AMD’s Mobile Revival: Redefining the Notebook Business with the Ryzen 9 4900HS (A Review)
by Dr. Ian Cutress on April 9, 2020 9:00 AM ESTLow Power Performance
Truth be told, I didn’t go into this review with low power testing in mind. These sorts of laptops, while capable of driving high performance on the go, are essentially expected to be connected to the power socket when performance is needed. Even the best ultraportables struggle for battery life when everything is whirring at full tilt. Nonetheless, after my own experiences of 3 hours of gaming on power with a Matebook X Pro and a high screen brightness, it is a genuine use case.
For these tests, the settings and software are the same as normal, but the only change is that the power cable has been removed and the power setting in Windows has been moved to ‘Best Battery Life’. We’re still in the Recommended Power Plan and not the Battery Saver Plan. What this does is force the OS and system to manage its power appropriately between CPU and GPU. In these circumstances being able to distribute the power where it is needed most can be a very critical factor in getting a project finished, or having a game that is playable.
Our tests here, due to time, are the following:
- Civilization 6, 1080p MSAA 8x, AI Test (On Battery, Battery Saver)
- Borderlands 3, 1080p Medium (On Battery, Battery Saver)
- Counter Strike Source, 1080p Max (On Battery, Battery Saver)
So previously Intel had a very slight advantage in AI turn time here, but as we move to a power limited scenario, AMD takes a more substantial lead – over 10%.
Where we had a small 5% win for AMD in the full power scenario, the gap is a bit bigger percentage wise for AMD in the low power scenario. It is still under 30 FPS, which is probably unplayable for BL3.
Now CSS is a little odd. When I’m in Battery Saver mode but plugged in, I get the full power FPS value. But the minute I take it out, on the Razer Blade, something goes a bit mental and we end up being limited to 60 FPS. V-Sync is disabled in every setting I think of, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a way of getting off of 60 FPS.
Ultimately in every scenario, in a few small tests, where Intel might have been ahead on wall power, AMD pulls ahead on limited power.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
267 Comments
View All Comments
Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
What exactly are they losing? Intel is destroying them in every single metric other than superfluous cores and marketing dishonesty. What Gondolf said was why not compare latest to latest.Intel wins in market share
Intel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business)
AMD wins in the rabid dedication of their misinformed Fan Boys.
I can GUARANTEE you that I have bought far more AMD products than you have. Built a 1700x when they were new, built a 2700x when they were new, bought a 3950x a couple weeks ago. Bought the 5700XT when Gigabyte put out the first windforce, and pre ordered 2 of the Vega VII. Gave away both the 1700x and 2700x, still have the 3950x, the 5700XT and 1 of the VII. NONE of these are enough to dislodge my i9900K / Dual 2080TI system. All those extra cores are a cute marketing ploy - that's all they are - they are not useful except for benchmarks and 1% or less will make use of those cores.
Again, Intel has not and is not losing. If Intel was in such bad shape, why hasn't the Magical Mythical Su been able to capitalize on that and steam roll market share? Next to ZERO uptake in the data center market (Cloud providers will install WHATEVER comes along - not like a single Intel was replaced by AMD in those services - AMD was ADDED). All AMD is excuses and marketing.
IF Intel has the inferior product in this article - then why not compare Ice Lake to 4x00? I have a Dell 13 2-in-1 with the i7-1065G7 and it destroys my almost 2 year old Dell 13 2-in-1 - but yet that is basically the processor that is being used in this comparison.
More cores more core more cores - would be GREAT if developers could come up with an easy way to make their code more parallel - simply spawning another thread that is doing the EXACT same thing as the other thread isn't getting anything done. Spawning a thread that works on a different part of the same problem is getting something done. Making code more parallel is a problem that has existed since the very 1st SMP system almost 4 decades ago. No amount of fanboy fervor will change that fact.
Qasar - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Deicidium369, then you must not be reading reviews, or like you put it your self Intel wins in the rabid dedication of their misinformed Fan Boys.Intel wins in market share, wish is starting to drop
Intel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business) cause they have been over charging for all of their products.
" then why not compare Ice Lake to 4x00? " um maybe, because, they cant be found, NO stores here have any of the 10nm chips for notebooks in stock and are only quad core, which the intel rabid fan boys would claim is even more in fair then this review is.
" More cores more core more cores " i guess you believe intels BS still about needing only 4 cores for the mainstream, the amount of power its chips use, or its lies about 10 nm being on track ? the ONLY reason why intel has any performance lead, is because of clock speed. but hey if you want to keep supporting intel, with the lies and BS it does and says, by all means
Deicidium369 - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
Look little boy, I don't root for any corporation, much less Intel or AMD.Where is the evidence of Intel's market share dropping?
Go play, little boy - with all the lies and whatever else you look to corporations for...
Qasar - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
oooo resorting to insults now, any you call me the little boy ?? as most people will say, google it. but i know you wont and just say more BS so :https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-vs-intel-cpu...
https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-now-has-40-of-p...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/exvrkr...
need more ??
jgood13 - Monday, February 22, 2021 - link
Lmao. Do you see how comments like this can look a bit foolish in retrospect? They've definitely lost market share because of these laptops.cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
"Intel wins in market shareIntel wins in Revenue & Profit (the ONLY metrics that matter in business)"
I'm sure some IBM fanboy made the same comment in the 80's and or 90's
Intel is on a downward slope... which hopefully this competition will reverse.
My oldest friend was a Sr. engineer on Intel's processors and left a few years ago because he got fed up with the politics and bozos that were killing their future... he told me then "watch you'll see us totally f up, but we won't fix it because our battles aren't in the marketplace, but rather with internal groups and upper management"... and sure enough
cpugod - Friday, April 17, 2020 - link
actually would be more like IBM in the 70's and early 80'sSpunjji - Friday, April 24, 2020 - link
Agreed with Gondalf is a great way to indicate to anyone with more than half a brain cell that you aren't worth paying attention to. xDAwesomeBlackDude - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link
Oh boy I wasn't even aware that Intel sales was diminishing so fast to elaborate... Intel profits is down into the toilet. So the new rumors might be real about Intel is back bribering the OEMs like HP and Dell.https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...
Curiousland - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
To me, same as many users, it just like buying a car, we don't care what engine type or how many cylinders it has, only the bottom horse power and fuel efficient and car cost count. In the black box of "CPU" or GPU, why a user care? There is not such thing as "pointless to compare" as long as it is more powerful and efficient (energy and price pay).