The Ryzen 7 5800U is AMD's answer to Intel's Tiger Lake and is their fastest available chip for ultraportable and ultrathin laptops. This is the first Ryzen Mobile 5000 U-series processor to land in our office.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800U Review: Fight for the Ultraportable Performance Throne
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
QuantumPhysics
Posts: 6,306 +7,258
I’ve never used any of those benchmarkers.
I play games on my computers or stream to YouTube.
I would like to see Techspot show performance numbers for Streamyard/YouTube streamers.
Thus far I’m happy with Intel Core i9 Extreme, but the new core i7 looks great for mobile !
I play games on my computers or stream to YouTube.
I would like to see Techspot show performance numbers for Streamyard/YouTube streamers.
Thus far I’m happy with Intel Core i9 Extreme, but the new core i7 looks great for mobile !
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
That‘s one way to see it.
The other would be that the U series‘ design is optimized for 15W and does not benefit as much from raising the TDP as Tiger Lake does which clearly seems to need the additional power, I.e does not appear to have been designed with 15W in mind.
If you look at MT results, each Ryzen core often performs better than its TGL counterpart while using half the power (in cases where the 5800U‘s score is > 100% vs. TGL‘s.). This is a bit simplified assuming perfect scaling and that all cores are loaded, but you do get twice (sometimes more, sometimes less) the performance at the same power consumption. Imo, that‘s quite amazing.
Last edited:
MisterSpock
Posts: 33 +77
Thank you for the review! However, I'm slightly confused regarding Cinebench R20 Multithreaded, specifically the first two benchmark photos. From what I can tell, they both are multithreaded tests with both 15w and 25w results on each benchmark run, according to the color key.
Image 1, 5800U: 3103 15W, 3699 25W
Image 2, 5800U: 1408 15W, 1415 25W
Am I reading the graphs wrong? Do I need to have another cup of coffee?
Edit: Definitely need more coffee. My base question was meant to be: since they both have 15W and 25W listed in each test, what's the difference?
Much later edit: Article seems to have been updated to remove one image. Thank you for the correction.
Image 1, 5800U: 3103 15W, 3699 25W
Image 2, 5800U: 1408 15W, 1415 25W
Am I reading the graphs wrong? Do I need to have another cup of coffee?
Edit: Definitely need more coffee. My base question was meant to be: since they both have 15W and 25W listed in each test, what's the difference?
Much later edit: Article seems to have been updated to remove one image. Thank you for the correction.
Last edited:
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
My new Asus Zenbook with the OLED screen just arrived today at work, the screen is setting a new standard and making all my other panels look very pedestrian!
It’s got an Intel i7 Tiger lake but tbh I don’t really care which CPU is in it so long as it has a minimum of 16GB of RAM which it does. The machine will not likely be used away from a docking station so would prefer the higher power. Once again not checked which config is on mine.
It’s got an Intel i7 Tiger lake but tbh I don’t really care which CPU is in it so long as it has a minimum of 16GB of RAM which it does. The machine will not likely be used away from a docking station so would prefer the higher power. Once again not checked which config is on mine.
I feel this review shows that there is no Super in Intel's 10nm. Even on 10nm, Intel is only able to squeeze in 4 cores and with a slightly more powerful iGPU. Intel's 10nm in my opinion is more likely going down the 14nm route, I.e. stuff it with more power and push clockspeed as high as possible. It generally takes Tiger Lake quite a lot more power to give itself an advantage in some use cases. While people may brush off the high power consumption as a problem, but these are what will happen,
1. Laptops with smaller battery capacities is likely to experience shorter battery life,
2. In sufficient cooling to handle the >15W heat output is going to throttle the CPU. This is especially the case with ultra thin laptops.
1. Laptops with smaller battery capacities is likely to experience shorter battery life,
2. In sufficient cooling to handle the >15W heat output is going to throttle the CPU. This is especially the case with ultra thin laptops.
amghwk
Posts: 1,547 +1,539
What is commendable is what these 4800U and 5800U can do at just 15W.
Of course, Intel has been a second-class citizen for some time now. Some fanboys will say anything ... like they don't care about these benchmarks, but want to see gaming or streaming instead. Absolutely Revolting. The hardcore fanboyism is ignorantly blinding.
(For those who think I am an AMD fanboy, I don't have a single AMD CPU in my laptops or my main desktop. All are i7s.)
I would want to upgrade my desktop's CPU to 5900X and wanted to get a 4800U laptop as my next purchase but, the desktop CPU is still in scalpers's price category and the 4800U laptop is almost non-existant in my market.
Anyway, there's nothing I cannot do with my current systems, so I can wait for years if I ever needed to upgrade to whatever is of best value at that time.
Of course, Intel has been a second-class citizen for some time now. Some fanboys will say anything ... like they don't care about these benchmarks, but want to see gaming or streaming instead. Absolutely Revolting. The hardcore fanboyism is ignorantly blinding.
(For those who think I am an AMD fanboy, I don't have a single AMD CPU in my laptops or my main desktop. All are i7s.)
I would want to upgrade my desktop's CPU to 5900X and wanted to get a 4800U laptop as my next purchase but, the desktop CPU is still in scalpers's price category and the 4800U laptop is almost non-existant in my market.
Anyway, there's nothing I cannot do with my current systems, so I can wait for years if I ever needed to upgrade to whatever is of best value at that time.
I know it is hard to make direct comparisons, but I think some form of battery testing needs to be done. At least to see how the main laptop tested performs.
P
punctualturn
Vrmithrax
Posts: 1,609 +679
I totally agree with that. Jumping around TDPs and running maxed out is great for general benchmarking, but I'd really like to know more "real world" data like how long will these units last before I need to plug in? That is truly one of the most important aspects for many people who are looking at the ultraportable form factor - it needs to be fast, light, and not have to be constantly tethered to the wall.
Unfortunately, as you say, it's hard to make direct comparisons. Unless you have the exact same hardware, with only motherboard/CPU differing, you can't really know for certain how they directly stack up on power efficiency.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
My tiger lake machine supports 4K120 through the docking station. I believe that the AMD Vega part is limited to 60 but I can’t test it. It’s also likely to depend on the spec of the port you are using on the laptop.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
It‘s amazing that information on the max supported resolution is so hard to find.
Since the Radeon Multimedia engine can decode 4K120 H264 video, it makes sense to assume that the iGPU can also output that - otherwise the multimedia engine update does not make sense.
yRaz
Posts: 6,372 +9,383
4K120 isn't a deal breaker but I love the smoothness of 120, it's really hard to go back to 60 after you've tried 120. I use a 120hz 4K TV for productivity instead of 4 monitors so 4K is mandatory, 120 is certainly preferable. I know it's available on laptops with dedicated GPUs, but having 4K120 in an ultraportable would be AMAZING
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,058 +1,903
What we learned, even Tiger Lake can't save Intel. Only Alder Lake will change the landscape.
will it? even with an IPC increase, they still have fewer "big" cores. it might do well on some laptops.
zamroni111
Posts: 446 +249
Even bringing back vega11 will significantly overcome tiger lake and m1 igpu
zamroni111
Posts: 446 +249
It can be the firmware/microcode as Cezanne U use same chip design as Cezanne H*
m3tavision
Posts: 1,436 +1,220
There are really no "Gaming" monitors out there yet.
There has been massive industry collusion with panel makers purposely dragging their feet and delaying or not bring their technologies to 27", 32", 38" & 40" Monitors.
-HDMI 2.1 should be on EVERY MONITOR sold in 2021.
-60Hz is not "Gaming".
-Where is OLED?
-Why are there $4k 70" TV's, but not $4k 40" TV with the same technology..?
-Where is the 120Hz OLED 40" Gaming Monitor at...? People who seriously game, don't do it sitting at a dorm room desk, they do it in hand build environment and "game rooms", usually with monitor on a swing arm, and multiples, of them, etc...
Understand, a sustained OLED @ 120Hz is the closet an oldschool Gamer can get to the fabled SONY FW900, in responsiveness. From nearly 30 years ago...
yRaz
Posts: 6,372 +9,383
I use a 4k TV instead of 4 1080p monitors for productivity purposes. It accepts 4k120 input. It does not take 60 and up it to 120. It can accept 120 and up it to 240.
Anyway, for productivity and even light gaming it works perfectly fine as far as response time is concerned.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,436 +1,220
I said 4k OLED. Since oled is near as fast as CRT, in pixel response.
And no, there are not many 4k Gaming monitors, that have an output of 120Hz. Let alone OLED monitors. Otherwise I would own them.
HafizNafes89
Posts: 70 +41
We need this CPU in every high-end ultrabook. Tiger just isn't cutting it!
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Review: Quiet Release, Dodgy Name- captaincranky replied
-
These credit cards feature OLEDs that light up upon payment- Uncle Al replied
