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 ESTLow Power Performance
Truth be told, I didn’t go into this review with low power testing in mind. These sorts of laptops, while capable of driving high performance on the go, are essentially expected to be connected to the power socket when performance is needed. Even the best ultraportables struggle for battery life when everything is whirring at full tilt. Nonetheless, after my own experiences of 3 hours of gaming on power with a Matebook X Pro and a high screen brightness, it is a genuine use case.
For these tests, the settings and software are the same as normal, but the only change is that the power cable has been removed and the power setting in Windows has been moved to ‘Best Battery Life’. We’re still in the Recommended Power Plan and not the Battery Saver Plan. What this does is force the OS and system to manage its power appropriately between CPU and GPU. In these circumstances being able to distribute the power where it is needed most can be a very critical factor in getting a project finished, or having a game that is playable.
Our tests here, due to time, are the following:
- Civilization 6, 1080p MSAA 8x, AI Test (On Battery, Battery Saver)
- Borderlands 3, 1080p Medium (On Battery, Battery Saver)
- Counter Strike Source, 1080p Max (On Battery, Battery Saver)
So previously Intel had a very slight advantage in AI turn time here, but as we move to a power limited scenario, AMD takes a more substantial lead – over 10%.
Where we had a small 5% win for AMD in the full power scenario, the gap is a bit bigger percentage wise for AMD in the low power scenario. It is still under 30 FPS, which is probably unplayable for BL3.
Now CSS is a little odd. When I’m in Battery Saver mode but plugged in, I get the full power FPS value. But the minute I take it out, on the Razer Blade, something goes a bit mental and we end up being limited to 60 FPS. V-Sync is disabled in every setting I think of, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a way of getting off of 60 FPS.
Ultimately in every scenario, in a few small tests, where Intel might have been ahead on wall power, AMD pulls ahead on limited power.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
Deicidium369 - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
"Revenues do not lie. " of course they dont, specially when you overcharge for your products"The market says otherwise, they think the products are well priced, and Intel sells all they can make - so just because YOU can't afford them doesn't mean they are over priced - and if they were sooo overpriced, seems like AMD would be in MUCH better financial situation than they are.
Qasar - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
again prove it, look at the 3 links i posted farther up. yea..right well priced, over priced is more like it, Epyc Rome, more cores, it some cases HALF the price, and better performance.schujj07 - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
Revenue actually does lie. Look at the mid 2000s when the Athlon 64 was king. Intel was still making money hand over fist because of shady business practices. When you are the 800lbs gorilla, you can throw your weight around and make sure that people only buy your product even if it is inferior.alufan - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
lets revisit this comment in 12 months shall we as an example my company has a worldwide base of 60k plus they just moved all future buys to AMD the tide is turning and frankly its about time, intel will return and frankly i hope they do because competition is good for us the consumer but right now face it AMD simply has the better product in all ways maybe apart from one or two specilist benchs or workloads where intel has funded the software development and provided a chip to do the workNamisecond - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
AMD probably does have the "better" product in just about all the fields. But can they step in and significantly eat into Intel's market share? I don't think so. AMD's production capability is currently limited and not in their control.Qasar - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
" But can they step in and significantly eat into Intel's market share? " i think that is slowly starting to happenDeicidium369 - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
Yup been happening for like 40 years - so far upto mid single digits.. AMD is a 2 trick pony and you almost can't build an AMD laptop/desktop without sending Intel some $$$Qasar - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link
ahh Gondalf, trying anything and everything to try to make your god of cpus look better, huh ? i find it crazy that you just cant except amd has the better product. give it up already, pathetic intel fanboyDeicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
ahh Qasar, trying anything and everything to try to make your god of cpus look better, huh ? i find it crazy that you just cant except* Intel has the better product. give it up already, pathetic AMD fanboy*accept.
Qasar - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
ahh Deicidium369 i find it crazy you are the one that cant except it. amd has the better product now, most reviews have shown that. give it up already, pathetic Intel fanboy