AMD's most important product ever - Ryzen 9 4900HS

[LurkerJ]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

JRPGfan said:

Intel Core I9 10875H is a ~25day old  Intel CPU (basically brand new).
its Comet Lake, a highly binned chip at 45watts.

Cinebench R20 scores:
Intel Core I9 10875H (45w)  : Single thread score : 498 ,   Multi thread score : 2853

AMD Ryzen 7 4700U (15w) :  Single thread score : 472 ,   Multi thread score : 2647
AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (15w) :  Single thread score : 480 ,   Multi thread score : 3306
AMD Ryzen 9 4900 HS (35w) : Single thread score : 495 ,   Multi thread score : 4288

So it beats the 4700U.
Theres a 4800U thats pretty close though.
I'd say its safe to claim the 4900HS is a faster chip, at lower power consumption.

Intel has been stuck at 14nm for too long.

I didn't say that it would beat AMD. I just said that between the 7700HQ and today there lies a big gap in Intels mobile chips, even though they stayed at 14nm. The reason why this even was slightly possible is because the 7700HQ was pretty much just lazy filler. Just look at the numbers you posed for the 7700HQ and the 10875H:

7700HQ: (45w) (4c/8t): single thread score : 370   Multi thread score : 1774

10875H: (45w)  (8c/16t): Single thread score : 498  Multi thread score : 2853

That's not enough to beat AMD, not by a longshot, but still a nice increase for a chip on the same node and architecture. But like I said, that's not because the 10875H is so good, but rather because the 7700HQ was so bad that there was much room to improve.

The 7700HQ being a terrible CPU is a good explanation I guess. I feel have had an under-appreciation for how much progress was made in terms of energy efficiency in the past few years. Thanks for the comparisons and the scores, really tickles me inside to see such big differences. AMD is competing at the highest level, stoked!