AMD’s Mobile Revival: Redefining the Notebook Business with the Ryzen 9 4900HS (A Review)
by Dr. Ian Cutress on April 9, 2020 9:00 AM ESTCPU Benchmarks
Comparison of these two CPUs is going to be interesting. Both laptops being tested excel in different ways:
| ASUS Zephyrus G14 vs Razer Blade 15 | ||
| ASUS Zephyrus G14 |
AnandTech | Razer Blade 15-inch |
| Ryzen 9 4900HS | CPU | Core i7-9750H |
| 8 / 16 | Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 |
| 1400 MHz | Idle Frequency | 1100 MHz |
| 3000 MHz | Base Frequency | 2600 MHz |
| 4300 MHz | Rated 1T Turbo | 4500 MHz |
| 4500 MHz | Measured 1T Turbo | 4200 MHz |
| 35 W | TDP Listed | 45 W |
| - | TDP Measured | 35 W |
| - | PL2 Listed | 60 W |
| - | PL2 Measured | 45 W |
| 16 GB DDR4-3200 22-22-22 1T |
DRAM | 16 GB DDR4-2666 19-19-19 2T |
The ASUS device has more cores, and by the looks of our testing, actually turbos to a higher frequency, regardless of the sticker on the box. We’ve already shown that AMD’s Zen 2 can have comparable if not better IPC than Intel’s Coffee Lake refresh, so add that to the more cores, should put every test in AMD’s camp.
What should benefit Intel here is the on-box TDP, of 45 W, compared to the AMD 35 W. When we fired up our usual program for monitoring Intel frequencies, it showed that there is a hard coded BIOS boost up to 60 W, which we thought should give some extra power. However, when the system was actually set to a workload, the peak turbo power was only 45 W, which the system was able to keep for 10-15 seconds. Then it sat back at 35 W, which makes it in line with AMD. This is odd performance from the Intel CPU, however we assume at this level that Razer has made the decisions in order to fit within the thermal profile of the Blade 15 chassis.
If Intel has a lower frequency, fewer cores, and a lower frequency, all for the same power envelope as AMD, then it looks like a slam dunk for AMD.
It is. These systems are built with productivity in mind, and even with benchmarks that are bursty like PCMark, AMD takes the win.
I also took some time to run the Civ 6 AI benchmarks, which performs 10 turns of a late game and averages the turn time. Intel won this test, but I performed it again with the power unplugged and on battery saver mode in Windows. The results were reversed:
This led me to do some more tests without power connected. I’ve separated these out into a different page, combining some CPU and some GPU data.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
What exactly are they losing? Intel is destroying them in every single metric other than superfluous cores and marketing dishonesty. What Gondolf said was why not compare latest to latest.Intel wins in market share
Intel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business)
AMD wins in the rabid dedication of their misinformed Fan Boys.
I can GUARANTEE you that I have bought far more AMD products than you have. Built a 1700x when they were new, built a 2700x when they were new, bought a 3950x a couple weeks ago. Bought the 5700XT when Gigabyte put out the first windforce, and pre ordered 2 of the Vega VII. Gave away both the 1700x and 2700x, still have the 3950x, the 5700XT and 1 of the VII. NONE of these are enough to dislodge my i9900K / Dual 2080TI system. All those extra cores are a cute marketing ploy - that's all they are - they are not useful except for benchmarks and 1% or less will make use of those cores.
Again, Intel has not and is not losing. If Intel was in such bad shape, why hasn't the Magical Mythical Su been able to capitalize on that and steam roll market share? Next to ZERO uptake in the data center market (Cloud providers will install WHATEVER comes along - not like a single Intel was replaced by AMD in those services - AMD was ADDED). All AMD is excuses and marketing.
IF Intel has the inferior product in this article - then why not compare Ice Lake to 4x00? I have a Dell 13 2-in-1 with the i7-1065G7 and it destroys my almost 2 year old Dell 13 2-in-1 - but yet that is basically the processor that is being used in this comparison.
More cores more core more cores - would be GREAT if developers could come up with an easy way to make their code more parallel - simply spawning another thread that is doing the EXACT same thing as the other thread isn't getting anything done. Spawning a thread that works on a different part of the same problem is getting something done. Making code more parallel is a problem that has existed since the very 1st SMP system almost 4 decades ago. No amount of fanboy fervor will change that fact.
Qasar - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Deicidium369, then you must not be reading reviews, or like you put it your self Intel wins in the rabid dedication of their misinformed Fan Boys.Intel wins in market share, wish is starting to drop
Intel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business) cause they have been over charging for all of their products.
" then why not compare Ice Lake to 4x00? " um maybe, because, they cant be found, NO stores here have any of the 10nm chips for notebooks in stock and are only quad core, which the intel rabid fan boys would claim is even more in fair then this review is.
" More cores more core more cores " i guess you believe intels BS still about needing only 4 cores for the mainstream, the amount of power its chips use, or its lies about 10 nm being on track ? the ONLY reason why intel has any performance lead, is because of clock speed. but hey if you want to keep supporting intel, with the lies and BS it does and says, by all means
Deicidium369 - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
Look little boy, I don't root for any corporation, much less Intel or AMD.Where is the evidence of Intel's market share dropping?
Go play, little boy - with all the lies and whatever else you look to corporations for...
Qasar - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
oooo resorting to insults now, any you call me the little boy ?? as most people will say, google it. but i know you wont and just say more BS so :https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-vs-intel-cpu...
https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-now-has-40-of-p...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/exvrkr...
need more ??
jgood13 - Monday, February 22, 2021 - link
Lmao. Do you see how comments like this can look a bit foolish in retrospect? They've definitely lost market share because of these laptops.cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
"Intel wins in market shareIntel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business)"
I'm sure some IBM fanboy made the same comment in the 80's and or 90's
Intel is on a downward slope... which hopefully this competition will reverse.
My oldest friend was a Sr. engineer on Intel's processors and left a few years ago because he got fed up with the politics and bozos that were killing their future... he told me then "watch you'll see us totally f up, but we won't fix it because our battles aren't in the marketplace, but rather with internal groups and upper management"... and sure enough
cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
actually would be more like IBM in the 70's and early 80'sSpunjji - Friday, April 24, 2020 - link
Agreed with Gondalf is a great way to indicate to anyone with more than half a brain cell that you aren't worth paying attention to. xDAwesomeBlackDude - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Oh boy I wasn't even aware that Intel sales was diminishing so fast to elaborate... Intel profits is down into the toilet. So the new rumors might be real about Intel is back bribering the OEMs like HP and Dell.https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
Curiousland - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
To me, same as many users, it just like buying a car, we don't care what engine type or how many cylinders it has, only the bottom horse power and fuel efficient and car cost count. In the black box of "CPU" or GPU, why a user care? There is not such thing as "pointless to compare" as long as it is more powerful and efficient (energy and price pay).