The Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 Showdown: AMD's Ryzen Picasso vs. Intel's Ice Lake
by Brett Howse & Andrei Frumusanu on December 13, 2019 8:30 AM ESTPlatform Power
Performance aside, the other side of the coin is battery life. AMD made big gains in battery life with the Ryzen 3000 series, somewhat addressing the power requirements of the platform and getting rid of some of the excessive idle power draw, but they are still using DDR4 on their mobile platform, which puts them at a disadvantage right out of the gate. Intel has made very good gains in battery life over the last several generations, and the move to 10 nm for Ice Lake also brought along LPDDR4X support. Most of the previous generation laptops stuck with LPDDR3, unless the manufacturer needed more than 16 GB of RAM, where they’d be forced to switch to DDR4. Finally adding LPDDR4X support is something that Intel has needed to do for a while, and ironically Intel’s flagship Core product line lagged behind their low-cost Atom lineup which did support LPDDR4.
Web Battery Life
The Ryzen 7 3780U powered Surface Laptop 3 was slightly under the Ryzen 5 device we tested at launch, but still in the same range. The AMD system isn’t helped very much by Microsoft only offering a 46 Wh nominal battery capacity, which is rather undersized for a 15-inch laptop. The Ice Lake device, as we’ve seen before, was much more efficient under load, offering a sizeable battery life lead.
Idle Power
One of AMD’s biggest challenges was to get their laptop SoC into a premium device, and with the Surface Laptop 3 they have succeeded. Microsoft has shown themselves as being adept at squeezing battery life out of devices, with low-power displays, and good internal components to minimize power draw. Here Intel has held a considerable advantage over the last couple of years, and the move to 10 nm should, in theory, help as well.
To test the idle power draw of both systems, the battery discharge rate was monitored with the screens fixed in at 5.35 nits, to minimize the power draw of the display on the result. Normally we’d prefer to have the display completely off for this test, but Microsoft’s power plan on the Surface Laptop actively turns off the laptop when the display times out.
The Ice Lake system was able to go all the way down to right around 2 Watts of power draw – and sometimes slightly under – with as low as 1.7 Watts seen. We’ve seen under 1 Watt of draw on an 8th generation Core Y series processor, and around 1.5 Watts on the same generation U series, so considering the display is not completely off on the Surface Laptop, the 2-Watt draw is quite reasonable.
The Picasso system was not quite as efficient, drawing 3 Watts at idle. This is in-line with the results we’ve seen on other Picasso systems and explains the lower battery life results on the AMD system. AMD made big gains moving from Raven Ridge to Picasso, but I’m sure the team is looking forward to the 7 nm Zen 2 coming to their laptops, which we hope will address this further.
174 Comments
View All Comments
Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
And I dont see a single page about temps? Is that because it runs at 90-100 C?extide - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
There is an entire page of graphs with temps...dullard - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
Exactly, but looking at Fatality's post above, it did not appear like Fatality wanted to see the actual truth. The CPU temps were not much different.https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15213/PCMark10.p...
Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
Every other website shows temps here.https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1911040-H...
Over 90 celsius.
That single graph isnt a good comparison for temps. That's why its littered with 'frequency' and 'power'. to distort it.
Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
So it's not about "Not wanting to see the truth" It appears either anandtech's truth for temps is based on light workloads where the cpu isn't stressed at all, or possibly just wrong.Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
And this is supposed to be a "Showdown" between Ryzen and Intel. Not a "spotlight" or "sponsored" intel piece. So the way things were presented is very biased.I fully expect Intel's CPU to beat Ryzen, thats for sure. And graphics on higher than value setting, Ryzen scores about 5-10 fps higher. But on this review, It's intentionally skewed for Intel.
You should've just made a separate article for each if you were planning on favoring one company. And show their positives and negatives. Not focus on every possible positive of Intel and hide everything negative.
It's just not right, where people expect you to give a non-biased review to base their purchase off of.
Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&a...Link to article where graph is from.
Fataliity - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
And how it actually performs in gaming, when your not using the IPC of Ice Lake to increase performance. The guy has plenty other videos if you care to watch.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9FgYx2z0NY&t=...
maroon1 - Saturday, December 14, 2019 - link
PointlessThis is apu vs apu. It should be compared the way it is made
dullard - Friday, December 13, 2019 - link
1) Anandtech posted multiple graphs, I just linked one. Please actually read the article and look at all the data before posting here.2) Having additional data on a graph does not distort the temperatures that were measured.
3) You can't compare one laptop's temperature to another completely different laptop's temperature and have any conclusions that are valid (your link to a Dell XPS is not compariable to this article on a Microsoft Surface). This is because each laptop has completely different cooling systems, fan speeds, etc.
4) The temps were done doing things like multi-threadded Cinebench. If that is too light of a load for you, feel free to do your own test and post them here. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15213/CinbenchR2...