AMD Ryzen 5 5600H "Cezanne" Processor Benchmarked, Crushes Renoir in Single Core and Multi Core Performance

[Caring1]

Not sure for topic but I see rumor in wikichip for next gen iGPU performance:
Vega 8 on 2100 MHz is declared with 2.15 TFLOPs...In citate this is part of rumored characteristic of CPU & APU series with ZEN4 architecture, and yes i guess this APUs will need of ddr5 to support increased iGPU performance. Well if this is true, only ~13-15 months to APU with enough performance for 1080p gaming . With not more of medium settings?

The return of Vega 11?

 

[Havefun]

Who said they will increase the TDP or even assume such a thing? I'm talking about, since the new CPUs perform so well and have higher IPC, maybe AMD will release a product line with even lower TDP for certain laptops which we haven't seen with the previous gen.


I been thinking actually, since the new CPUs have higher IPC maybe we will see product line in a up to 10W envelope. It is possible though.

summer 2021 there is Van Gogh = 9W, zen2, navi2, lpddr5. during 2022 watch for "Dragon crest"

 

[Minus Infinity]

overprice and no stock and mark up price happening in pc now is sad

Situation will improve in late Q1, supply chains are in meltdown at moment.

 

[Valantar]

Ice lake is indeed impressive, but from the few that notebookcheck has tested, its sustained performance is not much higher then coffee lake, the production designs are nowhere near as liberal with TDP limits. It REALLY needs those unsustainable 40w+TDPs to perform. Until intel gets power usage under control amd doesn’t have much to worry about.

True, but tiger lake supposedly improves on just that. Guess we'll see how that plays out once reviews of real world products start proliferating.

 

[watzupken]

The results look good, but be prepared for low availability. This may be released in 2021, but next year is not far away and I doubt AMD can go from almost 0 availability of either their Zen 3 or RDNA2, to 100% availability in the next 6 months or more.

Situation will improve in late Q1, supply chains are in meltdown at moment.

I doubt that. In fact I am being optimistic that we need to wait at least 6 months before we may see things improving. With the world's factory in Chinese New Year holiday in mid Q1, I am not expecting an improvement in supply that soon. Moreover with new COVID cases rising in a few countries at the moment, the lockdowns will likely impact freight and/or supply of parts.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

The return of Vega 11?

No in citate is "Navi" for iGPU. I guess RDNA2 with enough number of CU's on 5nm. 3.4TF is little better than performance of GTX 1650(non super)...

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Good but Intel has them cornered. Better integration within systems, more favourable relationships with OEMs, better power management (idle usage debacle that was pointed out on Ryzen) and better availability. Xe graphics has Vega beat and will be far stronger when Navi2 APUs emerge. I'd always consider Intel as the first option.

Are you honestly claiming Xe Wil be stronger than RDNA2 in APUs? Based on what exactly?

Hopefully people can actually buy one...

AMD have had several brilliant CPU's that they simple marketed woefully. The 3900, 3300x and the Renoir chips. Add to the ridiculous launch of the 5000 series, AMD could do so much better.

They literally have a tenth of Intel's budget for everything and they're not only competing, but winning in many instances... People seem to constantly forget or ignore the fact that Intel's financial resources are a magnitude larger than AMD's and in spite of that, AMD is still winning and multiple categories and at worst, highly competitive in others. AMD is literally doing more than both Intel and Nvidia with far, far less... In fact, I'd be extremely interested to see the ratio of performance to annual budget/expenditures for all three companies as I'd imagine AMD's would be greatly superior to both Intel's and Nvidia's.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yeah you know what you're right, Intel should really shut shop after this

That's old, and it's engineering sample. Even 4C TGL-U can kill the current leaked scores for the 5600H as I already showed.

This is the latest score for the TGL-H 4C/8T leaked.

1606 = 17.1% faster single core than 5600H

5686 = 99.53% of the multi-core score of the 6-core 5600H. It is also better than the production 6-core 4600H can manage. And that, from an Intel ES with all the attendant bugs and tuning issues.

I expect the multi-core to get better (and they have been since the first leak in November), as this latest score is about in line with a 28W TGL-U and this is TGL-H we're talking about.

5600H will probably get better too, just as the 11370H leaks have shown it getting better, but it needs to. Those scores are totally unimpressive for a 6-core Zen 3 part. A 6 core TGL would obliterate it, and we do expect those perhaps as soon as January.

 

[Mussels]

No joke, these bundled with 30x0 series mobile GPU's will fly off the shelves for gamers

 

[R0H1T]

I expect the multi-core to get better

So you think the Ryzen multi scores won't get better?

5600H will probably get better too

It will, unless you believe there's absolutely nothing wrong (no uplift possible) with these machines & no tweaks the OEM could make for them to boost longer.

 

[qoonik]

Yeah you know what you're right, Intel should really shut shop after this

It seems that M1 mac mini just laugh ....

Mac mini (Late 2020) Benchmarks - Geekbench

CPU Benchmark Scores
Single-Core Score 1706
Multi-Core Score 7386

My wishes for 2021 I would like to have 34W - 45W CPU with Single-Core Score 2000 Multi-Core Score 10000
In other cases M1 will eat Intel and AMD for breakfast ....

 

[Ruru]

I want an all AMD laptop. No good having Nvdia gpu in it. Either all the way red or stay blue and green. And a 2k laptop screen.

You mean 1440p? As when 2160p is called 4K, then 1080p should be called 2K.

 

[ratirt]

Are you honestly claiming Xe Wil be stronger than RDNA2 in APUs? Based on what exactly?

You should have know by now, answering to that person has no meaning. There are some people like the person you have replied to, that will always put ridiculous reasoning to justify their fanboy attitude. It's a waste of your effort.

You mean 1440p? As when 2160p is called 4K, then 1080p should be called 2K.

1440p is 2k or QHD and 1080p is Full HD unless something has changed recently but I doubt it.

 

[Valantar]

1440p is 2k or QHD and 1080p is Full HD unless something has changed recently but I doubt it.

The term 4K comes from the cinema DCI 4K standard, which is 4096x2160 pixels. "4K" UHD at 3840x2160 is the closest consumer equivalent. DCI 2K is 2048x1080, which would make its consumer equivalent 1920x1080. So no, people using "2K" as a shorthand for 1440p or 2560x1440 are using it wrong.

 

[ratirt]

The term 4K comes from the cinema DCI 4K standard, which is 4096x2160 pixels. "4K" UHD at 3840x2160 is the closest consumer equivalent. DCI 2K is 2048x1080, which would make its consumer equivalent 1920x1080. So no, people using "2K" as a shorthand for 1440p or 2560x1440 are using it wrong.

You are right but DCI refers to a movie projection like DCI2k DCI4k. The standards for monitors and gaming are different. 1080p aka FHD can be considered 2k but in the gaming standard it is not. It is called FHD and the prim for the 2k resolution in the gaming arena holds the 2560x1440 as a QHD or 2k as some people refer to. 1920x1080 is a separate resolution than the DCI 2k standard and it has been addressed as such and it is not being recognized as DCI 2k resolution in that standard.

 

[Valantar]

You are right but DCI refers to a movie projection like DCI2k DCI4k. The standards for monitors and gaming are different. 1080p aka FHD can be considered 2k but in the gaming standard it is not. It is called FHD and the prim for the 2k resolution in the gaming arena holds the 2560x1440 as a QHD or 2k as some people refer to. 1920x1080 is a separate resolution than the DCI 2k standard and it has been addressed as such and it is not being recognized as DCI 2k resolution in that standard.

Given that I actually linked to a description of the DCI standards, it would be reasonable to assume that I know the industry and use cases they stem from, no? And didn't my post make it quite clear that DCI 2K and 1080p are different, just like DCI 4K and UHD 4K are different? I never claimed the two were the same, just that the closest consumer resolution to the only resolution actually named 2K is 1080p.

Beyond that: No. There is no consumer resolution that has ever been named 2K. In fact, there isn't actually anyconsumer resolution that is officially named 4K, as the official term for 3840x2160 is UHD (or UHD 4K to differentiate it from DCI 4K). The term 4K has been "adopted" from the DCI terminology. 2K as a name for 1440p is some marketing nonsense made up by some monitor brand wanting to sell their monitors as "similar to 4k, but less, still better than 1080p". Apparently "1440p" is too complicated for them. But there is absolutely no consumer resolution named 2K in any capacity, and if there were to be one, we should follow the "standard" from UHD 4K and use the closest consumer resolution to the DCI resolution with that name, which would then be 1080p. 1440p has zero reason to be called "2K".

Monitor resolutions are officially denominated by their pixel resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, etc.) or their abbreviated naming (EGA, VGA, XGA, FHD, QHD, WQHD, etc.). TV and broadcast resolutions used to be named for the number of horizontal lines in the image and whether they were interpolated or progressive-scan (480p, 360i, etc), which was used up until HDTVs hit the market and "HD" naming entered the scene (HD, FHD, UHD), though there was a lot of overlap there (768i/p was rather uncommon, but 1080i/p were often used to more clearly communicate that this was a real HDTV). "K" naming got adopted into this as the difference between "HD", "Full HD" and "Ultra HD" is pretty vague and fails to communicate that there are major differences, leading TV manufacturers to start calling UHD "UHD 4K" instead. Monitor and TV naming has somewhat blended together since the introduction of the "K" naming - despite this being entirely unofficial, with no actual standards for this beyond the DCI standard, but that can't be used to retroactively rename a resolution, and especially not one that doesn't fit any reasonable criteria for the name.

Just because a bunch of gamers have adopted a misused marketing term to mean something it doesn't doesn't make that meaning correct.