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
twtech - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
That picture really illustrates just how gigantic the 64 core TR/Epyc really is.Keyboard1701 - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
Going by the performance of the laptops on battery, I'm curious to see if something like a gtx 1650 might actually perform better than a rtx 2060 on battery.Keyboard1701 - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
I apologise for the double post, but I've also observed that the iGPU actually performs just as well as the rtx 2060 when the laptop is running on battery. Would this mean that the discrete gpu is redundant for someone who mainly intends to use the laptop on battery power?RollingCamel - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
Did you run any thermal analysis on the laptop?DanNeely - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
IF you do any more tests on this, I'd be interested in seeing how gaming performance is affected by using a 65W USB-C charger instead of the 180W barrel one. The smaller charger would be nice while traveling; but the only time I'd be gaming on a laptop is when I'm away and don't have access to my desktop.willgart - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
the performance gain by changing the RAM is incredible.DiHydro - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
Thank you taking the time to look at and comment on the thickness, and how it allows a bigger battery in the same footprint. I have been saying for the past couple years how the race for the thinnest laptop is pretty futile when OEMs keep putting higher wattage parts in them.velatra - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
There's a problematic sentence in the second paragraph of the "2016: A Historic Low for AMD in Notebooks" section of the first page. It reads "OEMs knew this crippled performance, but in enabled the headline processors...." Perhaps "in" should be "it."Techie2 - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link
Nice to see AMD continuing to lead in performance. One thing that makes no sense to me is pricing on laptops. I just don't see the basis for >$1000. laptops. It's not like the hardware cost can justify the retail prices. It's more like collusion by laptop makers IMO. I guess when they finally saturate the laptop market prices will come down to reality.watzupken - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link
AT has done a great job with this review. Where I think AT did a lot better than the rest of the reviewers (besides the usual technical analysis), is that you nailed the issue with the short battery life that left many perplexed since some review sites are getting 10+ hours of battery, while some are getting 4+. I think its a good testament of the knowledge of the reviewers here. Thank you AT.