Ryzen vs Intel

https://gadgetversus.com/processor/amd-ryzen-5-4600h-intel-equivalent/

I know this is an old discussion but can someone tell me if I’m seeing this correctly?


The Ryzen 5 outperforms some i7 and i9???

that can’t be correct?

 

Those "comparison" websites are BS for the most part. For actual data, consult Notebookcheck and the dozens of YouTube videos that have been made on the subject.

 

How is this an old discussion?

Whats more surprising is that people still use garbage sites like that for information.

 

well... the never ending fight between the red and the blue, AMD vs INTEL, Ryzen vs Lakes... are never ending “old” subjects of debates.

so... TS is partially right to use the word... old.

 

Trying to advise a friend on a budget gaming laptop ...

but I personally would lean toward Ryzen 5 over Intel i5...

but has anyone any thoughts?


for me the target spec

Ryzen 5 4600
GTX 1650Ti
256-512GB SSD
8 GB RAM

I found these specs for £649 which I think is a great deal!

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/hp-p...7ISCtSjnr6EzVrX2S68A78qK4-hD0FRNJ8ogjicgFNgf4


This deal is fantastic. I haven’t seen these specs at a lower price point.


although this Lenovo is great too.

https://www.lenovo.com/gb/en/laptop...=Impact&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=BAU


But there are a few ASUS TUF laptops but with Intel i5. But again I’m inclined to go with Ryzen.

any thoughts?

 

This specs is a NO go for Gaming if you want performance get at least a GTX 1660Ti or 1700 series if you to get your money worth when buying a budget gaming laptop. Those will do more for the budge Gaming. Not every CPU is available for all GPU depending on how it was configured from the manufacture. And yes iNtel had to lower their prices because Rzy is now a contender for the CPU market. And that is iNtel own fault for complacency and over charging iNtel owners. Yes Rzy are good if not better in value and performance when comparing to iNtel since they had dropped the ball on this. So look to see what CPU and GPU are configured to determine what budget mean and do read up on the GPU specs from reliable sources to insure you get the bang for you buck.

 

That fight was by and for fan boys. Not many of those left here

 

This.

Go with the Legion it has a much better screen and CPU/GPU than the Pavilion, The 1660ti is 40-50% faster than the 1650ti and its worth the extra £150. If your friend can wait he should save up for the new RTX 30 series laptops.

 

as you've mentioned, you're giving advice. however different budget yields different configurations for different levels of games and types.
so, It's best that you can share more details on the above 2 fields, or else base on what you had linked, the games that the buyer can play will be very limited...

 

limited at what...i have a 1650 and ive yet to find a game in my 300 plus collection i cant play

 

Sorry folks.


To be clear — both me and him do our main gaming on the PlayStation. So all the Triple-A games likely we will play on console. These budget laptops are only for little indie games, isometric RPG and RTS games like Total War.

so hence only really need a budget laptop with reasonable specs that I have noted above.


Another thing I was considering is it seems like his budget is around $1000. So if he is willing to spend that amount, I’m recommending that he ditch the GTX1660TI, and go for an RTX3060!

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-t...pse-grey-eclipse-grey/6448933.p?skuId=6448933


Because as far as my understanding goes the RTX 3060 will outperform 1660 Ti, 2060 and in some instances 2070 (vanilla versions)…..??

 

That laptop is hampered by a quad-core CPU and half the RAM being soldered to the motherboard. Plus, I believe the GPU in that model only goes up to 80W.

This Lenovo Legion 5 15.6" Gaming Laptop 144Hz AMD Ryzen 7-4800H 16GB RAM 512GB SSD RTX 2060 6GB Phantom Black - AMD Ryzen 7 4800H Octa-core - antonline.com would be a better buy. It's a full-power RTX 2060 so I think it runs at 115W, so it should perform better overall.

 

Ahhhh. Ok. That’s good advice — thank you for that.

But again, if he is willing to spend 1K, isn’t it better to look for a laptop with an RTX 3060 at least?
As they are out there for that budget.

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/leno...EMZz7V8W1FLrp4ZeT8YGCTbBJAELyrNnT4VAlrt1g9SC_


Wait for this to come down in price???

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/gamin...PD_BwE&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6cH11dz&gclsrc=aw.ds


Cheaper with RTX 3060

 

That's the same crap screen from last year's model. If you don't care about slow response times and poor color accuracy, then go ham - the specs and price are pretty great otherwise.

 

1) I’m playing on a 60hz HP Pavillion laptop. The screen is fine.

2) what do think of the Overclockers link? The £1299 Lenovo?

 

If you have the money then go for it, if'll help extend the life of the laptop but the RTX 3060 is a very powerful GPU since its the full (130w) version.

Besides the bad screen with the RTX 3060 version the specs are very good. Also the screen uses only 250 nits which is pretty bad as well.

 

Two questions



— how do you know if the CPU is gonna hold back the graphics card?
Apart from perhaps obvious parings of a clearly cheaper / weaker CPU. ?



— secondly, how can you know if part of the RAM is soldered to the motherboard? Non removable? I mean I missed that! Where does it tell you that.


also this link —

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/leno...EMZz7V8W1FLrp4ZeT8YGCTbBJAELyrNnT4VAlrt1g9SC_


This pumps 130W to the RTX 3070.
The screen has 300nits.

This laptop I would say is pretty great with no downsides?

 

Ps.




What i don’t understand is this guy tested Red Dead Redemption 2 with everything on ultra settings at I think 4k resolution and he got 20-30fps.

if your dropping £1300 on a laptop — I would expect it to coast any current game on ultra settings!

What’s the point then?

I mean — this is why I play on consoles predominately, as the PS5/Series X can run RDR2 or similar current titles with comparable settings at a locked 60fps.

 

Going by this:
https://gamerant.com/ps4-games-ps5-update/


Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't run at 4K, nor at 60FPS on a PS5, nor on a Series X due to the similar hardware..

At FHD that laptop will play anything at ultra settings above 60FPS no problem.

 

OK… But guarantee it will. Likely Rockstar will release a ‘new’ edition that will perform at 60 with all the graphical flourishes on consoles.


RDR2 is a taxing game. But I thought it did run at 60 on consoles. Not yet I guess.

still I dont think you can beat consoles for value for money vs performance.


But my view — a full powered RTX 3070 paired with a Ryzen 7, that’s a pretty potent mix that should run anything super smooth for the next few years. Otherwise that’s a lot of money to lay down if not…..

 

I can't put an Xbox and a monitor in a backpack and take it with me when I travel, or rather I could, but it wouldn't be very convenient. You pay a price for that convenience. That and the ability to customize the settings in most games to get your preferred balance of visuals and performance.

 

Yeah that’s true. With a laptop you have mobility. But then you could get a Nintendo Switch?

But if you mostly play at home. I think it’s difficult to justify the price. When you consider consoles are around £400, and a gaming PC / laptop even a budget one with cost you £650.
You also pay similar prices for desktops.
And good luck playing the latest AAA games on a budget laptop/PC. To play Horizon Zero Dawn or Days Gone at 4k resolution and it look as good as the PS4 PRO or PS5 version, you will likely need a PC/laptop that will cost £900 + ……

PC gaming is an expensive hobby if it’s your main gaming platform.

 

Consoles use checkerboard rendering, no games besides 2D ones run at native resolution, its been like that even on FHD games on the PS4/Xbox whatever model..

A laptop also has a screen, a keyboard, touchpad, battery, a multitude of IO ports and can do a LOT more than any console..

Even my old 980m can still play current gen games at medium settings, and it looks as good as any "4k" game on a console.

If you dont need a laptop, dont buy one, get a console instead.

 

Fair points.

But I’m talking about buying a PC/laptop purely for gaming.

and also the difference between checkerboard and native — honestly you would have to have both images side but side to really see the difference. But the series X / PS5 do native 4k.

My point is you cannot out perform consoles at that price point. At around £400 you cannot build the equivalent PC that could perform to that same standard.

Getting back into PC gaming (bought a budget laptop back in Feb) has really given me a renewed appreciation for consoles and what they offer at their respective price points.

Don’t get me wrong I really enjoy my little laptop (TW Warhammer 2 is so good!), but I only really bought it to play RTS games like Total War, Men of War: Assault Squad etc. Maybe some older titles and indies.

It’s a Ryzen 5 4500 with a GTX 1650. I got it for 650. I had to spend a further 70 updating to 16GB RAM.
It runs these games reasonably well, but I think if my intention was to play AAA games — it would probably struggle. That’s £750 already and it could no way compete with PS5/Series X Performance. It can’t even compete with my PRO running certain games at their respective resolutions at locked 30fps.

Thats my point. If I’m on a budget and I’m wanting to choose a main gaming platform, I think consoles represent the better value option.

 

How did Ryzen vs. Intel turn into console > PC.

 

sorry that was me.

I derailed my own thread.

 

Consoles are terminals struggling not to be, PC's are not terminals and shouldnt be treated as such.

 

If you want to use your notebook off power, don't buy a Ryzen. They automatically throttle everything including the SSD in order to preserve battery life. Intel does no such thing. This is not THERMAL this is BIOS that cannot be turned off.

Some AMD laptops reduce system performance for better battery life, but is that OK? | Windows Central

 

Interesting that they reduce speed on the SSD, though I imagine it is likely an NVME (not sure if it is, might have missed that detail) which points to a Power saving setting akin to Link State Power?

Otherwise people would've been up in arms with Intel if it wasnt for ThrottleStop. No such thing as the perfect laptop despite us always looking for it lol

 

Almost half a decade later and AMD is still playing catch up.

Don't give up AMD, I'm still rooting for you! Lol...

Even if I'll never buy anything with AMD inside at this rate.

What Intel is offering today is more than competitive with the very real AMD disadvantages still being discovered by more people every day.

 

I dont see it as a bad thing because you're not going get the full potential of any laptop running on battery anyways.

Laptops already throttle on battery for obvious reasons, unless you want your battery to wear out faster and have less battery life on the job or at school.... The only thing i agree with the article is to allow users to have control of it especially for gaming laptops, If people want their batteries to die faster well its up to them!. One thing im curious about is the real world SSD performance between battery and AC power running basic tasks to see if the performance decrease really makes a difference because benchmarks dont tell the full story.

 

No, they don't.

AMD notebooks do.

They're fast and they're battery efficient, but not both concurrently.

Unlike Intel notebooks that have no such limitations.

 

I would stipulate that it comes down to the model laptop just to keep things from a abstract perspective. Mostly because today my (Dell) 13" 2-in1 with the i7 8th gen didnt want to behave even after plugging it in. Had to start ThrottleStop to make the darn thing usable.

Overall though, with Throttlestop, I would agree. Should be expected though, AMD has only been able to maintain the alternative choice option until recently.

 

All laptops throttle on battery, AMD, Intel it doesnt matter.

Like i said you're not going to get the full potential of any laptop running on battery.

 

But not all throttle the ssd speed with Intel chips. With AMD this is what you'll get whatever OEM you walk with.

 

There's throttling and then there's throttling for pure lies (Dell, HP, the fruity company, and now, AMD too).

With Intel, you can choose the chassis to effectively minimize any performance loss while on battery power. Including beefing up the cooling to ensure to get even better performance where possible.

With AMD, you can't. Even if you work inside a freezer, the wannabe laptop will still throttle. Garbage.

40% isn't throttling. Nor is it giving better battery life than Intel that any normal human would agree to if they were told how it really is. It's selling 2010 tech for 2021 dollars. Let the lemmings continue to line up to buy... yup, garbage.

The huge point of a notebook is to use it away from the wall power. The CPU can either do it or not but crippling the storage side of the platform is even more bonkers. I'm sure they're saving another 36 seconds of battery life doing so to 'show Intel' while flat out lying to their customers.

Right now, AMD is waving the middle finger to all its supporters and showing them how little 'truth in advertising' and 'talking the talk and walking the walk' really means to them.

A true enthusiast would be writing letters to AMD to get them to set this right. Not letting them off on this because 'everyone else is too'.

 

G14 isnt even listed or maybe the author linked it to the wrong page as that one was an announcement page not a review. Razer was 40% while the Microsoft laptop was 38% reduction in performance.

His only clue is information from Razer stating its something to do with PSPP. Razer being forthcoming and accurate is highly questionable and doesnt seem to verify this with Asus or Microsoft to attempt to get a trend of behavior. The article doesnt mention if he attempted to change it in windows power plan (unless I missed it of course).

It does seem to be a trend though, AMD can resolve this rather easily if they just allow even just a basic 3-option preferably in Windows but I suppose most people would be ok with it in the BIOS. (Battery Saver, Nominal, Max Performance)

I dont really see an issue with 40% off of NVME, still faster than any SATA SSD no?, what is likely allowing users to see degradation in user experience is the clockspeed on the CPU, 2Ghz and what ever the GPU clock is more likely the key factor.

According to some of the users in the comments, the Asus Armory Crate allows the user to set as plugged in, even when on battery. Of which the Author didnt see that setting and doesnt seem to be any follow up.

If Asus software bypasses the battery mode setting then it would seem Razer was incorrect (again) but if its just users trolling his comment section then Razer somehow did no wrong for a change, and AMD would need to put in some work here and consider themselves lucky that they skirted the radar for a year.

 

Thats why im curious about real world performance running on battery vs AC with Intel and AMD CPUs because benchmarks dont tell the full story. I tested this myself with my 4800h running crystaldiskmark on battery

Battery:



AC:



Going by the benchmarks it still wouldnt be noticeable especially on Windows with NVMe SSDs. I think its a OEM thing with Razer and not a Intel vs AMD thing.

 

Its certainly alarming, need some more confirmation before condemnation. I expect AMD slacked here though.

We all know that they dont have the granular control like we have on Intel (thanks in large part to ThrottleStop, but other measures as well to be certain) so looking at through that lens I can definitely see its plausible that AMD is more interested in getting a product out ASAP instead of giving the best product they can.

 

From the article linked, it's a Surface, Razer and Asus, AMD thing. In other words, not Intel, just AMD.

There is no good way to spin this.

 

Not the same way, My intel will thermal throttle after temps rise, however, AMD automatically decreases ALL power to the chip, ram, ssd etc. just to get better battery life. If you read the article, you could see where they did a benchmark test between a ryzen and intel. The ryzen lost 24 percent across the board right away where the intel kept it's speed. I am NOT talking about thermal throttling. This is an entirely different issue.

 

I agree, I just didn't expect AMD to have to lower EVERYTHING, just to get the battery life of an intel chip running full power to everything.

 

From the article linked, the reference link on the G14 doesnt lead to a review. Its a product announcement page, at least it is for me.

Ill check again maybe later today, busy for now.

 

They said they tried it with various machines. and all had this issue.

 

If we took people at their word then Apple could do no wrong The authors name is Daniel and It was 3 machines, not various.

Re-read the G14 review and I didnt see anything about performance under the battery. Interesting detail from the G14 link is 51c is considered "scorching" lol

When I was looking around last night it seemed AdoredTV had done some testing on the battery but there wasnt any issue of performance, more so that the new drivers and/or MSI Afterburner tanked the battery life. AdoredTV did state the whole reason for the testing was to recreate an issue he ran into but was unable to recreate it. By that time it was already midnight and I had already stayed up until 1:30am the previous night fixing my Eth miners so my bed was calling for me

 

51c is 'scorching' on your lap. That isn't the CPU or GPU temps, that's the bottom of the notebook.

The G14 piece you read wasn't a (full) review.

See:
Tested: How bad is Ryzen 5000 battery performance? | PCWorld

Not just 'a person' anymore.

 

I didnt say it was, I just think its humorous that constitutes "scorching". My experiences must color my perception as my i7 8th gen processor regularly pegs 100c because of a lack of climate control where I work in Texas. I do not have the luxury of working exclusively in cooler climates and/or climate controlled cubicles.

I suspected not, even in the review it was noted that the processor was released 2 weeks before but because it was included as a use case I was expecting the page to have been updated or a new article provided on the site. Nothing came up on a quick search (of the site) though. It was linked as supporting evidence but I see I was mistaken in narrowing my search based on the G14 as you note below.

Thanks for the link, AMD's got some work to do for performing on the battery, especially if the U processor is suffering, H/HS would take a harder hit from the limitations they are imposing while performing under the battery.

Not sure what "a person" is referring to, honestly confused.

 

I am truly blessed that I have AC in my house and my home office. I would never be able to do any cognitive work in a place where I am cooking from heat. The temps will get to 30deg celcius probably a month out of the year here, most times is a nice comfortable 20 degrees. So when I am on location, I am comfortable too.

 

This just mean that the cooling ain't good enough.