Initial XPS 13 9310 Tiger Lake performance comparisons underline why Dell should release an AMD Ryzen 4000-powered XPS 13

[Redaktion]

The Dell XPS 13 9310 is here, and its packs Intel's latest Tiger Lake-U series processors. Early performance comparisons show the Core i7-1165G7 to be a decent improvement from its Ice Lake predecessor while still falling short of AMD's Renoir mobile processors. If only Dell offered the XPS 13 with Ryzen 4000 series APUs.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Initial-XPS-13-9310-Tiger-Lake-performance-comparisons-underline-why-Dell-should-release-an-AMD-Ryzen-4000-powered-XPS-13.498292.0.html

[vertigo]

Almost half of this article is a repeat of itself. Also, I wonder how much Intel is paying these companies to continue to shoot themselves in the foot by using a processor that's both inferior AND more expensive. When Cezanne comes out, Intel is in real trouble (more than they already are).

[Confused]

Why do the authors of these articles pretend like manufacturers have the option to drop AMD chips into laptops that Intel has co-developed?

[JayN]

There is a follow-up to that phoronix article...

[kek]

Here comes AMD fanboys to say Intel is doomed when even AMD has not enough stock to take over the laptop market.

Also, XPS with AMD will probably never happen. Intel has XPS on that Evo program thing.

[vertigo]

Here comes AMD fanboys to say Intel is doomed when even AMD has not enough stock to take over the laptop market.

Also, XPS with AMD will probably never happen. Intel has XPS on that Evo program thing.

AFAIK, it's not an issue of stock, it's an issue of OEMs still putting out far, far more Intel laptops than AMD ones, and the AMD ones they do release are typically held back by crappy displays and other issues. The reason Intel is in trouble is because their just released, brand-new, supposed to be amazing chip is still only slightly better than AMD in graphics benchmarks while so far showing to actually be worse in actual gaming and definitely slower on the CPU side. Meanwhile, AMD is very close to revealing their new chip to compete with Tiger Lake, even though that doesn't seem necessary at this point, and, if it's even close to expectations, it will mean another year of AMD being a better performer, not to mention at a lower cost, than Intel, possibly at an even wider margin than this past year. The current situation is very similar to the Athlon 64 period years ago, which put Intel behind for several years. Any loss of market share is going to make it harder for them long-term, not to mention the loss of profits. They're far from doomed, but things aren't looking good for them.

Regardless, it's great because the increased competition is speeding up advancements and making things cheaper, so the consumers win. It's been far too long with Intel reigning supreme and offering overpriced products with minimal improvements from one generation to the next, because they didn't have to be competitive. And I'm not necessarily an AMD "fanboy" (a term that's used as much as an ad hominem attack in attempt to shut down people with differing opinions as it's used appropriately), I don't like Intel, as their success is largely thanks to a history of anticompetitive practices rather than actually providing a better product. That said, AMD isn't innocent in that regard, either, though they aren't as bad.

And since you're probably going to claim that I'm a fanboy, I'll just say that my last several computers--about half a dozen desktops I built myself and three laptops--have been Intel based, with my last use (for my own PCs) of AMD being the Athlon 64 X2. But with things the way they currently are, I'd buy a laptop with Renoir over one even with Tiger Lake, all else being equal, even the price. Hell, I'd probably pay more for AMD than Intel, not because I'm pro-AMD or anti-Intel, but because AMD is just better, period. So before you use the word fanboy, maybe consider that.

[fortniteboss]

Because Intel is not good enough.
Because 4500U is better than i7 12XXG7.
Because 4600U @ 25W is already better than 10750H.
Because Zen will be even better, Zen 3 is a technological marvel with those cache, IPC gains and amount of cores on one CCX.
Because people are feed up with Intel misleading marketing with crippled 2x PCEe lanes Thunderbolt and unreachable and unsustainable max CPU frequency.

[ariliquin]

I've been waiting to buy this but Dell still doesn't sell it, I want high end laptop with AMD, when will you wake up Dell? No im not just going to compromise, I want the best and today that's AMD.

[anan]

We need choice. And currently we have none. You can have any processor in a laptop you want as long as it's Intel. I am in a market for a new corporate laptop and I have the option to choose freely. Ryzen 4000 came out and I wanted one in my next laptop so I was waiting from the beginning of the year. But most likely I will have to get the XPS 9500 (I am currently working with the XPS 9530 from 2014).
These king of articles are important since they put pressure on manufacturers. One can call them fan-boyish but we simply do not have any other means to make our point. I personally cannot buy a Ryzen laptop with a subpar screen/battery life/design just to stick it to Intel/OEMs.
The more these articles there are the better. This will make the prices go down and maybe will incentivize manufacturers to make high-end AMD laptops since objectively AMD is the better choice at the moment.

[Nando4]

Corporate Renoir laptop? Look at the soon-to-be-available 13/14/15" HP Elitebook 835/845/855 G7 with up to a Ryzen 7 Pro 4750U CPU, 8C/16T.

[ramako]

Here comes AMD fanboys to say Intel is doomed when even AMD has not enough stock to take over the laptop market.

Also, XPS with AMD will probably never happen. Intel has XPS on that Evo program thing.

AFAIK, it's not an issue of stock, it's an issue of OEMs still putting out far, far more Intel laptops than AMD ones, and the AMD ones they do release are typically held back by crappy displays and other issues. The reason Intel is in trouble is because their just released, brand-new, supposed to be amazing chip is still only slightly better than AMD in graphics benchmarks while so far showing to actually be worse in actual gaming and definitely slower on the CPU side. Meanwhile, AMD is very close to revealing their new chip to compete with Tiger Lake, even though that doesn't seem necessary at this point, and, if it's even close to expectations, it will mean another year of AMD being a better performer, not to mention at a lower cost, than Intel, possibly at an even wider margin than this past year. The current situation is very similar to the Athlon 64 period years ago, which put Intel behind for several years. Any loss of market share is going to make it harder for them long-term, not to mention the loss of profits. They're far from doomed, but things aren't looking good for them.

Regardless, it's great because the increased competition is speeding up advancements and making things cheaper, so the consumers win. It's been far too long with Intel reigning supreme and offering overpriced products with minimal improvements from one generation to the next, because they didn't have to be competitive. And I'm not necessarily an AMD "fanboy" (a term that's used as much as an ad hominem attack in attempt to shut down people with differing opinions as it's used appropriately), I don't like Intel, as their success is largely thanks to a history of anticompetitive practices rather than actually providing a better product. That said, AMD isn't innocent in that regard, either, though they aren't as bad.

And since you're probably going to claim that I'm a fanboy, I'll just say that my last several computers--about half a dozen desktops I built myself and three laptops--have been Intel based, with my last use (for my own PCs) of AMD being the Athlon 64 X2. But with things the way they currently are, I'd buy a laptop with Renoir over one even with Tiger Lake, all else being equal, even the price. Hell, I'd probably pay more for AMD than Intel, not because I'm pro-AMD or anti-Intel, but because AMD is just better, period. So before you use the word fanboy, maybe consider that.

I've been needing a laptop for months, I would say a year. Disappointed by comet lake and ice lake, ended up buying the latest tiger lake laptop. I searched for months for a ryzen laptop, but it was near impossible to get and the ones that were available, the specs were not up to what I needed (mainly all with 8GB of ram no expandable, or screen being total crap). At least thanks to ryzen I managed to get an intel equivalent for similar price.

[Gump]

Just Josh also points that the XPS is limited to 15 W sustained, crippling CPU and GPU performance. Still temps were not looking good.

It doesn't mean TGL will perform 2x better (performances should be somehow linear up to 12 - 15 W and then go asymptotic)

[Rhi ma]

Let's talk facts please. Your only talking point is a geometric mean of tests. Lol. What the hell is that? Please do rigorous testing to tell me as an average consumer, who doesn't use cinebench type movie encoding why should I need Ryzen.

[vertigo]

Let's talk facts please. Your only talking point is a geometric mean of tests. Lol. What the hell is that? Please do rigorous testing to tell me as an average consumer, who doesn't use cinebench type movie encoding why should I need Ryzen.

You don't need Ryzen. Then again, if you're an "average" consumer, you may not even need a laptop and may be fine with a Chromebook. Nobody knows what your use case is and what you "need." If you don't know, and don't care enough to take the short amount of time necessary to see the difference, then it probably doesn't matter which you get, as either will probably suffice. Of course, AMD is usually cheaper, which would be a reason for many people to prefer it, and the fact it's better than Intel in just about every way is simply an added bonus to the savings. NBC, and many other sites, do plenty of rigorous testing, and have been showing for months the differences between the two. Your comment makes it seem as though you read this one and only article and expected it to include every test and comparison ever done and didn't bother to look at anything else.

[Sammy0310]

AMD Ryzen 4500/4700 CPU series are great, but on a thin chassis like my Lenovo T14s, they run extremely hot (markedly hotter than the equivalent Intel CPUs) which impacts performance from thermal throttling. That's why I'm returning the T14s. I can understand Dell avoiding those CPUs since the thermal issues on the even thinner XPS 13 chassis would be even worse, especially since the generally cooler Intel CPUs already have thermal issues in the XPS 13. So it's not only about power; thermals are a major consideration too!