Lenovo IdeaPad 3 with AMD Ryzen 4000 processors goes on sale for €369.00 (~US$400); up to Ryzen 7 4700U and 8 GB of RAM offered

[Redaktion]

Lenovo recently launched the affordable IdeaPad 5 with Ryzen 4000 processors, and now it has down the same with the IdeaPad 3. Available in 14-inch and 15.6-inch variants with up to a Ryzen 7 4700U, the new IdeaPad 3 series starts at €369.00 (~US$400).

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-IdeaPad-3-with-AMD-Ryzen-4000-processors-goes-on-sale-for-EUR369-00-US-400-up-to-Ryzen-7-4700U-and-8-GB-of-RAM-offered.463295.0.html

[william blake]

ideapad, amd version vs intel version:
https://next.lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/G1.jpg
how to lost the market with the superior product.
all amd ideapads are igpu only.

[chxei]

what are differences between ideapad 3 and 5? eem, build quality?

[riklaunim]

all amd ideapads are igpu only.

That's the point of those chips. 25W on MX250 is 25W + CPU TDP of used power and depending on game/benchmark Vega 8 and Vega 7 can be on the same level as MX250 - next.lab501.ro/notebook/english-lenovo-ideapad-s540-13are-vs-13iml-amd-ryzen-7-4800u-vs-intel-core-i7-10710u/11

Intel existing 14nm U series CPUs have vastly weaker UHD that's why MX is pretty much mandatory. Existing 10nm ones have better iGPU but not so good with CPU and the upcoming ones are heavily marketed by Intel to vendors as chips not needing MX card. Due to that and AMD APUs Nvidia made MX350 and there are rumors about MX450.

And if Vega 7 / Vega 8 gives you like 20FPS in a game then MX card must give like 40 FPS to make it worth it. That's 200% performance. Going from 20 to 30 FPS is on the edge as it's still not guaranteed to be fluid (plus 1% lows)

[william blake]

That's the point of those chips. 25W on MX250 is 25W + CPU TDP of used power and depending on game/benchmark Vega 8 and Vega 7 can be on the same level as MX250 - next.lab501.ro/notebook/english-lenovo-ideapad-s540-13are-vs-13iml-amd-ryzen-7-4800u-vs-intel-core-i7-10710u/11

another joke from some religious igpu believer.
i gave you a link with the game test, you give me the worthless 3dmark.
yes, more tdp=more performance. MUCH more. all tdp spent on video=no room for renoir cores. just a simple antimalware windows service popped up and 1fps in your game. you say more tdp for cpu+gpu is bad? even as an option? ok then. amd sales are so insignificant also because of you and your "we dont need more fps" colleagues.
and yes, even 1,5 times more fps is 50usd worthy, almost always.
and it was mx250 not mx350, which is faster.
what is the point in saving small amount of money but suffering with the much lower fps and other stuff for years-ill never understand.
not only this, but also insisting that no options are needed, everyone should suffer from lower fps.
my position, on the other hand, is pretty philanthropic, everyone should buy as much fps as needed or can afford.
see the difference? all of you guys are real monsters, psychopathic humanity haters. let people buy what they want to buy ffs.
(and most of them will choose intel crap, because of 1. options 2. gaming capability.)

[Joel]

riklaunim was well-reasoned.  AMD Renoir iGPUs are dramatically better than Comet Lake iGPUs so it makes some sense to highlight them.

Your point that they could still combine Renoir CPUs with MX250 GPUs for some SKUs is fine as well.

However, at the end of the day, businesses put together products at a price they think can sell.  If they think they can only realistically sell 2 USA SKUs (all they have at the moment), ignoring the MX250 is a reasonable choice as it wouldn't offer incredibly more performance but would add $50+ to the laptop price and make cooling more difficult and battery life worse.  That's clearly a tradeoff they chose.

I personally WANT a 4800U or 4900U w/ only the iGPU in the new Dell XPS 17.  I want a relatively thin laptop that sips power and can run some games with a very big, bright screen.  I'd probably save $200 over an Nvidia GPU option and actually have what I want.

The problem with the AMD Renoir CPUs is NOT that no one is pairing them with GPUs (they do exist), but that no one is yet putting them in thin and light laptops with 15+ inch 500nit screens and big batteries.  AMD is still seen as the low-cost option, and they paired with low-cost components.

That's kind of your point, but you're focused unnecessarily on the GPU when the other features are much harder to find (Thunderbolt ports, big batteries, thin and light casing, bright screens).

[Mate]

@William Blake
People buy laptops for different purposes.For you, the most important factor is GPU performance, but someone else may prefer CPU performance or battery life.  Vega 8 allows to play smoothly many MMO titles and older games, for many people its more than enough. Not everyone wants to run Cyberpunk on laptop.  Also riklaunin made very good point - if game is not playable on vega8 then in majority of cases it wil still be barely playable(at best) on mx250.  Asus is now preparing zenbook with ryzens and mx350(old gt1050). That makes a lot more sense than combining Ryzen with mx250.

[riklaunim]

what is the point in saving small amount of money but suffering with the much lower fps and other stuff for years-ill never understand.

I'm not against dGPU but if they put it it has to provide good value for money. IMHO there is way to little difference between them. That review also has games and even when MX250 is faster it won't be faster enough when FPS is low. Not every game gives 60+ FPS on such setup. Let them put MX350, bog Nvidia for MX450, maybe even things like 1650, 1050/1050Ti?, or maybe they are making a 5nm MX-over-9000 just for such laptops as next gen Intel/AMD iGPU will be even better?

And it's quite common to not need dGPU for work while assuming that a non-dGPU laptop would be cheaper/use less power/be lighter - which like may not be really true on the price side etc. There are people commenting on 4000H-series laptop reviews that they would want one without dGPU - various reviews, youtube or written, this idea returns.

For my usage iGPU would be fine for work. I'm also looking at that Clevo with desktop Ryzens (up to 3950X in eco mode) and like RTX 2070 - you could say it's a strong gaming laptop. However that laptop will be forced to that GPU (no MXM, no TB3, likely only M.2 eGPU if "supported"). It's already a mid-range and what happens if Cyberpunk 2077 comes out, has insane DXR effects but RTX 2070 can't handle it efficiently while RTX 3070 or even 3060 can? That's the freaking problem with dGPU in laptops - the bigger it gets the harder it falls. It's better at generation launch than EOL though ;)

[A]

That's the point of those chips. 25W on MX250 is 25W + CPU TDP of used power and depending on game/benchmark Vega 8 and Vega 7 can be on the same level as MX250 - next.lab501.ro/notebook/english-lenovo-ideapad-s540-13are-vs-13iml-amd-ryzen-7-4800u-vs-intel-core-i7-10710u/11

another joke from some religious igpu believer.
i gave you a link with the game test, you give me the worthless 3dmark.
yes, more tdp=more performance. MUCH more. all tdp spent on video=no room for renoir cores. just a simple antimalware windows service popped up and 1fps in your game. you say more tdp for cpu+gpu is bad? even as an option? ok then. amd sales are so insignificant also because of you and your "we dont need more fps" colleagues.
and yes, even 1,5 times more fps is 50usd worthy, almost always.
and it was mx250 not mx350, which is faster.
what is the point in saving small amount of money but suffering with the much lower fps and other stuff for years-ill never understand.
not only this, but also insisting that no options are needed, everyone should suffer from lower fps.
my position, on the other hand, is pretty philanthropic, everyone should buy as much fps as needed or can afford.
see the difference? all of you guys are real monsters, psychopathic humanity haters. let people buy what they want to buy ffs.
(and most of them will choose intel crap, because of 1. options 2. gaming capability.)

Is there any reason why you are comparing the U instead of H or HS?

[dttbn]

That's the point of those chips. 25W on MX250 is 25W + CPU TDP of used power and depending on game/benchmark Vega 8 and Vega 7 can be on the same level as MX250 - next.lab501.ro/notebook/english-lenovo-ideapad-s540-13are-vs-13iml-amd-ryzen-7-4800u-vs-intel-core-i7-10710u/11

another joke from some religious igpu believer.
i gave you a link with the game test, you give me the worthless 3dmark.
yes, more tdp=more performance. MUCH more. all tdp spent on video=no room for renoir cores. just a simple antimalware windows service popped up and 1fps in your game. you say more tdp for cpu+gpu is bad? even as an option? ok then. amd sales are so insignificant also because of you and your "we dont need more fps" colleagues.
and yes, even 1,5 times more fps is 50usd worthy, almost always.
and it was mx250 not mx350, which is faster.
what is the point in saving small amount of money but suffering with the much lower fps and other stuff for years-ill never understand.
not only this, but also insisting that no options are needed, everyone should suffer from lower fps.
my position, on the other hand, is pretty philanthropic, everyone should buy as much fps as needed or can afford.
see the difference? all of you guys are real monsters, psychopathic humanity haters. let people buy what they want to buy ffs.
(and most of them will choose intel crap, because of 1. options 2. gaming capability.)

Are you seriously advocating a mx250/350 to avoid low fps for years to come!? If you want fps buy a regular notebook with an actual graphics card, like a 1660 or above, not an ultrabook with an excuse of graphics card that will offer good performance only when running games from the past decade.

an mx250/350 in an ultrabook, for all intents and purposes is the same as integrated graphics: a piece of crap meant to drive a couple displays, not render 3d graphics in a game. If you're buying one thinking it will have more fps and the performance will be better than an igpu, it's probably the same or maybe it will be better sure, it will still be awfull anyway because it was not made to be used with games. It's not what an ultrabook is for, and for the purpose of an ultrabook (portability, work anywhere, great battery) an igpu is a lot better

[Istvan]

The iGPU in Ryzen 4700U is better in 2D operations than MX250, MX350, GTx 1650, GTx 1660 according to Passmark Performance test. So it seems serious alternative for office/home use for a long time. In Passmark
performance scores for example Lenovo Slim 7 with Ryzen 4700U iGPU is close to same than the Asus G14 Ryzen 9 4900HS with GTx 1660, including CPU,2D,3D,memory,SSD marks because of superior 2D performance.

2D scores in Passmark:

Ryzen 4700U iGPU: 666

Asus G14 with 1660Ti: 457 (same as average 1660Ti scores in Passmark 2D database)

AMD iGPU seems an inexpensive but better choice over several GPU, if 3D part is not important.

[jonh cassey]

Amazing laptop, i don't play games often, when i do i buy them in bundles and i get good deals for the money and performance is great, serious sam, half life, gta IV, dirt 3 all on max settings, they are a bit old games, but so much more worth the money than new ones and so much better than f2p s***.