Skip to main content

Intel Tiger Lake-U CPU Speeds Past AMD R7 4800U in Graphics Benchmark

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

AMD's Ryzen 4700U and 4800U are just barely making their ways into notebooks, but excitement is high, and performance expectations are steep thanks to their 8-core designs and integrated AMD Radeon graphics. However, Intel is also making good strides in the mobile space, as the Tiger Lake-U benchmarks have also shown promising performance. In the latest leak, the Intel Tiger Lake-U Core i7-1165G7 is spotted undergoing the 3D Mark Performance test, where it quite shockingly surpassed the R7 4800U's performance. The information comes courtesy of hardware detective @_Rogame, who dug up the 3DMark entry from 3DMark's public databases.

In the test, the Core i7-1165G7 chip blasted to a physics score of 11879 points, along with an impressive graphics score of 6912 points. For comparison, @_Rogame noted that the R7 4800U puts down 11917 points in the physics score, which is practically identical but lags behind in graphics at 6121 points.

Intel Core i7-1165G7AMD Ryzen R7 4800U
3DMark Physics11,879*11,917*
3DMark Graphics6,912*6,121*

* Performance numbers not confirmed by Tom's Hardware.

The two CPU-based scores (physics) are nearly identical, which is very impressive considering the AMD chip has twice the number of cores. This suggests Intel has achieved a massive increase in IPC (instructions per clock) on the Tiger Lake-U generation of processors thanks to the new microarchitecture.

There is one thing that's important to note: 3DMark 11 is, at this point, is nearly ten years old, and was never coded to handle the high core counts of today's processors properly. For example, doing a quick test of a Core i9-9900K with all eight cores vs. the same chip with only four cores enabled, 3DMark 11 Performance shows a Physics score of 19,611 vs. 13,687, meaning doubling the core and thread count only improved performance by 43%. CPU performance based on today's applications may have a larger performance delta.

The graphics score, on the other hand, does make more sense. Intel is investing heavily in its Xe graphics. Although discrete Xe graphics cards technically aren't aimed at the gaming or consumer market yet, that won't stop its derivatives from putting down significantly better figures than Intel's previous attempts at integrated graphics. Plus, AMD's Renoir GPU isn't significantly changed over the previous Vega 11 Graphics, giving Intel even more opportunity to close the gap.

For the time being, we wouldn't read too much into this benchmark. It does show promising performance, and although we have no doubt that Tiger Lake will offer much-improved performance figures over its Ice Lake predecessors, information before launch should always be taken with a grain of salt.

  • jkflipflop98
    Uh oh!
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    jkflipflop98 said:
    Uh oh!
    enjoy, even if you are Intel fan, this is happening only because AMD pressurize Intel. Grab popcorn and clap when either side delivers.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Rdslw said:
    enjoy, even if you are Intel fan, this is happening only because AMD pressurize Intel.
    A good chunk of this is only happening because Intel has had nothing but problems getting 10nm up to speed with it still not being up to par with where Intel wanted it to be three years ago.

    Had everything gone according to Intel's plans when Ice Lake first hit roadmaps around the Broadwell era, Zen would have launched against Ice Lake instead of Sky Lake 3rd-gen and AMD would have been crushed from making almost no net headway against Intel.

    Intel deserves some credit for screwing up 10nm so AMD could survive long enough to make itself relevant again :)
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    I thought this was because timespy doesn't scale past 4 cores so the scores are so skewed.
    Reply
  • DZIrl
    Isn't 3DMark very Intel oriented benchmark?
    Reply
  • Deicidium369
    InvalidError said:
    A good chunk of this is only happening because Intel has had nothing but problems getting 10nm up to speed with it still not being up to par with where Intel wanted it to be three years ago.

    Had everything gone according to Intel's plans when Ice Lake first hit roadmaps around the Broadwell era, Zen would have launched against Ice Lake instead of Sky Lake 3rd-gen and AMD would have been crushed from making almost no net headway against Intel.

    Intel deserves some credit for screwing up 10nm so AMD could survive long enough to make itself relevant again :)
    Problems seem to be well behind them and the window for AMD to make significant market inroads is diminishing. Intel needs to keep AMD around - otherwise the charges of monopoly starts rearing it's head. Starting to look like the time when Core/Conroe dropped - which is just short of 14 years ago.

    Looks like the gains from TGL over ICL are significant. Really looking forward to Rocket Lake S - hoping for this year, but will hold off a little depending on when the Ampere based GeForce "3080Ti" is released - and what a Rocket Lake S refresh will look like.

    I am waiting for the 25/28W TGL that will go into the NUC. I Will consider it a good year if I can replace all various generations of NUCs with Tiger Lake NUC11. 2021 will likely see wide availability of ICL SP - I will be looking at initially replacing my Engineering workstations (dual socket 3647 - single 8180) with a single socket ICL SP. Servers can most likely wait until the end of 2021.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Deicidium369 said:
    Problems seem to be well behind them and the window for AMD to make significant market inroads is diminishing. Intel needs to keep AMD around - otherwise the charges of monopoly starts rearing it's head. Starting to look like the time when Core/Conroe dropped - which is just short of 14 years ago.

    Looks like the gains from TGL over ICL are significant. Really looking forward to Rocket Lake S - hoping for this year, but will hold off a little depending on when the Ampere based GeForce "3080Ti" is released - and what a Rocket Lake S refresh will look like.

    I am waiting for the 25/28W TGL that will go into the NUC. I Will consider it a good year if I can replace all various generations of NUCs with Tiger Lake NUC11. 2021 will likely see wide availability of ICL SP - I will be looking at initially replacing my Engineering workstations (dual socket 3647 - single 8180) with a single socket ICL SP. Servers can most likely wait until the end of 2021.
    I've seen nothing concrete (from Intel -- not fanboy wish lists) to suggest Tiger Lake will be a Conroe repeat. Conroe was a solid 25% boost in performance over the best NetBurst architecture, plus used something like half the power (or 2/3 the power). It was an absolutely massive change. Nehalem was also a fairly sizeable jump -- mostly because it integrated the memory controller.

    Tiger Lake and Willow Cove should be better than Ice Lake, but that's no big deal -- it would be horrible if they weren't. But so far, we're hearing about larger L3 cache, PCIe 4.0 support, and some new instructions (that will almost never be used outside of certain HPC type workloads or specially optimized benchmarks). The biggest change appears to be in graphics, which is mostly going to be a change of 64 EUs to 96 EUs.

    So based on that information, Tiger Lake will be more like the old Clarkdale -> Sandy Bridge, or perhaps Arrandale -> Sandy Bridge. Where Intel integrated graphics went from garbage HD Graphics to slightly less garbage HD Graphics 3000. Or perhaps it will be like Haswell -> Broadwell, where the CPU was more power efficient and Intel went big on integrated graphics with Iris Pro.

    Let me go on the record here and now and state that in general performance, if Intel can do better than a 15% IPC improvement, I will be impressed (and more than a bit surprised). I've seen claims of 30% better IPC, which I think is fantasy land. Guess we'll find out "this summer" if I'm right or wrong.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Deicidium369 said:
    Problems seem to be well behind them
    10nm still isn't performing up to expectations and Intel has given up on developing 10nm beyond higher-margin applications, I wouldn't count that as problems being "behind" it. Rocket Lake is still 14nm++++ and unless Intel pulled an architectural miracle, its added Willow Cove complexity is going to cost a few hundred MHz in achievable and sustainable clocks, which will cancel out a good chunk of its IPC gains just like how Sunny Cove's complexity cost Ice Lake 300-400MHz vs Coffee Lake on Intel's troublesome 10nm.
    Reply
  • DavidC1
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    I've seen nothing concrete (from Intel -- not fanboy wish lists) to suggest Tiger Lake will be a Conroe repeat. Conroe was a solid 25% boost in performance over the best NetBurst architecture, plus used something like half the power (or 2/3 the power). It was an absolutely massive change. Nehalem was also a fairly sizeable jump -- mostly because it integrated the memory controller.

    Conroe was 35-45% faster not 25%. It was 90% faster than Presler per clock.

    Nehalem was underwhelming for client because the gains in single thread wasn't that much, other than for the Turbo. In certain cases it actually regressed.

    Let me go on the record here and now and state that in general performance, if Intel can do better than a 15% IPC improvement, I will be impressed (and a bit surprised). I've seen claims of 30% better IPC, which I think is fantasy land. Guess we'll find out "this summer" if I'm right or wrong.

    They won't get 15% perf/clock(IPC is actually a misleading term to lots of people). Something like 5-7% is in line.

    The big thing about Tigerlake on the CPU side is the 10nm+ is a much improved version, and engineers have done work on the layout to improve frequency.

    Leaks have a 4.7GHz device which is a 20% higher frequency.
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    I assume neither of them are running on battery when they got this score?
    Reply