First benchmarks of the 10th gen Comet Lake-H series demonstrate Intel's continued dominance in single-core, but AMD Ryzen 4000 has largely closed the gap

[Redaktion]

We got exclusive access to first benchmarks of the Intel Comet Lake-H Core i9-10880H, Core i7-10750H, and the Core i5-10300H. We compared single-core and multi-core performance of these chips with contemporary offerings from AMD viz. the Ryzen 9 4900HS and the Ryzen 7 4800H, and also 9th gen Coffee Lake-H Refresh CPUs. Although the scores further re-iterate Intel's lead in single-core performance, we see that AMD has successfully managed to narrow the gap significantly while maintaining good leads in multi-core tests.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/First-benchmarks-of-the-10th-gen-Comet-Lake-H-series-demonstrate-Intel-s-continued-dominance-in-single-core-but-AMD-Ryzen-4000-has-largely-closed-the-gap.459690.0.html

[A]

So let me get this straight, the best 45W comet lake H is only 10% better in R15 and 3% better in R20 than a 35W 4900HS? And they all lose in multi-core performance.

And there is still the 4900H

[fasddsadasdas]

Funny how Intel can reach this level of performance, albeit at a shitty power consumption, with 5 year old parts, whereas AMD needs all the advantages in this world, 7nm process, latest uArch, clock speeds pushed to max. And people are still praising AMD...
If AMD were so good, they would've had 30-40% better IPC, beat 8 cores Intel with 6 cores at 3Ghz. As it stands currently AMD goes core to core with Intel and it still just ties...and remember Intel is using skylake, launched in 2015. 5 freaking years have passed and it is still able to fight with latest and greatest from AMD, LOL.

[fasddsadasdas]

Mind you, AMD power consumption is great, no doubt about that. But that is largely attributable to better process, nothing else. So we could say, woah TSMC you are so good, beating 14nm Intel process.

[fasddsadasdas]

So let me get this straight, the best 45W comet lake H is only 10% better in R15 and 3% better in R20 than a 35W 4900HS? And they all lose in multi-core performance.

And there is still the 4900H

And there is still the 10980HK, which will beat the 4900H.

[william blake]

from a consumer point ov view(not me, a consumer), these chips are DOA.

[william blake]

Mind you, AMD power consumption is great, no doubt about that. But that is largely attributable to better process, nothing else. So we could say, woah TSMC you are so good, beating 14nm Intel process.

nope. process and chip design is a pair, they are like time and space, parts of the spacetime.
so
7nm tsmc+zen 2 cores>>> 10nm(same size as tsmc 7 actually) intel+cove cores.

[A]

@fasddsadasdas

1) Have you forgotten tick-tock? AMD just entered 7nm, so it hasn't been fully optimized. In comparison, intel optimized their process quite a ton. Zen 3 will bring out even more out of 7nm.

2) AMD has both GPU improvements and CPU for their APUs, while intel focused mostly on CPU

3) Notice how the single core performance of AMD and Intel processors are pretty close, but multicore performance suddenly takes a huge dive for intel? There is a reason why intel wants people to focus on single core. Cause their whole game is boost clocking that 1 core. Which may look nice in synthetic single core benchmarks, but isn't gonna work well in actual usage.

[k]

rightly said by author not worth upgrade on 9th gen. both AMD and intel had let down. few percent, i would say even 50% improvement is not at all visible in real world for most of task. you are never going to run laptop for CFD simulations and hence as long as FPS is greater than 40 there is no need to burn money on costly CPU or GPU. its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.

[A]

rightly said by author not worth upgrade on 9th gen. both AMD and intel had let down. few percent, i would say even 50% improvement is not at all visible in real world for most of task. you are never going to run laptop for CFD simulations and hence as long as FPS is greater than 40 there is no need to burn money on costly CPU or GPU. its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.

I think you are one of the only people in the world who thinks Ryzen was a let down. Expecting 50% improvement in 1 generation is quite a large bar since most improvements tend to be within 10%.

That said, looking at previous 35W best Ryzen 3750H vs 4900HS, there is a 36.5% improvement in single core on cinebench and 139% improvement on multicore.

Geekbench also shows similar gains.

If you want to talk about real life improvements vs the 3750H, the improvements in real life usage are easily close to 50% or more:

static.techspot .com/articles-info/2003/bench/3.png

[william blake]

its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.

hmmm no, not this time. 2020 is the year for a new buy. id say 1,5x more performance per average laptop. never happened before.

[8&8]

@A remain however a good comparison because frequency of ram is lower than Ryzen. 14nm beats 7nm of amd.

i admit intel hw enginners are better than amd.

[Jesse]

Did Intel write this for you?

Yeah, Intel just 'decided' to focus on single core performance this year.  LOL.

AMD caught up in single core and is kicking @ss in multi-core performance.   Everything has been re-written to take advantage of multi-core processors over the past decade.    It is almost pointless to even publish single core performance numbers these days.

[william blake]

@A remain however a good comparison because frequency of ram is lower than Ryzen. 14nm beats 7nm of amd.

i admit intel hw enginners are better than amd.

you mean skylake 2015 engineers? coz current engineers a total crap.

[Roland Homoki]

To all those praising Intel for beating AMD 7nm with their 14 nm:
Intel 14 nm is even better than Intel 10 nm, so engineers were awesome a couple of years ago, and Intel still lives on that.
nm notation is not actually comparable. Intel 10nm not equals TSMC 10nm!
The 2 companies budget is not comparable, still AMD improves like crazy from uarch to uarch