GPU Performance: Synthetic Benchmarks

AMD's Rembrandt-R includes an integrated GPU update to enable it to compete against Intel's Xe iGPUs. The new RDNA2 microarchitecture is present in the Ryzen 7 7735U in the form of the Radeon 680M. With 12 CUs and 768 shader units clocked at 2.2 GHz, AMD claims that the GPU should be capable of playing virtually any modern game at Full HD resolutions. For full-blown desktop systems or mini-PCs targeting the gaming market, we look at gaming workloads. However, for UCFF models like the 4X4 BOX-7735U, we restrict ourselves to a series of canned benchmarks from Kishonti and Futuremark / UL. Prior to that, a look at the capabilities of the GPU via GPU-Z is warranted.

While AMD's product page for the Ryzen 7 7735U provides more clarity on the GPU's clocks, the above screenshot brings out the presence of ray tracing capabilities - a first for an integrated GPU.


AMD Radeon 680M Features

In the ray tracing department, Rembrandt-R already scores over Intel's latest iGPU. The remaining subsections below look into the performance aspects.

GFXBench

The DirectX 12-based GFXBench tests from Kishonti are cross-platform, and available all the way down to smartphones. As such, they are not very taxing for discrete GPUs and modern integrated GPUs. We processed the offscreen versions of the 'Aztec Ruins' benchmark.

GFXBench 5.0: Aztec Ruins Normal 1080p Offscreen

GFXBench 5.0: Aztec Ruins High 1440p Offscreen

The Radeon 680M has a significant edge over the iGPU in ADL-P / RPL-P, particularly at higher resolutions.

UL 3DMark

Four different workload sets were processed in 3DMark on almost all of the systems in the comparison list - Fire Strike, Time Spy, Night Raid, and Wild Life. Port Royal was also processed on the 4X4 BOX-7735U/D5 alone.

3DMark Fire Strike

The Fire Strike benchmark has three workloads. The base version is meant for high-performance gaming PCs. It uses DirectX 11 (feature level 11) to render frames at 1920 x 1080. The Extreme version targets 1440p gaming requirements, while the Ultra version targets 4K gaming system, and renders at 3840 x 2160.

UL 3DMark - Fire Strike Workloads

The graph above presents the overall score for the Fire Strike Extreme and Fire Strike Ultra benchmark across all the systems that are being compared. In both versions, the Radeon 680M outperforms the rest of the pack by a significant margin.

3DMark Time Spy

The Time Spy workload has two levels with different complexities. Both use DirectX 12 (feature level 11). However, the plain version targets high-performance gaming PCs with a 2560 x 1440 render resolution, while the Extreme version renders at 3840 x 2160 resolution. The graphs below present both numbers for all the systems that are being compared in this review.

UL 3DMark - Time Spy Workloads

The performance advantage of the Radeon 680M is again eveident in this workload.

3DMark Wild Life

The Wild Life workload was initially introduced as a cross-platform GPU benchmark in 2020. It renders at a 2560 x 1440 resolution using Vulkan 1.1 APIs on Windows. It is a relatively short-running test, reflective of mobile GPU usage. In mid-2021, UL released the Wild Life Extreme workload that was a more demanding version that renders at 3840 x 2160 and runs for a much longer duration reflective of typical desktop gaming usage.

UL 3DMark - Wild Life Workloads

This workload appears to be sensitive to the available power budget. But, even at 28W, the Radeon 680M in the 4X4 BOX-7735U/D5 is able to surpass the 40W Arena Canyon NUC.

3DMark Night Raid

The Night Raid workload is a DirectX 12 benchmark test. It is less demanding than Time Spy, and is optimized for integrated graphics. The graph below presents the overall score in this workload for different system configurations.

UL 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score

As expected, this is a cakewalk for the RDNA2-based Radeon 680M.

3DMark Port Royal

UL introduced the Port Royal ray-tracing benchmark as a DLC for 3DMark in early 2019. The scores serve as an indicator of how the system handles ray-tracing effects in real-time.

UL 3DMark Port Royal Score

With no other system capable of handling this workload, this is a lonely comparison that only shows that an increase in the power budget can deliver better performance.

System Performance: Miscellaneous Workloads System Performance: Multi-Tasking
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • AntonErtl - Friday, April 7, 2023 - link

    Looking at the AMD specs for the CPU, it supports ECC if the platform does. Does the platform support ECC?

    A fanless variant (possibly with a lower power limit and a larger box) would be nice for the desktop, but (I guess) also for a number of industrial environments.
  • heffeque - Friday, April 7, 2023 - link

    Disappointed with AV1 decoding.
    AMD needs to fix that ASAP.
  • Hamm Burger - Saturday, April 8, 2023 - link

    For the benchmarks I could easily reproduce*, the figures for this PC are very similar to those for the (considerably more expensive, and probably much quieter) base-model M2 Pro Mac mini (10 CPU cores, 16 GPU cores, 16GB RAM). The Mac mini is prettier, has more Thunderbolt ports, and does not need a power brick, but has only one 1G ethernet port. ($100 more gets you 10G, which also enables very minimal remote power management.)

    * Crossmark, Cinebench, Handbrake, Jetstream (Firefox), Speedometer (Firefox), WEBXPRT4 (Firefox), Aztec Ruins, Wild Life (M2 performance notably better on those last two).
  • bernstein - Saturday, April 8, 2023 - link

    Thanks! exactly why i would get this over a mac mini
  • meacupla - Saturday, April 8, 2023 - link

    The size of a mac mini is also considerably larger than a NUC with its power brick.
  • sjkpublic@gmail.com - Sunday, April 9, 2023 - link

    MAC Mini you buy it that is it. Limited memory and brain damage. The only positive with a MAC mini is China and Twain going to be toast.
  • sjkpublic@gmail.com - Sunday, April 9, 2023 - link

    Huh? They announced this 2 months ago on this web site. And now they announce it again? And I still could not buy it. So I bought something else. Way behind the curve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • sjkpublic@gmail.com - Sunday, April 9, 2023 - link

    I got a 7735HS for $500. That is the current price of a ASROCK 4800U which I also own (great box). My guess is the price for the ASROCK 7735U will be at least $700. ASROCK dropped the ball.
  • sjkpublic@gmail.com - Sunday, April 9, 2023 - link

    USB4 seems to only work best with Win11+. When I use the Win10 22h2 or WS2022 the USB4 driver knocks out the other USB gen 3.2 C port. Would like a post by anyone using Linux or WS2022 and having all the USB ports working.
  • Its Toasted - Monday, April 10, 2023 - link

    Dear anandtech team,

    I would like to thank you very much for the detailed and comprehensive Mini-PC tests. Based on your tests I decided to buy the ASRock Industrial 4X4 BOX-5800U and I am very satisfied with it and I am very grateful to you.

    Best regards
    Its Toasted

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now