The Ryzen 7 4800U and Ryzen 5 4600U are taking Intel to the cleaners, and Lenovo is happy to brag about it

[Redaktion]

Expect Ryzen 7 4800U and Ryzen 5 4600U-powered Lenovo laptops, and expect them to crush whatever Intel is offering. Posted on the company's Weibo account, Lenovo has already shown what the two Ryzen 4000 series APUs are capable of.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Ryzen-7-4800U-and-Ryzen-5-4600U-are-taking-Intel-to-the-cleaners-and-Lenovo-is-happy-to-brag-about-it.460891.0.html

[william blake]

yeah, good luck tiger lake.

[jeremy]

yeah, good luck tiger lake.

There has got to be at least one person who believes Intel can still win. Their 10nm process takes even more energy than their 14nm, so unless if we are talking about U series laptops with the ability to dissipate 50W++, all to feed a pathetic quad core in an era of 6-8 cores, Intel will have made two consecutive stumbles in their last market. Last time around, their mobile chips bailed them out (technologically - we all know what their business people did, too). If Tiger Lake fails to even catch up with Renoir (which is using Zen2 + ancient Vega cores), then Intel is basically toast.

Let's look at it this way: Nvidia is confident enough to have cut down the old GTX1050 to serve as the MX350 for the time being, and it seems they will cut down the GTX1650 to serve as the MX450 in the future. We know OEM/ODMs aren't really pairing these with AMD APUs. ;)

[antifocus]

The laptop being tested Xiaoxin 13 Pro does being sold elsewhere, it's Ideapad S540 13". NBC did a review on its predecessor.

The interesting part remained to be seen is that how they handle the sustained power on the 4800U, as per the AMD website it goes up to 25W but the laptop is very capable of handling 35W.

[Sean stanek]

yeah, good luck tiger lake.

There has got to be at least one person who believes Intel can still win. Their 10nm process takes even more energy than their 14nm, so unless if we are talking about U series laptops with the ability to dissipate 50W++, all to feed a pathetic quad core in an era of 6-8 cores, Intel will have made two consecutive stumbles in their last market. Last time around, their mobile chips bailed them out (technologically - we all know what their business people did, too). If Tiger Lake fails to even catch up with Renoir (which is using Zen2 + ancient Vega cores), then Intel is basically toast.

Let's look at it this way: Nvidia is confident enough to have cut down the old GTX1050 to serve as the MX350 for the time being, and it seems they will cut down the GTX1650 to serve as the MX450 in the future. We know OEM/ODMs aren't really pairing these with AMD APUs. ;)

as long as Intel can get 6 and 8 cores on tiger lake they will be fine since zen 2 has about a 4% ipc boost over skylake but ice lake has 18% more ipc than skylake and tiger is double digits increase over ice lake, so core per core amd wouldn't stand a chance with the improved yields and power efficiency

[k]

people in computer industry taut these bloody benchmark as if they are world. this processor is 10percent better and blaw-blaw. how does that 5-10 percent matter in real world.for extreme workstation or server class job it matters where it will cut 24hrs to 20 hrs. for gaming as long as your computer generates 40 fps it good enough without any scope of improvement. thats reason i faith only specviewperf because i use those engineering software. that too I check only to limit whether machine is workable or not rather than finding best. with that reason i went for fx8350 (many people at that time did) rather than i73700 and saved huge money with same real world performance and is happy even to date when this one can run almost all games and is far better than i73700 in most engineering software. would i have gone with these nonsense benchmarks, would have lost lots of money. therefore i suggest use your brain and evaluate whats your requirement instead of falling prey to these marketing benchmark numbers. 1100 and 1300 marks are all same in real world. it matters only when it is 1100 vs 11000. after 5 years both processors with 1100 and 1300 will be same as are fx8350 and i73700 now.

[Alex544]

people in computer industry taut these bloody benchmark as if they are world. this processor is 10percent better and blaw-blaw. how does that 5-10 percent matter in real world.for extreme workstation or server class job it matters where it will cut 24hrs to 20 hrs. for gaming as long as your computer generates 40 fps it good enough without any scope of improvement. thats reason i faith only specviewperf because i use those engineering software. that too I check only to limit whether machine is workable or not rather than finding best. with that reason i went for fx8350 (many people at that time did) rather than i73700 and saved huge money with same real world performance and is happy even to date when this one can run almost all games and is far better than i73700 in most engineering software. would i have gone with these nonsense benchmarks, would have lost lots of money. therefore i suggest use your brain and evaluate whats your requirement instead of falling prey to these marketing benchmark numbers. 1100 and 1300 marks are all same in real world. it matters only when it is 1100 vs 11000. after 5 years both processors with 1100 and 1300 will be same as are fx8350 and i73700 now.

40 fps is good enough? wtf? maybe if you come from intel hd gaming and have low expectations
the thing is, if these benchmarks are real then the 4600U is 50% more powerful than the i7-10710U. (1500 vs 1000)
not 10%.
and this is AMD beating Intel, not the other way around, so the "it's cheaper!!" argument doesn't work here because AMD CPUs are faster AND cheaper.

[John Snow]

40 fps is good enough? wtf? maybe if you come from intel hd gaming and have low expectations
the thing is, if these benchmarks are real then the 4600U is 50% more powerful than the i7-10710U. (1500 vs 1000)
not 10%.
and this is AMD beating Intel, not the other way around, so the "it's cheaper!!" argument doesn't work here because AMD CPUs are faster AND cheaper.
[/quote]
I understand k's sentiment, but as you said these are not small differences anymore. Additionally, according to Anandtech's Asus G14 review, Ryzen 4000 moves from idle frequency to max boost frequency twice as fast as 9th gen Intel, so it will feel snappier during most everyday tasks as well. And it uses much less power under load.

[ariliquin]

OK Lenovo, time to release a Thinkpad X1 Extreme AMD 4900H offering and replacement for yoga C940. Where are our high end AMD options?

[Jay2020]

All I can say is, too little too late.
The world's going to end anyway.

[kony]

There has got to be at least one person who believes Intel can still win.

I do. AMD might be significantly better performing and decrease heat dissipation and power use at the same time, but OEMs will still buy and release Intel chips in high-end options, leaving AMD for crap tier and middle tier only. SAME WITH LENOVO. They will include AMD only in T14 and X13 of all their devices, and these T14 and X13 will have low-end screens in comparison to Intel options, where you will be able to go for high resolution and better gamut.

That's the way it is. I don't know if these are long term contracts, bribes or incompetence, but this is the way these companies roll.

[WiredBrain]

There has got to be at least one person who believes Intel can still win.

I do. AMD might be significantly better performing and decrease heat dissipation and power use at the same time, but OEMs will still buy and release Intel chips in high-end options, leaving AMD for crap tier and middle tier only. SAME WITH LENOVO. They will include AMD only in T14 and X13 of all their devices, and these T14 and X13 will have low-end screens in comparison to Intel options, where you will be able to go for high resolution and better gamut.

That's the way it is. I don't know if these are long term contracts, bribes or incompetence, but this is the way these companies roll.

Agreed. OEM's seemed to to have longterm contracts with intel to use only their cpu's in high-end variants compared to AMD.

[Xajel]

If they're really bragging then we can expect next gen X1 Extreme and P1 to move to Ryzen then.

[Padmakara]

There has got to be at least one person who believes Intel can still win.

I do. AMD might be significantly better performing and decrease heat dissipation and power use at the same time, but OEMs will still buy and release Intel chips in high-end options, leaving AMD for crap tier and middle tier only. SAME WITH LENOVO. They will include AMD only in T14 and X13 of all their devices, and these T14 and X13 will have low-end screens in comparison to Intel options, where you will be able to go for high resolution and better gamut.

That's the way it is. I don't know if these are long term contracts, bribes or incompetence, but this is the way these companies roll.

You can't even imagine how much lobby Intel does to OEMs. Cause intel is 12x bigger than amd.
But look at the bright side, If you consumers continue to ask OEMs for Amd in high end laptops, and mid range with better screens and not Buying Intel systems, they will be Forced to build the laptops with Amd that consumers want, maybe from next year.
But people should ask for that...
Otherwise nothing will change and Intel has a lot of money to give.
Also amd gpus 5600m and 5700m will come soon, so people will have the equivalent of 2060 and 2070. Unfortunately they won't compete with nvidia's super...
So only the cosumers can change the current situation asking for better screens and high end devices with AMD

[Padmakara]

Looks like Apple is moving to Amd, on geekbench 5 there are a lot of imac pros with 3700x-3900x 3950x Ryzen.
These are very good news.
iMacPro1,1 Ryzen 3900x
1335
Single-Core Score
12279
Multi-Core Score
Probably Renoir will come soon also to MacBooks