New graphics tests reveal AMD's Ryzen 4000 iGPUs are significantly faster than Intel's Ice Lake alternatives

[Redaktion]

Even though the new Ryzen 4000 APUs do not integrate Navi iGPUs, the performance gains are quite substantial, at least when compared to the previous generation. According to the latest UserBenchmark tests, the new 7 nm Vega compute units should be 34% faster than similarly clocked Intel Iris Pro iGPUs, while 3DMark 11 reports that AMD's gains are only around 10%.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/New-graphics-tests-reveal-AMD-s-Ryzen-4000-iGPUs-are-significantly-faster-than-Intel-s-Ice-Lake-alternatives.450283.0.html

[xpclient]

Do they come with Video Core Next 2.0? According to this website yes: https://newsbeezer.com/sloveniaeng/the-new-amd-processors-will-further-strengthen-intels-life/

[Valantar]

This article fails to clarify the chief problem with understanding this claim: that it is specifically per Vega CU. The 3700U had 11. The 4800U has 8. Yet it outperforms the former by 25%. So it delivers 125% performance with 73% of the CUs. Some simple maths shows us the 3700U then delivers 9.1 (100:11) "performance per CU", while the new 4800U delivers 15.6 (125:8 ) -  actually a 72% increase per CU if those absolute performance numbers are accurate.

[william blake]

The 3700U had 11

10

[Valantar]

The 3700U had 11

10

Of course, I got that mixed up with the desktop 3400G.

That makes it
100:10=10 vs 125:8=15.6 for a straightforward 56% per-CU increase in performance. Lines up perfectly I guess :)

[Arthran]

Ice Lake only goes up to Iris Plus, not Iris Pro.

[Valantar]

Ice Lake only goes up to Iris Plus, not Iris Pro.

You're right about that, but the benchmark numbers are from a G7 configuration, so it's just the naming that's off, it's still the top configuration that's being compared. Probably an update needed in UL/3DMark's database.

[k]

despite more than 60% gain in cpu only 30% better gpu means overall degradation of gpu. afterall cpu scxore multiplies on gpu. thats really bad and not worth wait that long

[Bogdan Solca]

Ice Lake only goes up to Iris Plus, not Iris Pro.

My bad, fixed.

[Cppc]

Don't use UserMark.
They are far from accurate and have been proven to be such. That's not to say Ryzen 4000s aren't faster, they definitly are.But those of us who know benchmarking probably stopped reading this article exactly where i stopped...at the 1st mention of UserMark.

[Damien]

I'm a bit disappointed by the use of Vega instead of Navi, but the CPU performance is quite impressive!.

[Valantar]

I'm a bit disappointed by the use of Vega instead of Navi, but the CPU performance is quite impressive!.

Agree, but CPU and GPU development cycles are so long that this time things sadly didn't line up - RDNA simply wasn't finished by the time they had to design the GPU for Renoir.

despite more than 60% gain in cpu only 30% better gpu means overall degradation of gpu. afterall cpu scxore multiplies on gpu. thats really bad and not worth wait that long

What are you on about? You'll still get a 30% increase in game performance (assuming these numbers are true), and a 60% increase in performance for anything CPU-limited. Games are rarely CPU-limited. It's not a linear increase of both, true, but the CPU was by far the weakest part of previous APUs, so this makes sense. Should be a better balanced design for all applications.

[william blake]

Should be a better balanced design for all applications.

the best balance-fast as hell cpu and whatever gpu. smallest size, biggest selling price, max profits, max market share.
fast igpu is good for market share in lower segment, for below 400usd laptops. but bigger size, low selling price, low profits.
so intel behaves as an outsider now, amd as a leader.

[Valantar]

Should be a better balanced design for all applications.

the best balance-fast as hell cpu and whatever gpu. smallest size, biggest selling price, max profits, max market share.
fast igpu is good for market share in lower segment, for below 400usd laptops. but bigger size, low selling price, low profits.
so intel behaves as an outsider now, amd as a leader.

Have to disagree with you there - that iGPU is certainly not "whatever". It should be at least on par with a 25W MX250, which is pretty damn impressive considering the whole package will have a TDP of just past 1/3 any laptop with that GPU. And then there will be Navi-equipped APUs next year taking this further yet. While it's obvious the silicon design has reduced the area of the GPU, performance is still up, and this will likely be exacerbated by the new faster memory. I don't see any signs of AMD wanting to give up iGPU performance leadership. These chips will likely provide decent 1080p gaming performance, with the next gen truly kicking things off - we might even see 1080p60 AAA games in APUs at that point.

[william blake]

Have to disagree with you there - that iGPU is certainly not "whatever". It should be at least on par with a 25W MX250, which is pretty damn impressive considering the whole package will have a TDP of just past 1/3 any laptop with that GPU. And then there will be Navi-equipped APUs next year taking this further yet. While it's obvious the silicon design has reduced the area of the GPU, performance is still up, and this will likely be exacerbated by the new faster memory. I don't see any signs of AMD wanting to give up iGPU performance leadership. These chips will likely provide decent 1080p gaming performance, with the next gen truly kicking things off - we might even see 1080p60 AAA games in APUs at that point.

as you wish. but these were facts, not my opinion.
if you want to play-buy as many fps as you need. i needed hearthstone -i bought 2500u a year ago. this summer im targeting for renoir 5 or 7 with something like mx 350 or amd 5300, i need some moba gaming now. i also tired with shared tdp issues. 15w is not enough for both cpu and gpu, even though im fine with them separately. extra load, even chrome tab,  and frequencies drops to the ground.