We got exclusive access to first benchmarks of the Intel Comet Lake-H Core i9-10880H, Core i7-10750H, and the Core i5-10300H. We compared single-core and multi-core performance of these chips with contemporary offerings from AMD viz. the Ryzen 9 4900HS and the Ryzen 7 4800H, and also 9th gen Coffee Lake-H Refresh CPUs. Although the scores further re-iterate Intel's lead in single-core performance, we see that AMD has successfully managed to narrow the gap significantly while maintaining good leads in multi-core tests.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/First-benchmarks-of-the-10th-gen-Comet-Lake-H-series-demonstrate-Intel-s-continued-dominance-in-single-core-but-AMD-Ryzen-4000-has-largely-closed-the-gap.459690.0.html
So let me get this straight, the best 45W comet lake H is only 10% better in R15 and 3% better in R20 than a 35W 4900HS? And they all lose in multi-core performance.
And there is still the 4900H
Funny how Intel can reach this level of performance, albeit at a shitty power consumption, with 5 year old parts, whereas AMD needs all the advantages in this world, 7nm process, latest uArch, clock speeds pushed to max. And people are still praising AMD...
If AMD were so good, they would've had 30-40% better IPC, beat 8 cores Intel with 6 cores at 3Ghz. As it stands currently AMD goes core to core with Intel and it still just ties...and remember Intel is using skylake, launched in 2015. 5 freaking years have passed and it is still able to fight with latest and greatest from AMD, LOL.
Mind you, AMD power consumption is great, no doubt about that. But that is largely attributable to better process, nothing else. So we could say, woah TSMC you are so good, beating 14nm Intel process.
Quote from: A on April 02, 2020, 09:29:07
So let me get this straight, the best 45W comet lake H is only 10% better in R15 and 3% better in R20 than a 35W 4900HS? And they all lose in multi-core performance.
And there is still the 4900H
And there is still the 10980HK, which will beat the 4900H.
from a consumer point ov view(not me, a consumer), these chips are DOA.
Quote from: fasddsadasdas on April 02, 2020, 09:35:57
Mind you, AMD power consumption is great, no doubt about that. But that is largely attributable to better process, nothing else. So we could say, woah TSMC you are so good, beating 14nm Intel process.
nope. process and chip design is a pair, they are like time and space, parts of the spacetime.
so
7nm tsmc+zen 2 cores>>> 10nm(same size as tsmc 7 actually) intel+cove cores.
@fasddsadasdas
1) Have you forgotten tick-tock? AMD just entered 7nm, so it hasn't been fully optimized. In comparison, intel optimized their process quite a ton. Zen 3 will bring out even more out of 7nm.
2) AMD has both GPU improvements and CPU for their APUs, while intel focused mostly on CPU
3) Notice how the single core performance of AMD and Intel processors are pretty close, but multicore performance suddenly takes a huge dive for intel? There is a reason why intel wants people to focus on single core. Cause their whole game is boost clocking that 1 core. Which may look nice in synthetic single core benchmarks, but isn't gonna work well in actual usage.
rightly said by author not worth upgrade on 9th gen. both AMD and intel had let down. few percent, i would say even 50% improvement is not at all visible in real world for most of task. you are never going to run laptop for CFD simulations and hence as long as FPS is greater than 40 there is no need to burn money on costly CPU or GPU. its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.
Quote from: k on April 02, 2020, 13:22:19
rightly said by author not worth upgrade on 9th gen. both AMD and intel had let down. few percent, i would say even 50% improvement is not at all visible in real world for most of task. you are never going to run laptop for CFD simulations and hence as long as FPS is greater than 40 there is no need to burn money on costly CPU or GPU. its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.
I think you are one of the only people in the world who thinks Ryzen was a let down. Expecting 50% improvement in 1 generation is quite a large bar since most improvements tend to be within 10%.
That said, looking at previous 35W best Ryzen 3750H vs 4900HS, there is a 36.5% improvement in single core on cinebench and 139% improvement on multicore.
Geekbench also shows similar gains.
If you want to talk about real life improvements vs the 3750H, the improvements in real life usage are easily close to 50% or more:
static.techspot .com/articles-info/2003/bench/3.png
Quote from: k on April 02, 2020, 13:22:19
its better to look for bargain on 3xxx ryzen or 8xxx or 9xxx intel.
hmmm no, not this time. 2020 is the year for a new buy. id say 1,5x more performance per average laptop. never happened before.
@A remain however a good comparison because frequency of ram is lower than Ryzen. 14nm beats 7nm of amd.
i admit intel hw enginners are better than amd.
Did Intel write this for you?
Yeah, Intel just 'decided' to focus on single core performance this year. LOL.
AMD caught up in single core and is kicking @ss in multi-core performance. Everything has been re-written to take advantage of multi-core processors over the past decade. It is almost pointless to even publish single core performance numbers these days.
Quote from: 8&8 on April 02, 2020, 18:02:45
@A remain however a good comparison because frequency of ram is lower than Ryzen. 14nm beats 7nm of amd.
i admit intel hw enginners are better than amd.
you mean skylake 2015 engineers? coz current engineers a total crap.
To all those praising Intel for beating AMD 7nm with their 14 nm:
Intel 14 nm is even better than Intel 10 nm, so engineers were awesome a couple of years ago, and Intel still lives on that.
nm notation is not actually comparable. Intel 10nm not equals TSMC 10nm!
The 2 companies budget is not comparable, still AMD improves like crazy from uarch to uarch
Quote from: 8&8 on April 02, 2020, 18:02:45
@A remain however a good comparison because frequency of ram is lower than Ryzen. 14nm beats 7nm of amd.
i admit intel hw enginners are better than amd.
You are aware that intel only supports up to 2933mhz ram right? How is it AMD's fault Intel engineers couldn't figure out how to support faster ram?
The reality is, due to design AMD's processor benefit from faster ram much more than Intel processors.
And again, AMD has lower power usage and much faster iGPU.
@A/Wblake are u serious? have u seen benchmarks? intel beats amd/TSMC node again with 100% of more space and lower frequency ram. AMD hw engineer aren't excellent! This is fact. I'm not a stupid fanboy,] i'm pro amd or intel [, we have to admit that again in their superefreshed 14nm fried/fish are still competitive with 7nm. maybe not with / EUV but my congratulations. When will we see 7nm of intel against 7+AMD we can speak about their performances. ALU's intel far better than amd.
iGPU always better than intel from 2012. not a surprise.
@blake
why were gone to the rest skylake arch enginners?
they invest minds and money into AI in processors that you will see with a letter "N" that stays for Nirvana. If you search in this site u'll find some articles with processors of 2c/4t and they are good. Not a revolution but a decent evolution (leopard2A4 MBT) good first step.
NG = Nirvana&iGraphic
Sylicon Sylicon Sylicon.
Quote from: 8&8 on April 03, 2020, 01:25:51
@A/Wblake are u serious? have u seen benchmarks? intel beats amd/TSMC node again with 100% of more space and lower frequency ram. AMD hw engineer aren't excellent! This is fact. I'm not a stupid fanboy,] i'm pro amd or intel [, we have to admit that again in their superefreshed 14nm fried/fish are still competitive with 7nm. maybe not with / EUV but my congratulations. When will we see 7nm of intel against 7+AMD we can speak about their performances. ALU's intel far better than amd.
iGPU always better than intel from 2012. not a surprise.
But again, it's a difference of design. Intel's processors don't benefit as much from higher clocked ram as AMD does. But arguing that is futile because the benchmarks speak for themselves, and AMD processors win in multicore benchmarks by a HUGE margin despite same amount of cores.
We all know that TSMC's 7nm is closer to Intel's 10nm. But we won't get to compare Intel's 7nm because by that point AMD will be on 5nm node.
iGPUs take space and power, so you can't pretend they don't play a role. And nowadays iGPUs performance is a lot better than before, enough to compete with low end dGPUs even.
Yeah your right, their engineers back during skylake were amazing. Then they wanted to cut their budget and laid off tons of their veteran engineers, and look at them now. Saved a couple dollars but lost all of their greatest talent.
Quote
nm notation is not actually comparable. Intel 10nm not equals TSMC 10nm!
The 2 companies budget is not comparable, still AMD improves like crazy from uarch to uarch
tsmc 7=intel 10. wiki says so
someone knows why always x Lake? lake lake lake?
Intel is so wet? ok that they are having water from all sides, but change name!
LOL
AMD clobbers Intel clock for clock, core for core.
8C vs 8C, never thought I'd see such a deficit from Intel.
And yet, there will be very few laptops with AMD chip inside this year.
Is this a April Fools joke article? "demonstrate Intel's leads" ... !? You call 3% a "demonstrated lead" with what, 50% more energy consumption? And then AMD be like 20% ahead in multicore again with -30% energy consumption?