Testing the Ryzen 9 4900HS Integrated Graphics

Under the hood of the Ryzen 9 4900HS, aside from the eight Zen 2 cores, is an enhanced Vega 8 graphics solution. For this generation of mobile processors, AMD is keeping the top number of compute units to 8, whereas in the previous generation it went up to Vega 11. Just by the name, one would assume that AMD has lowered the performance of the integrated graphics. This is not the case.

For the new Ryzen Mobile 4000 processors, the Vega graphics here are enhanced in three main ways over the previous generation. First is that it is built on the 7nm process node, and AMD put a lot of effort into physical design, allowing for a more optimized version that has a wider voltage/frequency window compared to the previous generation. Secondly, and somewhat connected, is the frequency: the new processors top out at 1750 MHz, rather than 1400 MHz, which would naturally give a simple 25 % boost with all other things being equal. Third on the list is memory, as the new platform supports up to DDR4-3200, rather than DDR4-2400, providing an immediate bandwidth boost which is what integrated graphics loves. There’s also the nature of the CPU cores themselves, having larger L3 caches, which often improves integrated graphics workloads that interact a lot with the CPU.

Normally, with the ASUS Zephryus G14, the switching between the integrated graphics and the discrete graphics should be automatic. There is a setting in the NVIDIA Control Panel to let the system auto-switch between integrated and discrete, and we would expect the system to be on the IGP when off the wall power, but on the discrete card when gaming (note, we had issues in our battery life test where the discrete card was on, but ASUS couldn’t reproduce the issue). In order to force the integrated graphics for our testing, because the NVIDIA Control Panel didn’t seem to catch all of our tests to force them onto the integrated graphics, we went into the device manager and actually disabled the NVIDIA graphics.

This left us with AMD’s best integrated graphics in its Ryzen Mobile 4000 series: 1750 MHz of enhanced Vega 8 running at DDR4-3200.


Renoir with Vega 8 – updated to 20.4 after this screenshot was taken

Our comparison point here is actually a fairly tricky one to set up. Unfortunately we do not have a Ryzen 7 3750H from the previous generation for comparison, but we do have an Honor Magicbook 14, which has a Ryzen 5 3500U.


Picasso with Vega 8

This is a 15 W processor, running at 1200 MHz and DDR4-2400, which again makes the comparison a little tricky, but it is better than comparing it to the Intel HD630 graphics in the Razer Blade.

We also re-ran the benchmarks on the latest drivers with AMD's 65 Desktop APUs, the Ryzen 5 3400G (with Vega11) and the Ryzen 3 3200G (with Vega 8). These are running at DDR4-2933, the AMD maximum officially supported by these APUs (which means anything above this is overclocking). 

Civilization 6 (1080p Max, No MSAA)Civilization 6 (1080p Max, 8x MSAA)

This is a pretty substantial difference, no joke.

Borderlands 3 (1080p Medium)Final Fantasy XV (1080p Standard)Counter Strike Source (1080p Max)

Hopefully we will get more variants of the Ryzen integrated graphics to test, along with an Ice Lake system.

ASUS Zephyrus G14 (Ryzen 9) vs Razer Blade (Core i7): Low Power Performance Testing the Ryzen 9 4900HS with DDR4-2666 and DDR4-3000
POST A COMMENT

264 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.
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • 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...
    Reply
  • 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 ??
    Reply
  • cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    "Intel wins in market share
    Intel 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
    Reply
  • cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link

    actually would be more like IBM in the 70's and early 80's Reply
  • Spunjji - 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. xD Reply
  • AwesomeBlackDude - 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...
    Reply
  • 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). Reply
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    @Gondalf you are complaining that this is a 6c/12t vs 8c/16t well here is a review of the same laptop with more competition. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-rog-zeph... Included in that is an intel 8c/16t and that still loses. The reason for the 6c/12t laptop in this review is they were comparing laptops of similar price. An equivalent laptop with the Intel 8c/16t CPU runs $2650 or $1200 more than this Asus and that $2650 laptop still loses.

    @deicidium369 your rant about the gaming desktop you basically copied and pasted for a forum on tomshardware https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/amd-big-na... Just because you post the same thing in two places doesn't give you more credibility. Also that laptop review I posted from tomshardware does include an Intel Ice-Lake laptop configured to 25W, guess what it still loses. Right now there aren't any reviews of laptops with the Ryzen 4000U series. Once those come out we will be able to see how they do against competing Ice-Lake laptops. My best guess is that the Intel will still lose and it won't matter the core count. Reason for that is across the board the Ryzens will have better base clock speeds regardless of core count. While there are certain tasks that are bursty on laptops, there are others that aren't and take longer to run. Anything that isn't able to burst and has to rely more on base clock will almost for sure be faster on the AMD. Even the 8c/16t 4800U @15W has a higher base clock than the 1065G7 (top of the stack Ice-Lake) @25W: 1.8GHz vs 1.5GHz, at 15W the Intel is only 1.3GHz. Looking at boost clocks the only Ryzen with a lower boost clock than the top of the line Intel is the Ryzen 3 4300U, the bottom stack chip, 3.9GHz Intel vs 3.7GHz Ryzen. All the other Ryzens boost to at least 4.0GHz.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now