AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U "Rembrandt" Linux Benchmarks

[Linuxxx]

Well u need to consider those using 5-6 year old notebooks. Core i7 might be ok, but i5 and i3 are barely usable. Consider those with only 2 physical cores. Especially with 4-8G RAM. All the mitigations are slowly evaporating any advantages the new processes have provided.

This reads more like a constantly rehashed myth rather than actual hands-on experience.

I'm saying this because just recently I upgraded to Lubuntu 22.04 LTS on my Intel i3-7100U NUC.

With a fully preemptible Linux 5.17 kernel, mitigations=auto is nowhere to be felt, even running off a fully encrypted (& cheap) NVMe SSD.

Doing all the usual LibreOffice + Firefox work happens instantly and with zero delays.

The key to having a pleasant computing experience remains opting for a low-latency optimized Linux OS setup.

[Anux]

In terms of old hardware, I use a laptop with a i7-3630QM, and it's still great for most things, even compiling and lighter VMs. Obviously not very power efficient by modern standards, but still.

EDIT: Even good for light gaming eg The Sims 4, Stardew Valley, Skyrim, Marble Blast Ultra. The Intel HD graphics 4000 hold it back, obviously, but I do have a mobo for it with a GT640m to fix, which is double the speed of the Intel GPU.

Yes, I have the 35W version of that chip and never missed performance. Everything I do on that laptop is fast. Even gaming with the integrated card and old or indie games goes well.
If you don't need massive compute for a specific workload and block ads in your browser there is no need for a recent CPU.

The 6850U is a massive improvment in efficiency, if you depend on long battery life. On my Thinkpad I could get long battery life with 2 high capacity batterys, but don't need it.

[hamishmb]

I make it a rhetorical question - since Lenovo are a joke - does this one have any support for LVFS at all?

Hopefully things have improved at least a little - the aforementioned laptop is a Lenovo Ideapad Z580, and had basically no firmware updates, ever. Also horrible Windows-based updater that was really hard to run from the Windows Setup environment (WinPE?). I don't hold out hope though. Lenovo weren't good with support for my phone, either.

[lejeczek]

I make it a rhetorical question - since Lenovo are a joke - does this one have any support for LVFS at all?

[hamishmb]

In terms of old hardware, I use a laptop with a i7-3630QM, and it's still great for most things, even compiling and lighter VMs. Obviously not very power efficient by modern standards, but still.

EDIT: Even good for light gaming eg The Sims 4, Stardew Valley, Skyrim, Marble Blast Ultra. The Intel HD graphics 4000 hold it back, obviously, but I do have a mobo for it with a GT640m to fix, which is double the speed of the Intel GPU.

[AdrianBc]

I do not know what has changed recently, but this is the second case of an article about "Featured Benchmarks", after the one about i7-1280P, which cannot be viewed from various places in Europe (judging from other reader complaints), because its pages are loaded only partially and then the loading never completes.

In both cases, the associated comments can be viewed without problems, unlike the main article.

The cause might be some misbehaved region-specific advertisements, because when the page loadings remain stuck, sometimes there are visible notifications of accessing other sites that seem advertisement-related.

[FireBurn]

Would love to see this compared to the 6800M in the G513QY rather than just it's onboard graphics

[mifritscher]

The difference between i5 and i7 are often fairly small. The i5 8250U which is almost 6 years old (and was _the_ standard cpu for quite a long time) is even today a very useable 4 core cpu. Phoronix included the 8650U, which is only about 5...10% faster than the 8250U. And even the Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U is only about twice as fast - and mostly because of the GPU, which is irrelevant for many, if not most, real world use cases.

[caligula]

<rant>
New hardware is terribly unexciting these days, I'm on a 3, pushing 4 year old laptop right now. Still runs most games at the highest graphics settings, I mean... I could upgrade, and I could get significantly better hardware but I feel like I wouldn't benefit much from it, faster compile times would be nice... yeah that's about it; that's the only benefit i'm potentially seeing.

On the one hand this is good cuz my laptop has lasted really long without any reasons to upgrade, on the other it's bad because technology has barely improved in 4 years.

Well u need to consider those using 5-6 year old notebooks. Core i7 might be ok, but i5 and i3 are barely usable. Consider those with only 2 physical cores. Especially with 4-8G RAM. All the mitigations are slowly evaporating any advantages the new processes have provided.

[rabcor]

<rant>
New hardware is terribly unexciting these days, I'm on a 3, pushing 4 year old laptop right now. Still runs most games at the highest graphics settings, I mean... I could upgrade, and I could get significantly better hardware but I feel like I wouldn't benefit much from it, faster compile times would be nice... yeah that's about it; that's the only benefit i'm potentially seeing.

I mean if I could upgrade to something like the Apple M1 or M2 I'd actually be interested more for the power saving & battery capacity aspects of it than anything else. But those products have no competitor on the market and i'm not droppin 5 trillion dollars on a laptop just because there's a picture of an apple on it (if anything it's a reason for me not to buy it at all, since i know the manufacturer will only provide me with a garbage operating system and make it as hard as they can to switch to a better OS)

On the one hand this is good cuz my laptop has lasted really long without any reasons to upgrade, on the other it's bad because technology has barely improved in 4 years.

I mean... look at the graphics cards nvidia is pushing out, 600 watt power requirements? That's like 5 times the power required to run my whole laptop under full load just for a gpu.

These numbers are getting ridiculous, the tech isn't getting better, it's just getting more expensive. Gamers don't really need this shit because technology on the software side of things stalled in like 2007, The original Crysis is still one of the best looking games, it's also one of the games with the best physics engines, man, when I played that game it made me excited about the potential for games in the future with better graphics and better physics engines.

Sure, now that we tacked on raytracing to some titles we have better graphics, and some tech like animation and models has become more refined, and the textures tend to be higher quality (at the cost of making the games balloon up in size like nobody's business), but it feels like every game is just a rehash of the same old shit now, sometimes literally (I mean we're still playing minecraft for gods sake, world of warcraft somehow still lives...)

I just want my hype back.
</rant>