AMD's latest marketing materials claim the Ryzen 7045 series (Dragon Range) and Ryzen 7035 series (Rembrandt-R) are faster than Intel's 12th Generation Alder Lake chips. Dragon Range (Zen 4, RDNA 2) is almost 2X faster than Alder Lake HX, whereas Rembrandt-R (Zen 3+, RDNA 2) offers more than twice the performance of Alder Lake-P.
It seems weird that AMD would compare its next-generation processors to Alder Lake, Intel's last-generation parts, instead of the latest 13th Generation Raptor Lake chips. However, the documents show that AMD did its testing in December 2022; therefore, the chipmaker may not have had access to Raptor Lake-powered laptops. And of course, if updated testing with Raptor Lake laptops changed the story, why not skip those?
Regarding testing environments, the Dragon Range laptops used DDR5-5200 memory, and the Raptor Lake laptops with DDR5-4800 memory, the default memory specifications for both microarchitectures. In any event, throw some salt over these vendor-provided benchmarks.
The Ryzen 9 7945HX, which AMD touts as "the world's most powerful mobile processor," is the flagship SKU for Dragon Range. The Ryzen 9 7945HX delivers between 18% to 169% higher performance than the Core i9-12900HX in AMD's tests. Multi-core performance is the Ryzen 9 7945HX's forte. In single-core performance, however, the Ryzen 9 7945HX is only 2% faster (Cinebench R23 1T) than the Core i9-12900HX.
Regarding the generation-over-generation uplift, the Ryzen 9 7945HX provides between 41% to 211% more performance than the Ryzen 9 6900HX. It's evident that the Zen 4 cores on the former bring significant performance gains over the last-generation chip. In addition, consumers can experience single-core and multi-core improvements (measured with Cinebench R23) of up to 22% and 123%, respectively.
For those interested in integrated graphics performance, the Ryzen 9 7945HX is substantially faster than the Ryzen 9 6900HX. With low settings, AMD measured improvements between 29% to 62% at 1080p. The Ryzen 9 7945HX has the Radeon 610M with two RDNA 2 CUs clocked at up to 2.2 GHz, while the Ryzen 9 6900HX sports the Radeon 680M with 12 RDNA CUs maxing out at 2.4 GHz. The Ryzen 9 7945HX has an inferior iGPU, so the higher gaming performance is because of the Dragon Range's Zen 4 cores rather than the graphics unit.
Consumers can expect superior performance across the Dragon Range stack compared to Alder Lake. AMD's selection of Intel chips for the remaining comparisons is interesting. While the company uses the Core i9-12900HX for contrast, it prefers to compare the Ryzen 7 7745HX and Ryzen 5 7645HX to the Core i7-12700H and Core i5-12500H, respectively. AMD could have easily used the Core i7-12650HX or Core i5-12600HX.
According to AMD, the Ryzen 7 7745HX outperforms the Core i7-12700H by up to 6% in single-core workloads and up to 25% in multi-core workloads. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 7645HX should be faster than the Core i5-12500H, offering 7% higher single-core performance and 9% better multi-core performance.
Strangely, AMD didn't provide benchmark results for the Ryzen 9 7845HX, the 12-core, 24-thread Dragon Range chip. However, the chipmaker assesses that the Ryzen 9 7845HX, like the Ryzen 9 7945HX, is the direct competition to Intel's Core i9-12900HX.
The Ryzen 7035 series are rewarmed chips with Zen 3+ cores and RDNA 2 graphics that target premium thin and light laptops. These are AMD's HS-series and U-series parts that may not be big on performance, but they're great in battery life.
AMD asserts that the Ryzen 7 7735U provides up to 87% faster overall performance than Intel's Core i7-1270P. The chipmaker's results reveal up to 72% better productivity and up to 33% higher digital content creation performance. The individual benchmark results show margins between 17% to 240% more performance over the Core i7-1270P.
The Ryzen 7 7735U is also superior to the Core i7-1280P in integrated graphics performance. Given AMD's expertise in the integrated graphics field, it would not be comforting if it wasn't so. The Ryzen 7 7735U pumps 44% higher 1080p gaming performance over the Core i7-1280P. In addition, the RDNA 2-based processor flaunts 15% to 108% higher performance margins than the Core i7-1280P across ten different titles.
AMD positions the Ryzen 5 7535U against the Core i5-1250P. The chipmaker's assessment shows the Ryzen 5 7535U offers 75% higher overall performance, 58% improved productivity, and 8% faster digital content creation. In addition, in the eight different benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 7535U outpaced the Core i5-1250P by 11% to 229%, depending on the nature of the workload.
The first gaming laptops with Dragon Range will launch this month. So far, we know of the Alienware m16 and m18, Asus Strix, and Lenovo Legion devices that will leverage AMD's flagship Ryzen 9 7495HX processor. We can expect more announcements in the coming weeks.
This bodes well for the laptop market where a lot of businesses buy. It's steady, lucrative, and has higher margins. But this has always been difficult for AMD to break into. It's a smart strategy, but a difficult one given how business is like molasses when it comes to change.
For desktop Intel is still the way to go. Content creators, servers, renderers, and mega compiles all do better on Intel. But ooof the power and heat....it's ugly. Real ugly.
The only real good thing going for Raptor Lake in mobile is DDR5-5200 support, which really helps alleviate Alder Lake's data starvation. If you compare a mobile Alder Lake to a Raptor Lake using the same exact platform, you will see they're basically the same thing.
Did anyone even proofread this? In what universe is a 6900HX igpu faster than 2 puny rDNA2 CUs
No matter how much faster the Zen 4 cpu is, it still wouldn't make 2 CUs faster than a whole 12 CUs with higher clocks
Ummm no. You're comparing hedt to standard desktop parts. Apples and oranges. Like comparing a mustang to a rally car.
And mega compiles are throughout limited. It's also based on the number of parallel threads you can execute at the same time. With dependencies the most I ever seen with chromium compile is ~20. But it's dipped as low as 3 concurrent compile link stages. Now if you a are running a gated build server running multiple projects that's another issue. I will admit 5800x3d did hold a slight advantage over 5800x in compiles. That extra cache is good for symbol tables. But Intel still wins. Efficiency cores do exceptionally well here.
Adobe and quick sync do exceptionally well in premiere, and Photoshop.
13th gen Intel standard desktop is just faster. And it delivers a slightly better platform value. I'll reserve judgement for games till I see what x3d does.
And before you call me a blind Intel fanboi, check my sig on my systems.
While Chromium compiles might max at 20 threads, Linux kernel compiles don't.
Only reason the 13th gen is faster is Intel has thrown power out the window for the last several generations. Anandtech did a look at a 13900k and 7950X at different TDPs. What they found is Zen is far more efficient than Core. In fact there were multiple instances that Intel needed 125W to beat the AMD at 65W. Limit both platforms to their states TDP and Intel is slower.
Sure Quick sync does work well in Premier and Photoshop, but the movie companies are still buying the AMD because they need more horsepower for things other than exporting.
Never called you a fanboi so don't put words in my mouth.
I moved no such goalpost. I wanted to play football. You wanted to throw in soccer for comparison. Your argument was a non starter to begin with. Heck you might as well bring in clustered computing on blades. An average user could use that right?
You can't compare $8000 parts to $700 parts. And at the end of the day for standard desktop parts that don't cost you a spleen, Intel wins on cost to performance and sheer performance.
Sure for server markets or workstation pro market, a build machine based on thread ripper would eat intels lunch. But we are are comparing laptop and standard desktop parts here. Joe Smoe average user stuff. Even at the largest of institutions as a principal software engineer I never got more than a desktop for the last 27 years. And the last 17 were laptops.
Power is a secondary concern when you care about speed. Let's say your average editor makes $40/hour. ($80k/year). Let's say Intel is 10% faster. (That's conservative with quick sync) That's 6 minutes saved. Or $4 in editor pay. Are you spending $4 extra per hour on Intel's higher power? Not even close.
I made the same argument for bulldozer. I'm not so worried about the extra power as that's pennies per hour at full tilt. Just as long as it doesn't sound like a blow dryer (easy to avoid with liquid cooling), you are good to go.
Either way I'm done. Be my guest and say all you want.
Again you never specified and specifically said servers in the same sentence as content creators. That would lead someone to believe that you are talking about massive workstations.
IIRC Quick Sync is only used when exporting to your timeline. Most of the computations in Premier are still done on the CPU. Also unless Intel did some more work on Quick Sync it used to be the worst quality exporter. If you are doing a 480p YouTube video no one cares. However, if you are doing a movie then people will care about the quality. The nVidia and CPU exporters provide the best quality so you do have to take that into account. Sure you might save some money but if the quality isn't there then whats the point?
My exact same thoughts: the 7000HX parts are basically 7000X parts with a lower TDP and a different die carrier, no significant iGPU power to speak of, certainly nothing to match a 12 CU APU.
And what current iGPUs are able to squeeze out of ordinary DRAM is already amazing enough: to double that doesn't just require more transistors in the iGPU, you need either multiplying memory channels (Apple) or a very high bandwidth memory type to match that.
I've always thought one could replace one of the CCDs with some type of HBM for doubling the bandwidth for an iGPU. But then you still need some die area for a fat iGPU and the overall power requirements might not be worth the gains.
Some Apple-like play on replicating CPU/GPU/RAM blocks has obviously been proven possible and attractive with the fruity faction, but if you still need to support external RAM, PCIe etc. all those chunky high-power transistors currently on the IOD may just eat too much space to make that possible in a notebook form factor.
AMD tries to reuse their chip designs to the max and the TAM for something really fancy probably just isn't there for the budget prices we'd want to afford them.
Yeah and external HBM if even possible would make them not so high bandwidth anymore. Or efficient.
Right now having all the GPU memory with the CPU reduces data movement heavily so they may actually be way more efficient staying with one memory type unless they use HBM as a L4 of sorts. But HBM is graphics optimized so while they are high bandwidth their latency is pretty poor so it is bad as L4. But there is substantial advantage to having more cache with iGPUs if the extra cache is accessible by the iGPU (fwiw I'm not sure the amd apus do, they have their own caches and don't go back to the L3 in the CCX)