AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS pounds Ryzen 5 4600H and Intel Core i7-10750H in Fire Strike Extreme physics score results

[Redaktion]

AMD's Ryzen 7 4800HS mobile SoC has been spotted on another benchmark, in this case 3DMark's Fire Strike Extreme. The Renoir APU's results were compared with those of the high-end Comet Lake Intel Core i7-10750H and the Ryzen 5 4600H. Although the Intel part offered the highest 3DMark score and graphics score, the Ryzen 7 4800HS's physics score was way beyond the chosen rivals.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-7-4800HS-pounds-Ryzen-5-4600H-and-Intel-Core-i7-10750H-in-Fire-Strike-Extreme-physics-score-results.455245.0.html

[fdsofldmos]

Well, 6 core vs 8 core, what do you expect?

[Valantar]

I would assume there's a clear reason why the screenshot has the GPU results greyed out: neither of the three laptops have their GPUs identified, and even if they are running similar clock speeds they are thus not directly comparable, at least not from a "which CPU is faster for gaming" perspective like this article presents.

Also, "high-end CPU beats lower end CPU in same series" is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.

The comparison to the i7 is more interesting, so I guess this article could have been boiled down to about four sentences of actually relevant comparisons.

[william blake]

i hate 3dmark. always a total mess with these several different 3dmarks/tests. there should be the one and only 3dmark to make things clear.

[Valantar]

i hate 3dmark. always a total mess with these several different 3dmarks/tests. there should be the one and only 3dmark to make things clear.

There is - the actual combined 3DMark score. The graphics and physics scores are very helpful in figuring out why a system lands at a particular score, though, as you'd otherwise be completely in the blue as to which of the two major components in the system are causing it to score the way it does. I would also argue that it would be rather problematic for a benchmark testing two things (CPU and GPU performance, as games stress both and this is trying to emulate extreme/future gaming loads) to only present one number with no explanation - that would significantly diminish the value of the benchmark.

Then again I understand frustration over incessant 3DMark subscore comparisons - they're ultimately not that important.

[william blake]

Valantar
i mean fire strike, time spy and all that.
google "3dmark score" pics. a complete mess.
not only that, there are different versions also.
every time i see someone talking about 3dmark im screaming shut up, tell me WHAT 3dmark exactly first.

[Valantar]

Valantar
i mean fire strike, time spy and all that.
google "3dmark score" pics. a complete mess.
not only that, there are different versions also.
every time i see someone talking about 3dmark im screaming shut up, tell me WHAT 3dmark exactly first.

That's understandable, that's mostly due to 3DMark moving from their previous discrete versions (3DMark Vantage, 3DMark 11, etc.) to now just adding new benchmarks to the base 3DMark application. Still a necessity though, as they need to implement new hardware and software features as they are created (RT, DX12, etc.) to be able to benchmark them; PC hardware benchmarking is always a moving target. Fire Strike was there when 3DMark (the current application) launched in 2013, while Time Spy and Night Raid were added in 2016 to test DX12, which didn't exist in 2013. Still, one should obviously never ever report a score without clarifying which benchmark is being run.