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

  • Korguz - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    i looked at that post on toms, JarredWaltonGPU's post regarding him is awesome Reply
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link

    It is nice to see Jarred Walton doing reviews again. I remember reading his reviews here on anandtech many years ago. Reply
  • blkspade - Saturday, August 1, 2020 - link

    @Gondolf - Your arguing against such a comparison misses all of the important details. The 8 core outperforms a more expensive 6 core, while also being more efficient with those extra cores. Even if an equivalent Intel 8 core offering were between on par or better, performance wise, it would be both dramatically more expensive and less efficient. For the potential consumer, that makes it absolutely fair comparison, and one that matters. Reply
  • Viilutaja - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link

    Just check out the 8C vs 8C review's at Youtube! Be glad it was not compared againest the best of Intel mobile 8 cores, because most of them AMD won and even against 80W version of Intel 8core cpu... And there is even faster CPU by AMD 4900H which is 45W part not this 35W part in this review. Reply
  • sharath.naik - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link

    With this, there is no intel product you can buy over AMD. Not in Laptop, not in desktop and not in the server space. Intel is 2 generations behind in performance in all, but in laptops buying an Intel would be a very poor choice, given you have half the performance(I will not count the 5-sec turbo boost that intel gives as legitimate numbers) and poorer battery life. Reply
  • Gondalf - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    Too bad the output of these SKUs will be very low.
    At the end Intel care nothing of there cpus, they will not affect Intel botton line. Only Intel can supply the OEMs channels. This piece of silicon is an intersting but useless experiment.
    No volume no money
    Reply
  • FreckledTrout - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    I would have thought the world's largest fab, TSMC, could make as many chips as needed. Silly me. Reply
  • Qasar - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    more lame BS from pro intel gondalf Reply
  • Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    More lame BS from pro AMD qasar. Reply
  • Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    Thing is AMD is not their largest customer - they also build for Apple and Nvidia - so NO, TSMC could NOT deliver the same volume as Intel - not even close. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now