The better we can get for a reasonable cost the better.

Don't forget the console APUs will probably cut L3 cache at least in half to save some ~ 20 mm2 in the die. That alone will weight down somewhat significantly on the IPC. So even if the consoles were to have a CPU base clock similar to the 4800H, they wouldn't perform as well.

And since they'll also have a much looser binning, these clocks seem unlikely to be achieved in a 35 - 45 W TDP.

So it would be 2.4% better than a 2700X, which is $217 right now on Amazon. Or around 8% better than a 3600. (According to these benchmarks that is. Real life scenarios could be very different.) IMO a 2600X is entry level, and anything worse than that is basically "WHY WOULD YOU BUILD A PC WITH THIS????" quality. On the GPU side, I would consider anything below a 1650S to be a bad GPU (At least if you bought it right now. IMO 580 8GB VRAM was good a year ago.) 

Anyway that puts the 4800H right around the upper midrange territory by today's standards in my opinion. By the time late 2020 rolls around that could be mid range. Or not. I don't know everything about CPUs yet. Anyway, it kind of worries me. I don't want a repeat of the base model PS4 and XB1, which launched as mid range machines. 

Edit: Again, this is if you built a brand PC with these parts today. IMO a $500 PC build is a total waste of money, and people really should spend enough to hit at least 60 FPS 1080p on a demanding game like Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk. Somebody with a PC they put together a few years ago is different. So I'm not trying to rag on anybody's old rig here. 

Whilst the 4800H is beefy for a notebook, it's mid-range on the PC... And depending on clocks, maybe even low-end.

AMD typically reserves up to 50% of the APU for the Graphics, that has been their design philosophy since they started making APU's with their Fusion initiative.

Probably energy efficient for an AMD mobile part... AMD has never had notebook CPU's with acceptable idle power, which isn't an issue for consoles or PC of course.
Intel however is still a step ahead of AMD in this aspect.

The hit to cache shouldn't have a corresponding hit to performance, the IMC and uncore is on die which will help massively with reducing latency, which is a big deviation from Zen on desktop.
With consoles also using the APU approach, I would expect to see similar for next-gen consoles.

Sometimes it even reduces performance.

In saying that... SMT is mostly to ensure that the full CPU pipeline is being utilized fully rather than having parts of it idle.

Higher clockspeeds but with a smaller chip doesn't mean it will be cheaper to produce.
Sometimes the opposite is true... Because you reach a point where the majority of chips won't hit a certain clockspeed without significant increases in voltage which then results in an acceleration of electromigration.

It's a balancing act.

Sony Computer Entertainment as far as i know already confirmed on their official Japanese websites. They clearly said it will have 16 thread from the 8 core Zen 2. But the clock speed is still not yet clarified. 

If you believe on flute benchmark that  supposed to be a PS5 prototype benchmark , it mentioned that it has a performance of Zen 1. Which is equal to ryzen 3700 with cut down cache  and run at  lower clock speed. I think we will get a cut down version of Ryzen 3700 or a mild modified version on it. It will be cheaper and will have better size to fit on an apu and to let more space  for more CU GPU on reasonable lower yield. 

But i am still not convinced that PS5 will have 9.2 teraflop GPU from 36 CU . It will have temperature problem and eat a lot of power. They probably will have more CU but run at mild clock speed to achieve 10 teraflop of performance. 

So i believe this is the CPU we will have or perhaps PS5 will have the same performance more or less with this one. 

Mass quote of text.... Im not sure how to cut out parts when you multiquote so the entire thing just goes with.

"Probably energy efficient for an AMD mobile part... AMD has never had notebook CPU's with acceptable idle power, which isn't an issue for consoles or PC of course.Intel however is still a step ahead of AMD in this aspect." - Permalite


^ a by-product of the infinity fabric design they choose.   (race to idle, wasnt something AMD was good at)

However they are aware of it, and have worked at it.
Supposedly they "fixed" this issue (alot of it is apparently how fast/slow it enters/exits idle/turbo, which is now x5 faster):
That and 20%+ lower soc powerdraw (reduced how low things can go and funktion), ontop of 2x power effeciency (mostly from 7nm node)...

This chip is gonna change AMD in the laptop scene imo.
Its gonna be competitive when it comes to battery life too.

We need to wait a few months to see it in hands of reviewers, but I believe the idle power draw wont be a issue.

Edit:

Also Remember this for a console part (plugged in).... that really doesnt have any barring on Xbox Series X or Playstation 5.
However I remember there was some talk about next gen consoles being alot more "green" in that idle power / sleep modes, would be drastically improved.

Also with the 3000U series, AMD idle power wasnt so bad (they improved it a decent bit, with the 3000 series).
Something like the ThinkPad X395, with a 3700U has 14,5+ hours battery life (while running MobileMark 2014).
(yes supposedly the intel version ( i7-8565U) of the laptop with same battery, lasted like 17hours)

Still any laptop that can run 14,5hours straigth in a benchmark, has decent enough battery life no?

This will be my last post for about a week or so as I am going on deployment.

The infinity fabric isn't what it is holding AMD's idle power consumption back, it plays a part... Sure.

AMD has *never* been competitive with Intel on Idle power, even during the Turion era.. AMD isn't as aggressive as Intel on power states, doesn't power gate parts of the chip as aggressively as Intel.

This has been a theme for AMD's mobile efforts for over 15~ years.

Of course they are working on it, but Intel has invested extensively in reducing idle power... To the point where they are even working with display manufacturers to decrease panel power consumption with Intels chips.

AMD will still have a long way to go on fixing their idle power consumption woes, even after Ryzen 4000 series drops... But without question, they will likely have the performance edge either way.

That is why I stipulated prior that it's not really a big issue for consoles or PC.

I have a Ryzen 2700u, the 3000 series was essentially just a die shrink of that, the idle power was still shit, I could go more in depth, but I am running out of time.

14.5 hours is good, that is decent battery life, but you could potentially achieve that with better power characteristics and a smaller battery which could potentially lower costs and thus the price... Or give you more battery life overall.

Fact is, Intel will be beating AMD's 7nm chips whilst still stuck on 14nm on the power consumption side of the equation, AMD will of course win in CPU performance and absolutely dominate in GPU performance.
Not entirely sure what the video engine is on the refined Vega GPU with Ryzen either, could have a few caveats there.

Doesn;t really matter in the llong run if developers aren't even taking full advantage of current hardware as the old jaguar, besides a few AAA exclusives.

Don't know an exact price but let's look at it this way: There was a Laptop at CES (think was from Lenovo, but not sure) with that chip and it's Intel counterpart... and the AMD one was a whooping $300 cheaper.

4800H would be a good contender for the CPU part, but the 4800 could also be a possibility, though more remote (base clock of 1.8Ghz is awfully low for gaming). Still, it shows that at low core utilization, the CPU in the consoles won't consume much either way.