Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS Cezanne Defeats Intel Tiger Lake in Early Benchmarks

AMD
(Image credit: AMD)

The first alleged independent benchmark results of AMD's recently introduced eight-core Ryzen 9 5980HS "Cezanne" laptop processors have been published. AMD's Zen 3-based chip uses integrated Radeon graphics, and, according to the new numbers, beats its predecessor and Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake in single- and multi-core workloads, as well as 11th Gen intel Tiger Lake in single-core. However, there is a processor that still beats AMD's Cezanne. 

Hardware enthusiast @Tum_Apisak found two Geekbench 5 results from the Asus ROG Flow X13. The gaming notebook runs the eight-core Ryzen 9 5980HS at a 3.30 GHz default clock speed and can boost it all the way to a 4.53 GHz. In one case, AMD's Cezanne APU hit a 1,532 single-core score and 8,219 multi-core score. In another case, the processor finished with 1,541 single-core points and 8,224 multi-core points.  

CPUSingle-CoreMulti-CoreCores/Threads, uArchCacheClocksTDPLink
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS15408,2258C/16T, Zen 316MB3.30 ~ 4.53 GHz35Whttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6027200
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H12307,1258C/16T, Zen 28MB3.30 ~ 4.44 GHz35~54Whttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6028856
Intel Core i9-10885H13357,9008C/16T, Skylake16MB2.40 ~ 5.08 GHz45Whttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6006773
Intel Core i7-1185G715505,6004C/8T, Willow Cove12MB3.0 ~ 4.80 GHz28Whttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5644005
Apple M117107,6604C Firestorm + 4C Icestorm12MB + 4MB3.20 GHz20~24Whttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6038094

Typically, Cezanne looks very good compared to previous-generation AMD and Intel architectures. The most interesting comparison we can make with a Zen 3 APU is with an Intel Willow Cove processor. Since Intel hasn't launched its eight-core Tiger Lake-H chips yet, quad-core Core i7 1100-series "Tiger Lake-U" processors are the only available CPUs featuring the Willow Cove microarchitecture. These CPUs are not quite meant for gaming machines and, therefore, come inside notebooks with less sophisticated cooling. 

Generally, Intel Core i7-1185G7-based machines score 1,350-1450 single-core points on Geekbench 5. A well-cooled example can hit around 1,550 on a single core and about 5,600 on multi-cores. 

Therefore, it looks like mobile CPUs featuring AMD's Zen 3 and Intel's Willow Cove cores have comparable single-core performance (assuming that both are cooled properly). Naturally, AMD's eight-core gaming APU naturally beats Intel's quad-core CPU in workloads leveraging multiple cores. 

As far as Geekbench 5 results go, AMD's Ryzen 9 5980HS looks like a very potent mobile APU with a 35W TDP. Yet, it's not unbeatable. 

Apple's tiny M1 system-on-chip  (SoC) running at 3.20 GHz scored 11% better than the Ryzen 9 5980HS in single-core workloads and 7% worse in multi-core workloads while consuming about 30% less power, assuming that its TDP is up to 24W

AMD's eight-core Ryzen 9 4900H "Renoir" APUs, based on the Zen 2 microarchitecture, scores about 1,230 single-core points and around 7,100 multi-core points when running at 3.30 / 4.44 GHz clocks in Geekbench 5. Therefore, the new Cezanne APU is apparently 25% faster than its Renoir predecessor in single-core tasks and about 15% faster in multi-core workloads. 

Cezanne's noticeably higher performance compared to its predecessor can be explained by microarchitectural improvements, as well as a two times larger L2 cache. The Ryzen 94900H is rated for up to a 54W TDP, whereas the new one has a default TDP of 35W. 

A comparison of the new numbers for the Ryzen 9 5980HS to Intel's eight-core Core i9-10885H, Intel's fastest mobile Comet Lake CPU with a locked multiplier, suggests the Ryzen 9 5980HS is 15% faster in single-core workloads and 4% faster in multi-core tasks. 

It should be noted that the Ryzen 9 5980HS numbers haven't been confirmed, so you should take them with a grain of salt.

  • gg83
    Can anyone explain how the M1 is so good at less power? Is x86 just that bad for certain benchmarks? Could the ARM based cpu be designed for high benchmark scores?
    Reply
  • JayNor
    Wouldn't a Tiger Lake-H35 be a more appropriate comparison chip?
    Reply
  • deksman
    JayNor said:
    Wouldn't a Tiger Lake-H35 be a more appropriate comparison chip?

    They are still 4c/8th CPU's (which is quite frankly pathetic for Intel).
    Still, here are the results:
    https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-quad-core-tiger-lake-i7-11370h-and-i5-11300h-processors-spotted#:~:text=At%20Geekbench%20two%20processors%20of,points%20in%20the%20multi%2Dcore.

    The Core i7-11370H appears to have a base clock of 3.3 GHz and a boost clock of 4.8 GHz. The CPU scored 1572 in the single-core benchmark and 5065 points in the multi-core.
    So overall, a tiny proverbial advantage at single core performance (mainly due to higher boost clocks), and bad multi-core score (compared to AMD).

    If I'm reading those numbers correctly, the 11370H scores LOWER than the above tested CPU in the article... and that doesn't paint a good picture for Intel (especially when you consider the fact AMD has TWICE the cores and only slightly higher power consumption).
    Reply
  • javiindo
    ARM cores are so much better right now.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    gg83 said:
    Can anyone explain how the M1 is so good at less power? Is x86 just that bad for certain benchmarks? Could the ARM based cpu be designed for high benchmark scores?
    it comes down to how they deal with their data handling.

    basically ARM has less steps than x86.

    less steps = faster results.

    think of it like a road.
    a slower car can go on a straight road and still beat a faster car that takes a road filled with sharp turns.
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    gg83 said:
    Can anyone explain how the M1 is so good at less power? Is x86 just that bad for certain benchmarks? Could the ARM based cpu be designed for high benchmark scores?

    https://hothardware.com/news/ex-intel-engineer-slams-apple-m1-benchmarking-practices
    I would wait to see more than synthetic benchmarks before putting all my eggs in that basket.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    gg83 said:
    Can anyone explain how the M1 is so good at less power? Is x86 just that bad for certain benchmarks? Could the ARM based cpu be designed for high benchmark scores?
    it depends on the benchmark. Greekbench is a terrible test bench, which has been credibly accused of a heavy pro-intel bias in the past, furthermore while it claims it's a cross platform benching program, it's testing has NEVER accurately portrayed cross OS performance. meaning an ARM chip's results are credible against other ARM chips running the same OS, once you start comparing across OS platforms (windows vs iOS vs Andriod) geekbench results turn to trash; which is a shame because geekbench is supposed to be a cross platform result.
    Reply
  • Bentheegg
    gg83 said:
    Can anyone explain how the M1 is so good at less power? Is x86 just that bad for certain benchmarks? Could the ARM based cpu be designed for high benchmark scores?
    -5nm
    - the cores are actually huge, almost twice the zen3s
    Reply
  • gg83
    Thanks for all the great responses!
    Reply
  • gg83
    Bentheegg said:
    -5nm
    - the cores are actually huge, almost twice the zen3s
    Is it 7nm vs 5nm vs 10nm? That could definitely be a factor
    Reply