Next-gen Ryzen mobile outperforms desktop hardware in online benchmarks

mongeese

Posts: 377   +57
Staff member

Update: Check out TechSpot's full review of the Ryzen 9 4900HS

The upcoming Ryzen 9 4900HS, and its non-HS companion, are the crowning jewels of the 4000-series APUs. Their CPU component has 8 cores and 16 threads, and their GPU half wields eight compute units or 512 shaders. The HS model works within a 35W power budget to reach maximum clock speeds of 4.3 GHz atop a base clock of 3.0 GHz; the non-HS model sits at around 45W and has a base clock of 3.3 GHz boosting to 4.4 GHz. Both their GPUs operate at 1750 MHz for almost two teraflops of graphics performance.

The 4900HS has been popping up rather frequently lately, appearing in six different benchmarks. Two need to be discarded due to apparent inconsistencies, so we’re left with four to mull over: a 3DMark Fire Strike run, two Geekbench 4 entries, and a Userbenchmark trial.

The most obvious point of reference for the 4900HS would be current mobile hardware, but AMD has never released anything in this market segment before. So instead we’ll pit it against the part it performs most similar to, the hexa-core Ryzen 5 3600. As you are likely aware, that's our recommendation for the best all-round value desktop CPU.

For the 3600’s results, we’ve used the average for Fire Strike and Userbenchmark public results, and the median for Geekbench 4. All the results are in 'points' where higher is better.

  Ryzen 9 4900HS Ryzen 5 3600 Performance
Fire Strike    
Physics 21 289 19 192 +11%
Geekbench 4    
Single-Core 5 309 5 478 -3%
Multi-Core 30 047 27 539 +9%
Userbenchmark    
Single-Core 140 129 +9%
Dual-Core 276 255 +8%
Quad-Core 546 486 +12%

As you can see, the 4900HS’ two extra cores give it a slight advantage over the 3600, but its lower clock speeds bring it down. These are slim synthetic benchmarks that we can’t verify, so there’s no real winner between the two chips. But we can state, with reasonable accuracy, that they’re in the same ballpark. As the 3600 is a hugely impressive desktop processor, to have similar performance in a mobile processor without an impractical TDP is excellent.

The 4000-series processors are already shipping in some regions, but unfortunately the coronavirus has delayed AMD’s plans for a global release. Nevertheless, the rollout will continue and every chip in the series should be available by the end of Spring (including inside the Asus Zephyrus G14, pictured above). We’ll be reviewing them as they release.

Permalink to story.

 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,083   +1,730
The best bit from my viewpoint is the lower end chips look a mighty package for lower end notebooks.

4500U and 4600U should make their way into relatively modest budget machines, perhaps $500.

They offer a big chunk of CPU and graphics performance for that. 4600U has 6 cores, 12 threads and over a teraflop of compute for a mere 25w TDP. 15-25w is a common peak configuration.

They'll be capable of running low end and older games really nicely. Give us a really good gaming comparison with the lower parts please!
 
Last edited:

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,310   +1,262
TechSpot Elite
8-core Core i9-9880H gets about 22K in Fire Strike Physics at a higher TDP of 45W (though all models boost higher than this) and 8-core Core i9-9980HK gets over 25K in FS Phx at an unspecified but even higher TDP, so 21K at 35W from the 4900HS seems actually competitive, assuming it was running at 35W. Which I doubt.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,310   +1,262
TechSpot Elite
The best bit from my viewpoint is the lower end chips look a mighty package for lower end notebooks.

4500U and 4600U should make their way into relatively modest budget machines, perhaps $500.

They offer a big chunk of CPU and graphics performance for that. 4600U has 6 cores, 12 threads and over a teraflop of compute for a mere 25w TDP. 15-25w is a common peak configuration.

They'll be capable of running low end and older games really nicely. Give us a really good gaming comparison with the lower parts please!
The 4600U will also be capable of running 2020 AAA games really nicely too, coupled to a decent graphics card like a 1660 Super or a 2070. However I assume you were referring to the IG which, while decent for IG, is by far the biggest bottleneck of the system and wastes the good 6C12T CPU strapped to it.
 

Puiu

Posts: 3,886   +2,396
The reason why AMD is able to achieve these numbers with a low TDP is because the mobile chips are not built using chiplets. They are using a monolithic design optimized for mobile devices which doesn't have the power draw overhead that a chiplet design has.

We'll need to see it in real world benchmarks before we can say that it will be better or worse.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,998   +5,124
8-core Core i9-9880H gets about 22K in Fire Strike Physics at a higher TDP of 45W (though all models boost higher than this) and 8-core Core i9-9980HK gets over 25K in FS Phx at an unspecified but even higher TDP, so 21K at 35W from the 4900HS seems actually competitive, assuming it was running at 35W. Which I doubt.
TDP numbers in general are misleading but in Intel's case, they are especially so.

For example, the 3600 has a TDP of 65w and measures about 140w actual power draw under load.
the 9900K has a TDP of 95w and measures about 245w actual power draw under load.

In the case of AMD you are looking at 2.15 the TDP number to get an accurate measure of power consumption in a worst case situation.

In the case of Intel you are looking at 2.57 times the TDP number to get an accurate measure of power consumption in a worst case situation.

AMD is about 30% more power efficient right now on the desktop. If you take into account that they are going monolithic and getting rid of the infinity fabric's fixed power draw the CPU side of AMD's mobile chips should be very competitive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Lionvibez

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,133   +3,224
I have been considering a desktop upgrade into Zen 2, however, if these numbers pan out in widespread reviews, maybe I will wait until Zen 3 comes along for that desktop upgrade. If there are power consumption/performance improvements in this gen of laptop chips, perhaps they will also make their way into the next gen of desktop chips coming out of AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hahahanoobs

Puiu

Posts: 3,886   +2,396
I have been considering a desktop upgrade into Zen 2, however, if these numbers pan out in widespread reviews, maybe I will wait until Zen 3 comes along for that desktop upgrade. If there are power consumption/performance improvements in this gen of laptop chips, perhaps they will also make their way into the next gen of desktop chips coming out of AMD.
Next gen AMD CPUs will use a very different design compared to what they are doing with the mobile chips. Next gen Infinity is supposedly much faster. Conservative rumors put Zen3 at around 8-10% improvements in terms of IPC. We should see both IPC and clock speed bumps.
 
If the mobile chips are this good, I'm excited to see what the desktop variants of the Ryzen 4000 series have to offer. Hopefully they'll be backwards with the X470 chipset as well.
This are mobile variants of Ryzen 3000 (Zen2). There's a good change this is just AMD's TDP foolery (according to them thermal W and power W are not the same, and the law of conservation of energy must not actually exist) or generous turbo limits, or both.
 

mongeese

Posts: 377   +57
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
8-core Core i9-9880H gets about 22K in Fire Strike Physics at a higher TDP of 45W (though all models boost higher than this) and 8-core Core i9-9980HK gets over 25K in FS Phx at an unspecified but even higher TDP, so 21K at 35W from the 4900HS seems actually competitive, assuming it was running at 35W. Which I doubt.
Lots of comments here about how realistic the TDP is, which is very valid considering Intel's octa-core i9-9980H does blow past its TDP when opening Chrome. But if you look at the laptops the two chips are being put inside, they're quite different.

For example, the smallest device Asus put a 9980H inside is the 15" Strix Hero III. It weighs 2.6 kg and is 2.5 cm thick. The G14 (14") featuring the 4900HS weighs 1.6 kg and is only 1.8 cm thick. In volume, the G14 is 52% of the size of the Hero III. I'd wager that if Asus is comfortable putting the 4900HS inside such a small form factor, relative to the competition, it does indeed stick to a reasonable TDP. But we'll have some reviews soon to test my theory.
 

yeeeeman

Posts: 283   +236
There is no such thing as overtaking desktop chips. 3700X will be faster than any parts AMD launches for laptops...
 

yeeeeman

Posts: 283   +236
If the mobile chips are this good, I'm excited to see what the desktop variants of the Ryzen 4000 series have to offer. Hopefully they'll be backwards with the X470 chipset as well.
Not much more because the mobile chips are already pushed quite close to max theoretical frequency limits. 4900H clocks at 4.4Ghz.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,310   +1,262
TechSpot Elite
Lots of comments here about how realistic the TDP is, which is very valid considering Intel's octa-core i9-9980H does blow past its TDP when opening Chrome. But if you look at the laptops the two chips are being put inside, they're quite different.

For example, the smallest device Asus put a 9980H inside is the 15" Strix Hero III. It weighs 2.6 kg and is 2.5 cm thick. The G14 (14") featuring the 4900HS weighs 1.6 kg and is only 1.8 cm thick. In volume, the G14 is 52% of the size of the Hero III. I'd wager that if Asus is comfortable putting the 4900HS inside such a small form factor, relative to the competition, it does indeed stick to a reasonable TDP. But we'll have some reviews soon to test my theory.
I have but one data point but it's a good one:

Apple put the 9980HK in the 15" MacBook Pro which is a pretty thin and light chassis for 15" and it can dissipate 52W constant (100% Handbrake job for >30min) so even in that form factor it runs above the 45W spec.

I had the same chip in the new 16" MBPro on order for a user (this is rumored to have better cooling so I'm hoping higher TDP) which I was very eager to test but the current human malware problem has delayed that for at least a month and probably longer.
 

poohbear

Posts: 431   +308
Really interested in what AMD's 7nm desktop variants can do! Intel wont have 10nm desktop CPUs until the END of 2021 at the earliest it seems!
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,998   +5,124
I have but one data point but it's a good one:

Apple put the 9980HK in the 15" MacBook Pro which is a pretty thin and light chassis for 15" and it can dissipate 52W constant (100% Handbrake job for >30min) so even in that form factor it runs above the 45W spec.

I had the same chip in the new 16" MBPro on order for a user (this is rumored to have better cooling so I'm hoping higher TDP) which I was very eager to test but the current human malware problem has delayed that for at least a month and probably longer.
"The Core i9 is up to 25% faster than the old models in short-term load scenarios if you can utilize all cores. There is a performance drop under sustained load"

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...h-Core-i9-and-Vega-16-in-review.450306.0.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Reehahs
"The Core i9 is up to 25% faster than the old models in short-term load scenarios if you can utilize all cores. There is a performance drop under sustained load"

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...h-Core-i9-and-Vega-16-in-review.450306.0.html
8-core Core i9-9880H gets about 22K in Fire Strike Physics at a higher TDP of 45W (though all models boost higher than this) and 8-core Core i9-9980HK gets over 25K in FS Phx at an unspecified but even higher TDP, so 21K at 35W from the 4900HS seems actually competitive, assuming it was running at 35W. Which I doubt.
There are already full benchmarks

This is the 4800H, but it sticks to its 45W TDP completely.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 361   +292
Next gen AMD CPUs will use a very different design compared to what they are doing with the mobile chips. Next gen Infinity is supposedly much faster. Conservative rumors put Zen3 at around 8-10% improvements in terms of IPC. We should see both IPC and clock speed bumps.
The rumours are saying better than the Zen 2’s ~15% IPC improvements and that wasn’t even a new architecture unlike Zen 3. Zen 3 will also be 50% faster in FP if the rumors are true. Which is fantastic as I do a lot of simulations.