FlankerOh desktop APU's will be cool as well. I'll shove them into the smallest itx case I can find:laugh:

It's just too bad we have no hope of matching the iGPU performance of a laptop with LPDDR4X-4266. Now don't get me wrong, one of these is going in my next HTPC (already have the case, a beautiful Lazer3D HT5), I just have to find some good E-die and clock the snot out of it.

ARFPeople don't follow guidelines by Intel and Nvidia. Everyone is free to test it the way they would like and think it's appropriate.

That is an extremely silly reply. Has anyone talked about following any guidelines? Don't be daft. The question is whether the benchmark actually measures what it claims to measure in a good way. If a benchmark is supposed to demonstrate iGPU performance it would do its job very poorly if it was limited by CPU performance - as it would then be a measure of CPU performance instead. Now, I'm not the one claiming that that exact benchmark is that CPU bound, but the results of the 1650MQ are indeed (much) lower than expected - so something is bottlenecking it in this benchmark. @londiste uses that to argue that we should discount that benchmark entirely; I'm taking the more cautious approach of saying we shouldn't use that chart to compare the 1650MQ as it seems like a rather extreme outlier. The rest of the results in that chart look reasonable to me, so I don't think it's entirely CPU bound (if it was, the i7-10710U would absolutely trounce the Ryzen 7 3700U, so there's no question that the iGPU plays a large part in those results), but the test is nonetheless a bit weird. The results I posted above are more clear-cut gaming benchmarks.

Edit: typo :(

@Valantar, I am not arguing we should discount that. The bottleneck it presents should be investigated and it shouldn't be used as a single example.
And yes, I know laptops are not the easiest thing to test because you cannot play with hardware configuration.

Civilization VI is a bit of a weird one when it comes to benchmarks. Its FPS used to be a pretty bad benchmark, turn times were better. I do think it was fixed at one point. I cannot find a larger or more current sample of Civilization VI results. Anandtech's Bench is using 1080p Ultra on GTX1080: www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2400

ARFPeople don't follow guidelines by Intel and Nvidia. Everyone is free to test it the way they would like and think it's appropriate.

I did not say a thing about Intel or Nvidia. Pretty sure that 1650 Max-Q is an Intel+Nvidia system but that is besides the point. I am certain that the same results would happen with say 3750H and RX5500 mobile and my comment would have remained the same.

AMD has done a fantastic job, these things should sell very well.

londiste@Valantar, I am not arguing we should discount that. The bottleneck it presents should be investigated and it shouldn't be used as a single example.
And yes, I know laptops are not the easiest thing to test because you cannot play with hardware configuration.

Civilization VI is a bit of a weird one when it comes to benchmarks. Its FPS used to be a pretty bad benchmark, turn times were better. I do think it was fixed at one point. I cannot find a larger or more current sample of Civilization VI results. Anandtech's Bench is using 1080p Ultra on GTX1080: www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2400

Definitely agree that it's an odd benchmark - after all, AT's "IGP" settings level is 1080p Ultra, with "Low" being 4k Ultra and "High" being a crazy 16k Ultra (at which point they finally hit a proper GPU bottleneck), so it's not a particularly GPU-heavy game. That still doesn't quite explain the results in the chart (though it might explain why the 1650MQ isn't further ahead, and if it was purely CPU bound regardless of thread numbers the i7-10710U at 25W should beat the 3700U). But yeah, I entirely agree that it shouldn't be used as a single point of data to demonstrate anything in particular, as its too weird a mix of loads, especially for laptops.

@ARF A suggestion: instead of leaving angry :mad: reactions to our posts, maybe try arguing for your opinion? Getting angry at someone arguing against you isn't particularly compelling, and won't change anyone's mind. I would also suggest to stop the straw man arguments - neither of us ever expressed anything even remotely resembling a desire to benchmark anything "follow[ing] guidelines by Intel and Nvidia". Arguing like that is disingenuous; best case scenario it's a serious misunderstanding of what we said, worst case it's a deliberate attempt at making someone who disagrees with you look bad by painting us as biased. Either way, it only serves to make you look bad for doing it. Presenting arguments to back up your opinion is much better.

yotano211I dont really now how much the higher segment takes up but the higher margins is in high-end laptops. The high-end market really is much more important than you think. Its also about PR, high-end equals more PR to what ever company.

You're right, but in terms of how much effort manufacturers put into marketing and product design, you're definitely confusing high-end with high-performance. There are huge margins in premium stuff but just look at any of the many available shipment trackers or marketshare summaries - the majority of the market is buying 15-25W laptops; Around 70% is ultrabook or cheap thin-and-light models, then 25% is budget plastic netbook crap.

Whether it's premium flagship gaming laptops like the Razer Blade or the cheaper chunky plastic models where there isn't much profit - pricing is aggressive and margins are slim - gaming laptops and laptops with high-end processors are not even close to being as mainstream as your typical 15W ultrabook equivalent. For every one flagship gaming laptop sold with a 35-45W processor, there will be another 15 or so flagship 'ultrabooks' sold without a GPU, and with a 15W processor. Think Dell XPS, HP Spectre, Surface Pro, Blade Stealth etc.

ValantarIf you pay the same for an 8-core as a competing 4-core and it still has a great iGPU, is there anything to complain about?

Absolutely not! As long as the GPU isn't robbed of its power budget like it is with the Ryzen 2000U and 3000U series, then there are no downsides and it's a win-win :)

IMO mobile processors with integrated graphics are still too focused on CPU performance when it's graphics that usually limits them the most. Take the old 2700U - it's pretty mediocre as a CPU with it's four cores and 2.2GHz clock. Nonetheless, for the vast majority of people it's fast enough that they won't ever notice the CPU being a bottleneck in day-to-day use. Web browsing, office productivity, media playback, moving files around - the old and slow 2700U is fast enough (even when clamped down to 13W) that nobody is going to care what processor is actually in the laptop. Even media transcoding is something that most people have the cloud do for them now, rather doing it on their own CPU.

These 8C/16T processors will be great for video editors, 3D modellers, architects, engineers, and designers doing renders, and data analysts working on vast datasets. I'm not denying they'll love these new 35-45W Zen2 processors - but they are also not going to care about the IGP until they need to do a GPU-assisted task, in which case the IGP is too weak to be of use, so they'll definitely be buying something with a dGPU instead if they even have to work on a laptop instead of a desktop. The visualisation department at my firm refuses to do anything other than presentations on laptops. Even ignoring the huge performance gulf between a proper workstation and a laptop, they simply need more screen real estate, better connectivity, and more storage than a laptop can reasonably provide. That's why high-performance laptops are a small niche in the sales figures, and therefore why these HS and H APUs are not anywhere near as important to the market as the U-series which is where 95% of the money and marketshare is. As for the data analysts, I work with some of those and they use their Surface Pro to connect to their dataset on a remote server, via a web app. All the heavy lifting is done at a datacenter because that's how industry has moved on in the last few years.

Looking forward to Laptops with these new chips in them.
I am sure they will be more readily available in the coming months.

Well...My 4800h laptop is also very powerful...

User !Well...My 4800h laptop is also very powerful...

Awesome, impressive and beautiful! A 45-watt Ryzen is faster than the desktop parts! Amazing!

User !Well...My 4800h laptop is also very powerful...

Hopefully it didn't cost half a kidney & before anyone tries to dissect the joke I'll just ask what was the price?

@User ! what does it report for the CPU/Package power consumption during benchmark? Also, frequencies?

ARFAwesome, impressive and beautiful! A 45-watt Ryzen is faster than the desktop parts! Amazing!

No exactly.Mobile cpu is limited by 45w,and hence slower than desktop cpu when running long-time heavy load tasks.

Any chance you could run this on locked frequency to see how it stacks up with desktop stuff. Say, Cinebench R15 at 2.8GHz so we could compare results with this - www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse/28#content :)

R0H1THopefully it didn't cost half a kidney & before anyone tries to dissect the joke I'll just ask what was the price?

Amazing price.It only costs me 6599 RMB(roughly 940 dollar).And I get 4800h, 2060, 8g 3200 ram,512g ssd,144hz 45NTSC 1080p 15.6

User !Amazing price.It only costs me 6599 RMB(roughly 940 dollar).And I get 4800h, 2060, 8g 3200 ram,512g ssd,144hz 45NTSC 1080p 15.6

Ouch, hope you can upgrade that RAM, 8GB is likely fine today, but in a year or two you will be feeling the squeeze there.

londiste@User ! what does it report for the CPU/Package power consumption during benchmark? Also, frequencies?

Running at 60w for few seconds,and drop to 54w for around 5 mins,and finally stabilize at 45w.

ValantarOuch, hope you can upgrade that RAM, 8GB is likely fine today, but in a year or two you will be feeling the squeeze there.

Well considering the worldwide depreciation of currencies, especially against the dollar, that's a hell of a price & great VFM!

londisteAny chance you could run this on locked frequency to see how it stacks up with desktop stuff. Say, Cinebench R15 at 2.8GHz so we could compare results with this - www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse/28#content :)

I can't run 4800h on locked freq.Laptop BIOS doesn't offer relative options.Its freq depends on temp&consumption.

R0H1TWell considering the worldwide depreciation of currencies, especially against the dollar, that's a hell of a price & great VFM!

Did you quote the wrong post?

Not sure, forum bug perhaps?

ValantarOuch, hope you can upgrade that RAM, 8GB is likely fine today, but in a year or two you will be feeling the squeeze there.

I've updated it with 8g*2 3200 ram.In fact,I get 5% performance increase from dual channel.

R0H1TNot sure, forum bug perhaps?

You aren't sure if you quoted the wrong person? lol

I know who I quoted but not sure what the other poster is seeing. Let's call it a glitch in the "matrix" :D

R0H1TI know who I quoted but not sure what the other poster is seeing. Let's call it a glitch in the "matrix" :D

I was pointing out the fact that your response had no relation whatsoever to what I was saying, only to the post I was responding to.

Sort of, I was contrasting your reply about 8GB with my point that even with the lowish amount of RAM that was a hell of a bargain in this market ~ where currencies are tumbling across the globe. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if this same config retails for a lot more just a few months down the line.

R0H1TSort of, I was contrasting your reply about 8GB with my point that even with the lowish amount of RAM that was a hell of a bargain in this market ~ where currencies are tumbling across the globe. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if this same config retails for a lot more just a few months down the line.

It's still far more of a standalone response to the post I responded to than a response to mine. Whether or not 8GB is sufficient for gaming and whether or not the laptop is upgradeable isn't a comment on the value of the purchase, just a comment on RAM capacity and the intended use case of the product. That of course relates to value (as a less suitable product is worth less), but only indirectly, and nothing in my post indicated that I wanted to comment on this. It's generally a good practice to not read too much into what you read that isn't explicitly there unless there is significant reason to point out subtext, and, well, I'd say you jumped the gun a bit there. In fact I'd say it's rather a stretch to comment on the value for money of a gaming laptop with just 8GB of RAM until you know whether it's upgradeable or not, as that would drastically affect its in-use value and longevity. Which, you know, is part of why I didn't touch on that.