Same Laptop, Different CPU - Part 2: Ryzen 4000 vs. Intel 10th-gen Gaming Battle

[Markoni35]

Thanks for the reply. The drives / peripherals in the system are identical; only the MB and CPU were changed, so not sure why there weren't driver issues before if there are issues now...

The MB driver or BIOS could be problematic. It's very complicated, covering many different functions of the chipset. Maybe you can play with BIOS settings, there could be settings that slow down boot. See if "Load Optimal Settings" BIOS option helps a bit. And regarding drivers, sometimes older drivers work better than newer ones. Experimenting with BIOS and drivers is very time-consuming though.

 

[Aryassen]

Tim, many thanks for the review, it must have been a ton of work! Thinking about the result (and the experience I am recently gathering with overclocking my 7820HK), it would be really nice to see the clocks for both CPUs under load...they both have the same(ish) maximum theoretical turbo speed, but maybe the 10750H can hold higher turbo when gaming? Just my 2 cents

 

[Arbie]

Another great apples-to-apple review.

Have you considered turning off the NVidia GPU and comparing the Intel to AMD integrated graphics? That would be interesting too, in a good chassis with very similar layouts.

 

[JimboJoneson]

And, as expected Intel games better even with fewer cores.

Having a large number of cores doesn't making games play higher average FPS - else with that logic Threadripper would be the best gaming CPU, I assumed you would have known this. What the two more cores here does do though, is help the 1% lows, which are actually the indication of smooth game-play, and here in this review we can see that the two parts are even in that area.

I put more value into 1% low than averages any day - I'm not interested in sacrificing smoothness for ups and downs in FPS that give me a better "number" on average. I would think most gamers would, or at least should (if they are being objectively honest) agree.

 

[krizby]

Having a large number of cores doesn't making games play higher average FPS - else with that logic Threadripper would be the best gaming CPU, I assumed you would have known this. What the two more cores here does do though, is help the 1% lows, which are actually the indication of smooth game-play, and here in this review we can see that the two parts are even in that area.

I put more value into 1% low than averages any day - I'm not interested in sacrificing smoothness for ups and downs in FPS that give me a better "number" on average. I would think most gamers would, or at least should (if they are being objectively honest) agree.

I agree, avg FPS is just a lazy man approach to game benchmarking. The closer the 1% Low FPS is to the Avg FPS, the better the gaming experience.

Would be interesting to see if 4800H is capable of offering better 1% low FPS than 10750H or 10875H with a more powerful dGPU.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It's interesting to see, even with lower power consumption, with no overboost, that the AMD system still runs as hot as the intel system. Also kinda disappointing that AMD still cant quite keep up with intel, guess that explains why there are no 2070 AMD laptops.

I'd love to see a comparison of boot times between the two configurations.

That's been the biggest annoyance of my recent swapout of MB/processor from Intel to AMD. Everything else - drives, GPU, case, USB peripherals, etc. remained the same; boot SSD was wiped and Win 10 Pro was clean-installed on the new config.

Old config: i7-7700K / GA-Z270-Gaming K3: 11 second boot to Win 10 login
New config: 3900X / TUF GAMING B550-PLUS: > 90 second boot to Win 10 login

My rendering speeds are great now. Eventually.

That's an ASUS thing. They have been doing terrible is the BIOS department lately.

Agreed. My Asus crosshair VII has insane boot times, it takes upwards of 20 seconds just to get to the splash screen. It seems to be doing a deep RAM check every single boot.

My gigabye board OTOH acts as you would expect. Asus is where Honda is today: riding on their history and slacking off.

 

[yeeeeman]

Having a large number of cores doesn't making games play higher average FPS - else with that logic Threadripper would be the best gaming CPU, I assumed you would have known this. What the two more cores here does do though, is help the 1% lows, which are actually the indication of smooth game-play, and here in this review we can see that the two parts are even in that area.

I put more value into 1% low than averages any day - I'm not interested in sacrificing smoothness for ups and downs in FPS that give me a better "number" on average. I would think most gamers would, or at least should (if they are being objectively honest) agree.

8 core is becoming the sweet spot for games, so that is what I was referring to.

 

[JimboJoneson]

8 core is becoming the sweet spot for games, so that is what I was referring to.

Six with SMT/HT is still plenty ... even the 3300x (4c/8t) or say a heavily OCd 6700k (4c/8t) are still very good in the gaming department, but not great for future proofing - I wouldn't buy either of those today unless highly budget restrained.

 

[godrilla]

I want to get an AMD laptop but there is still not one laptop with resolution greater than 1080p in q3 2020?

 

[Makste]

Now all that's left for AMD to do is improve each of its single core performance and then it'll be a giant. Intel on the other hand has to increase on the number of its cores and also improve on the size of its processes. I wonder about which of these is harder to do.

 

[Deadboy]

Thanks for the detailed analysis. I'm looking to buy a laptop and this really helped.