cost which lack thunderbolt and ray tracing( vega and even discrete navi don't support)?

[JayN]

Comet Lake HK goes up to 3.1 GHz base clock according to a recent wccftech article, so perhaps this result with 2.3 GHz clock isn't the final word.

Intel Core i9-10980HK   8/16   3.1 GHz   5.0 GHz   16 MB   45W

[william blake]

could have been better if it was priced wisely. with asus machine costing $1600, it is far less appealing and not worth waiting that long. it is still struggling against more than year old 9gen intel in single core which will be deciding factor on laptop limit software. yes software do take advantage of multi-thread but than people go for desktop for those and moreover it is far from appealing just average(comparable to intel). than there is lots of positive with intel like better resale value, thunderbolt support, more options to choose from and .... Don't know what will be USP with poor value for money. is it low power consumption alone, by how much? why i will go for laptop with same cost which lack thunderbolt and ray tracing( vega and even discrete navi don't support)?

they show you the numbers about the fastest mobile cpu, amd first time ever, but you still not sure is it good or bad? this is amazing.
i have to add 2 facts
-there is no raytracing in intel hd 630
-there is no thunderbolt controller in intel 6 or 8 core cpus

[k]

@William blake: there is no raytracing in intel hd 630
-there is no thunderbolt controller in intel 6 or 8 core cpus
intel normally comes with RTX card and one like asus AMD variant worth $1600 will sure have. thunderbolt also they add via third party because owner of tech is intel they are not shy of paying royality. Finally point is computer evolves new gen are faster from competitors, and than we pay more or same money for faster ones. here AMD is so poor they are not able to match IPC of two gen old intel. Only reason they are looking competitive is mfg of TSMC.their design is not standing against age old intel. And they want to charge same as intel is ridiculus

[anonymous]

well, the real rival of 4800H is not 10750H nor 9980HK......there will be more cores for i7 on CML-H. We will see

[william blake]

intel normally comes with RTX card and one like asus AMD variant worth $1600 will sure have. thunderbolt also they add via third party because owner of tech is intel they are not shy of paying royality.

so, a couple of dollars for thunderbolt controller and intel has no advantages whatsoever?

Finally point is computer evolves new gen are faster from competitors, and than we pay more or same money for faster ones. here AMD is so poor they are not able to match IPC of two gen old intel. Only reason they are looking competitive is mfg of TSMC.their design is not standing against age old intel. And they want to charge same as intel is ridiculus

this is laughable
-ipc is more or less equal for 14nm latest intel versus 7nm amd. id say a couple of percents in favor of amd.
-intel is far behind technologically. you should see some ryzen 3950x, threadripper 3990x or epyc 7742 tests.
-tsmc 7 nm basically equals intel 10nm in size at any measurement. but current amd offerings are still ahead of the future server and desktop intels.
-zen 3 will be another big jump, very soon. and intel has no answer.
-current zen 2 cores was build for density/energy efficiency, not for speed. server architecture with mech interconnect and chiplets for scalability.  we can only imagine zen 2 cores with ring bus, monolithyc chip, big cache  and opimized for 5+ghz.
also zen 2 cores are smaller than intel 10nm cores (reminder, tsmc7=intel10), and its kinda difficult to make 8 of those cores a new intel graphics on the same chip, as we can see. because size over 200mm2, low yields and tdp 15w is not enough.
-in laptops intel loses his only advantage, higher clockspeed. because, you know, tdp. more like 3ghz at load, not 5ghz. forget about geekbench, do some work or game.
-so, renoir is the best buy-2020, hats off. this chip is flawless. same peak performance as intel but more efficient, better lineup, cheaper, better graphics, lower temperatures, better memory support.
-specifically about comet lake vs ryzen 4000 and pricing. only uninformed person would buy a worse(intel) cpu for more money.
-2020 is the year of mini-revolution on a laptop market. 4 cores is a cheap mainstream now. they were desirable top-end for a lot of money just a year ago, 45w 4cores-2 years ago. ryzen effect.

[_MT_]

-ipc is more or less equal for 14nm latest intel versus 7nm amd. id say a couple of percents in favor of amd.
...
-in laptops intel loses his only advantage, higher clockspeed. because, you know, tdp. more like 3ghz at load, not 5ghz. forget about geekbench, do some work or game.

I thought AMD closed the gap in a large part thanks to cache and branch prediction improvements. Meaning, Intel still has an IPC edge, but AMD can beat them in real world performance. Zen 3 should, of course, bring another improvement.

Indeed. High frequencies are not efficient. That's physics.

[Spunjji]

could have been better if it was priced wisely. with asus machine costing $1600, it is far less appealing and not worth waiting that long.

There's too much bullshit in this post to address briefly - and most of it's already been covered - so I just wanted to point out the absurdity of citing the cost of a single premium notebook to level judgement about the cost of a new range of processors.

Intel shills (paid, amateur, I don't care) are the worst.

[k]

@william blake & Spunjji
processor being compared is meant for premium notebook only and you can't purchase processor alone. if it was priced correctly OEMs might be eating up the gap, whatsoever reason there is no improvement in value for customer neither in form of performance improvement nor price reduction. we are paying same as for 2 years old 9gen intel. practically whether games or any software which runs on laptop will never gain from 8 threads vs 6 but mostly they increase linearly with clock. that way intel strategy of higher clock on low core count is way better.
secondly you are williams actually zen2 design is suitable for desktop & server i too agree.where they can stick more cores at cheaper price because of infinity fabric but that is not helping in any way on laptop. whether IPC advantage or not core per intel is better and thats paying in most games. right now whatsoever you do software outside bench-marking don't scale nicely with cores but with clocks or IPC.
Finally technically you are right 10nm intel = 7nm TSMC, but than beacuse of better design TSMC and samsung pack more transistors on same size compared to intel thats why they say ours is 7nm (equivalent when compared with intel) which otherwise is 10nm only. this can be debate with manufacturing competency aspect, but form customer perspective like AMD end effect is its good like 7nm and thats only matter.

[_MT_]

Finally technically you are right 10nm intel = 7nm TSMC, but than beacuse of better design TSMC and samsung pack more transistors on same size compared to intel thats why they say ours is 7nm (equivalent when compared with intel) which otherwise is 10nm only. this can be debate with manufacturing competency aspect, but form customer perspective like AMD end effect is its good like 7nm and thats only matter.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's just a matter of measuring differently and lately simply deciding to call it differently for marketing to consumers. The feature sizes and densities are similar (actually, I believe Intel had somewhat higher density on the original 10 nm than TSMC on their original 7 nm). TSMC just calls it 7 nm while Intel calls it 10 nm. But it's broadly comparable. Actually, it's neither 7 nm, nor 10 nm. The original meaning has been lost (it used to be the gate length or half-pitch, now it's just a number the marketing department spits out). It used to be that Intel had actually shorter gates than what the node designation implied (they started doing that in the late '90s), now it's the opposite as gate length has reached it's practical limits over ten years ago. What matters is that Intel had serious problems with their process while TSMC was able to manufacture.

You're right that a lot of the software consumers run can't really scale out (take advantage of more cores being added). But it's unfortunate. As was said, high frequencies are less efficient. It would be better to have 10 cores at 2 GHz than 4 cores at 5 GHz. After all, if processors were to offer the same efficiency and were limited by power, performance should be roughly the same as long as the benchmark scaled just as well up (frequency) as out (cores), right? 4 cores at 40 W should produce practically the same result as 8 cores at 40 W. But they don't. Not by a long shot. Because the 8 core is going to be running at a lower frequency (it has less power per core) where it's more efficient (cutting power in half doesn't reduce frequency to a half). Easily paying for the more complex interconnect which takes power as well. Of course, as core count goes up, the interconnect becomes a bigger and bigger problem (as seen on the Threadripper/ Epyc).

[william blake]

practically whether games or any software which runs on laptop will never gain from 8 threads vs 6 but mostly they increase linearly with clock.

tell it to intel. because they made 8 cores/16 threads mobile cpu.

that way intel strategy of higher clock on low core count is way better.

there is no such strategy, i have no idea what are you talking about. also 4ghz on zen 2 cores is literally peak laptop cpu performance. nothing is better. in case you are unaware about it-please check some local reviews. intel cpu frequencies during gaming, in particular. you'd be surprized.

secondly you are williams actually zen2 design is suitable for desktop & server i too agree.where they can stick more cores at cheaper price because of infinity fabric but that is not helping in any way on laptop. whether IPC advantage or not core per intel is better and thats paying in most games. right now whatsoever you do software outside bench-marking don't scale nicely with cores but with clocks or IPC.

well, chiplet design is not helpful at all. they made a monolithic mobile chip, you know :)
but amd&tsmc focus on energy efficiency(mostly for servers) is very helpful for laptops.lets call it a strategy and postulate that it is a better strategy than intel's :)

Finally technically you are right 10nm intel = 7nm TSMC, but than beacuse of better design TSMC and samsung pack more transistors on same size compared to intel thats why they say ours is 7nm (equivalent when compared with intel) which otherwise is 10nm only. this can be debate with manufacturing competency aspect, but form customer perspective like AMD end effect is its good like 7nm and thats only matter

sorry, you are plain wrong here
https://fuse.wikichip.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/tsmc-density-with-7nm.png

[william blake]

It would be better to have 10 cores at 2 GHz than 4 cores at 5 GHz.

who prevents this 10 core cpu to operate in "4 cores at 5ghz, 6 cores at zero" mode, if needed?