Zen 3 slower than Zen 2: first benchmarks show the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U outperforming the Ryzen 7 5800U in most scenarios

[Redaktion]

Even though the Ryzen 7 5700U launched day and date with the Ryzen 7 5800U, it's still based on AMD's older Zen 2 architecture. However, benchmarks and real-world games show that this difference won't really matter for most users.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Zen-3-slower-than-Zen-2-first-benchmarks-show-the-AMD-Ryzen-7-5700U-outperforming-the-Ryzen-7-5800U-in-most-scenarios.541667.0.html

[Thinkpad Fan]

Of course it's running slower in your initial testing - your comparing a garbage Zenbook to two well-cooled systems that can sustain higher levels of power. Nice title.

[_MT_]

Are you kidding us? You've got comparable ZenBooks in there with little difference between them and you produce this load of nonsense? Laptop matters (e.g. power limits), imagine that. Even the 4800U (or 4750U) could sustain numbers well over 1200 in CB R15.

[Eric]

Yes, this is terrible analysis. If you compare only the two Asus Zenbook 13" notebooks, then the results are rather different. In Cinebench, Zen 2 is 16% SLOWER than Zen 3. And in the integrated graphics tests, Zen 2 is 1% to 7% SLOWER than Zen 3.

[Lin Baden]

Removing this site from the ad-blocker's white-list seems mandatory to me because of these click-bait titles. If you compare the 5700U and 5800U (including i-gpus), you must compare them at the same power limits, otherwise it doesn't make sense at all. In cpu-only your tests, the 5700U in that Envy sustains ~30W, whereas the 5800U in that zenbook 13 barely keeps 25W, more like 20W in the long run.

[Anonym]

I am struggling to understand why AMD insists in sponsoring content on this site. Clearly they are not welcomed by its editorial staff, a message clearly conveyed by this "so called" article where the author first wrote the headline and then figured out whichever testing was necessary to make the results fit that headline (even if in the end we are greeted just by an exercise in stupidity, with small passages that hint why this testing is so flawed beyond recovery but the author asserts all differences "should be minor" -- that's the spirit of testing, you don't reproduce results but rather just re-affirm your assumptions regardless of the outcomes... science!).

I am done in NBC and their garbage. Everything started with the console related garbage. Now they've bringing that same garbage to their bread and butter -- the laptop articles. NO MORE!

[neblogai]

It is true that the article is clickbaity. However, for most users, there is really no difference, Lucienne or Cezanne. Both come with LOTS of CPU cores/threads, that offer more capability than most people will ever need. And gaming performance is identical too, both at 15W and 25W (https://youtu.be/edpdmbmYOj0?t=837). And battery life in Lucienne is improved over Renoir (recent comparison here on Notebookcheck).
So I'd say, if you need those Zen3 cores to do your work faster (that is- you are earning money with the device)- then sure, it is worth searching for Cezanne, and paying extra for it. And even better- just get H-series then, for higher sustained clocks. But for an average consumer- it is probably best to concentrate attention to other components (good screen, enough RAM, etc), instead of overpaying just to get somewhat faster Zen3 cores.

[ddssavfaX]

while the article is misleading, there are already reviews that compare 4800U with 5800U on similar laptops and chassis and they are quite close in MT workloads and GPU performance. Why is this? Because 5800U is just made on the same 7nm process and zen 3 doesn't have nearly enough efficiency improvements in terms of architectural enhancement that would let it increase the perf/watt metric by a considerable margin. The same situation holds for 5800H/4800H, where 5800H is a tiny bit faster than 4800H but it also consumes more power, hence the perf/watt is basically the same.
Zen 2 brought such a huge efficiency increase over 3000 series because (and AMD said this in their slides) of 7nm. I recall they said it was about 70-75% of the improvements, which is a LOT. So zen 2 to zen 3 just shows what amd can do on the same node, which isn't a whole lot more, if they are TDP constrained.

[Thor78]

The HP has 48W and 37W power limits whereas the Zenbook has 30W and 25W.... The comparison is not really far. You should set the power limits of the Zenbook on the HP and rerun the tests.

[maxc777]

Indeed, there are reviews on Youtube of the HP with 5800u running at a higher power envelope that performs much better on games. I expect the multicore scores would also be be significantly than the zenbook. Nowadays NBC seems to have difficulty drawing the obvious correlations 1) Cezanne offering higher single-thread than Luciene but the same core / clock specs 3) more power on these core U or core g processors means better multirhead/gaming performance.

[thisaintitchief]

Zen 2 is faster than Zen 3 in the same way that my grandmother can outrun me if I'm asleep and she isn't.

[tombox]

This author does it purposely ... again. Comparing apples and oranges and using clickbait titles. Reading articles about AMD by Allen Ngo ...total waste of time.

[Wereweeb]

Wow, is this really all it takes to write to Notebookcheck?

[Russel]

B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics...

B.S== bull s*** here?
Troll article paid by intel.
😂

[tombox]

Advertisement paid by Intel - Allen Ngo.