Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

100+ Linux Benchmarks Between The AMD Ryzen 7 4700U vs. Intel Core i7 1065G7

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JustinTurdeau
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    Almost any post by birdie would be flagged on Wikipedia as "citation needed." It's just sad.
    I don't know how he spends so long shitposting on here before the special needs carers notice he's missing.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    I was looking for an (any?) article that shows that
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    ... the 4700U is only modestly faster in multi-core scenarios and almost always loses to the Core i7 1065G7 in single threaded scenarios...
    This article shows that an entry-level AMD/Acer has nearly double the multi-threaded performance and is head-to-head in lightly threaded performance with a anything but entry level Intel/XPS 2-in-1.

    Almost any post by birdie would be flagged on Wikipedia as "citation needed." It's just sad.
    Last edited by mppix; 18 May 2020, 08:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • semaphore
    replied
    Originally posted by blandbl View Post
    The 4700u is consuming 30W while the 1065g7 is consuming 15W.
    AMD Ryzen 7 4700U TDP: 15W cTDP: 10W~25W
    Intel Core i7-1065G7 TDP: 15W cTDP: 12W~25W

    Leave a comment:


  • blandbl
    replied
    Originally posted by JustinTurdeau View Post

    If you're trying to conserve power, you're probably not going full blast on all cores. If you're trying to do some CPU-intensive work with max performance, you're probably on AC and couldn't care less about ±10W.

    Imagine coming in and saying "b-but muh power usage" on a pure benchmarking thread...
    Yes exactly. We're benchmarking two cpus and seeing how they perform. However, one is set to 30w and the other 15w. Is that truly showing that one cpu has better properties or is it just showing that higher tdp = higher performance? Of course, your laptop isn't going to run at 100% usage the whole time. No one's arguing that. We're looking at benchmarking performance and performance/watt is an important consideration.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustinTurdeau
    replied
    Originally posted by blandbl View Post

    Not sure if you're aware but laptops can be configured with vastly different tdps. The laptop in question is the ideapad 5 14. Not the acer swift 3. User on this video with the exact same laptop shows the laptop is drawing even 37-38W.
    Different video by different person showing similar power consumption.
    If you're trying to conserve power, you're probably not going full blast on all cores. If you're trying to do some CPU-intensive work with max performance, you're probably on AC and couldn't care less about ±10W.

    Imagine coming in and saying "b-but muh power usage" on a pure benchmarking thread...

    Leave a comment:


  • blandbl
    replied
    Originally posted by JustinTurdeau View Post

    No, it's not true. As already mentioned in this thread, the laptop in question has the CPU configured at 18W for sustained usage, which you can clearly see in this video.
    Not sure if you're aware but laptops can be configured with vastly different tdps. The laptop in question is the ideapad 5 14. Not the acer swift 3. User on this video with the exact same laptop shows the laptop is drawing even 37-38W.
    Different video by different person showing similar power consumption.

    Leave a comment:


  • Almindor
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    AMD infestation of this website continues unabated.

    Three people with a straight face argue that multithreaded performance is more important than single threaded despite the fact that absolute most people need single threaded performance a lot more because barely any tasks the average user runs are multithreaded by their nature. The average user does not compile, does not encode videos, does not render CAD scenes, nothing like that. I'm even sure these three individuals who argue about multithreaded performance barely run any multithreaded tasks because laptop is not a device to even consider for running them.
    You are arguing from the 1990s. None of what you write here is true. Yes most people don't do the things you mention but they run a browser. And they run multiple tabs in it, while listening to music in the background. On top of that their main tab is running a WASM game that's pretty heavy. Oh and Windows just decided to run an update in the background.

    They won't max out any of the 16 threads available to them no, but then they won't max any of the 8 available on their overall slower Intel CPU either...

    Also the difference between similarly priced AMD and Intel CPUs right now is at most 10% in Intel botched benchmarks at best (or actually intel loses there too). You're grasping at straws here, nothing more.

    Leave a comment:


  • x_wing
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    AMD infestation of this website continues unabated.

    Three people with a straight face argue that multithreaded performance is more important than single threaded despite the fact that absolute most people need single threaded performance a lot more because barely any tasks the average user runs are multithreaded by their nature. The average user does not compile, does not encode videos, does not render CAD scenes, nothing like that. I'm even sure these three individuals who argue about multithreaded performance barely run any multithreaded tasks because laptop is not a device to even consider for running them.
    So your point is that this results are invalid because people spend most of their time using one tab in chrome? if that's is your point, then it find debatable the idea of buying an i7 as any user will get the same perf. by just buying a the cheaper i3.

    I think that you completely lose the ball when you don't understand that Michael is benchmarking two notebooks CPUs that have as extra value the multicore performance. This bench will not make any sense for anyone that just use Libre office, chrome or an email client the whole because obviously is not the target market of this CPUs! But it will make a lot of sense for the people have to compile or do work that benefit from multiple cores (I have an 8th gen i7 for work and gosh, you don't have an idea of how much time I would save with more cores!).

    Either way, your point of view is completely in line with this: https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-conten...Intel-RWPE.pdf

    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Zen 2 has roughly the same IPC as Sky Lake from 2015. Zen 2 CPUs get better than Intel's only because AMD is running on top of the 7nm node while Intel still uses the old 14nm node for most of their high performance CPUs. In 2019 AMD finally reached performance parity with the Intel uArch from 2015 using TSMC factories (!) and suddenly AMD is all the rage. LMAO. Intel in its turn produces its own CPUs from the ground up.
    Intel is in line with this old quote for you, doesn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • JustinTurdeau
    replied
    Originally posted by blandbl View Post
    The 4700u is consuming 30W while the 1065g7 is consuming 15W. You're comparing the 4700u with another cpu that is configured at half the tdp and concluding that it performs better. Is it true?
    No, it's not true. As already mentioned in this thread, the laptop in question has the CPU configured at 18W for sustained usage, which you can clearly see in this video.

    Originally posted by blandbl View Post
    New user. Had to make an account
    Weak first post...

    Originally posted by blandbl View Post
    ...because it was frustrating how I constantly see these reviews that doesn't take power consumption into account at all on reddit.
    Imagine being frustrated by this, making an account especially, and then just contributing more disinfo to the steaming dung pile. Confirmed Reddit user for sure.
    Last edited by JustinTurdeau; 17 May 2020, 05:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • blandbl
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    System power was used not cpu.power. cpu.power doesn't even work on AMD at this point for Zen unless opting to manually go install Zenpower until the RAPL support gets added. Hence system power was used due to no official/out-of-the-box Zen CPU package power reporting in a similar manner to Intel (granted RAPL patches posted by Google now on Friday night). It's also not possible to accidentally mislabel a graph when they are auto-generated.

    Additional system power numbers but with the displays off on Ice Lake and Renoir are also going to be published in the next few days.
    So you're saying the 15W tdp cpu is measuring system power of 15W and the rest of the system is pulling 0W on load? Notebookcheck shows the same laptop is pulling almost 40W on load measured at the socket. I highly doubt that by what you're saying, the rest of the system is pulling virtually no power. Or the cpu is able to perform at those levels pulling less than 15W.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X