Yes a few hundred mghz is going to make a big difference lol. Still 14nm, still the same architecture this is going to be hot and not in a good way. A pass for me I'm buying AMD specially if you look at the prices.
I did not feel any reason to upgrade since i5-3210m. Its on verge of beeing to too weak but it was not compelling to change to literally ANYTHING since. I was looking into ryzenz 3X series but then I heard about 4'th and decided to wait :) a good choice.
Wow, good for you. I have an i7-5500u and I am really, really looking forward to a Ryzen 4800H or 4900HS (I'm waiting for the reviews to see if the 4900HS is worth the extra money ... the Zephyrus G14 sure looks good on paper). 2 cores are miserable today, miserable. My high-end Portegé laptop, with NVM and 16GB of RAM takes 2 minutes to boot. 2 minutes ... I cannot imagine having 2 cores and no hypertreading.
Assuming you haven't done anything weird with your OS, that slow boot is down to BIOS/UEFI and drivers. I have machines where the one with better CPU and SSD boots slower than the other even with a fresh OS installation and the minimum set of drivers (Intel chipset/GPU).
The problem is actually *running* stuff where the CPU just chokes when you're starting up something new. One of my laptops does this and the CPU just spikes to 100% and chokes when I start Webex for example, leaving me unable to do almost anything else. If you can wait and take your time it may be fine. Same if you don't do much on your PC. But having to do something productive (WFH for example) and waiting for the system to slowly digest any workload can be very frustrating.
A fresh install would probably help, but the point is, to put it in your words, that the CPU chokes easily when you push it. I'm a heavy multitasker, with email, a couple of browsers with several tabs, OneNote, various Office programs, and some cooperative suites. Nothing that by itself would be CPU intensive, but add background services (syncing on cloud drives, backup, antivirus) and you "feel" it slowing down more often than not. In my opinion, buying a new laptop, today, means quad-core, 8-thread, as an absolute minimum, but looking ahead a few years, 6-cores or more is the way to go. That said ... 135W peak ... No, thank you.
16GB is really not a measure of the ultimate resource that it alone gives faster boot times. The key is a combo of factors 1) Reduce start-up items 2) Get new NVMe stick preferably MLC NAND 3) Reinstall OS on new NVMe without cloning then transfer files and reinstall apps 4) Match RAM speeds to PCB/ Motherboard FBS, if higher power rating change to lower 5) Check thermals at boot to make sure fan is optimally functioning if not correct by cleaning CPU and GPU heat-sink contacts with isopropyl alcohol and reapplying thermal paste.... There are so many correctives but something is surely wrong. Have 2TB SSD, 50% used that is faster than your machine. I do 1 min 34 sec at boot
No, each browser tab consumes power, multi tasking between multiple browser windows AND tabs can destroy a dual core and heavily affect a quad core. add Office and other apps like Photoshop, etc..
I don't think I can explain your boot time. I have a Bay Trail Celeron N2840 in my Aspire E11. It has 8GB of RAM and a cheap Kingston 1TB 2.5 inch SSD with an OEM Windows 8.1 install copied off the original 250GB hard drive via Clonezilla. It boots to a login screen in about 8 seconds and after typing in my password, I'm at a usable desktop in another 10 or so seconds. Yes it very quickly reaches the limits of its low power dual core CPU, but there is something horribly wrong if going from pressing the power button to getting to a usable system takes it two minutes.
I just rebooted and timed it. The BIOS POST takes 12s, Windows 10 brings me to the login screen in 14s, after login the desktop appears in 16s. BUT, I open Task Manager and the CPU is maxed out for 2 minutes exactly. This is pure CPU-limited, while loading the usual startup software (again, Skye, Teams, the AV...).RAM is at 5.5GB (of 16). Acer must be doing a fantastic job with their BIOS, if Toshiba doesn't even start loading windows in 8 seconds, and you're already at the login screen.
Dual core is definitely insufficient for multi tasking. My work requires 10-30 browser tabs over multiple active browsers and my 2016 late MBP i5 2 core definitely struggles as more tabs are open. I think at this point the dual core and quad core offerings on $1000+ is simply down to corporate greed. AMD ha shown 8 core cpus are possible in the $1000-1500 laptops now and their cpus are more power efficient even then. So just screw Intel for artificially dripping down cores to make more money and now screw most oems for selling 4gb and 8gb laptops in the $1000-1500 range. It costs them pennies for these upgrades but they happily charge hundreds for any sensible and reasonable ram and cpu cores.
I saw that LTT review. It was insane. I then saw this and it was the 50A per core which really rubbed it home. Also, that the fudging of graphs was so huge and so over the top that anandtech refuse to show them means Intel must be playing a really dirty game. To give an idea, I was running the COVID folding at home stuff on my 12 core Ryzen. 12 cores running at 4GHz was drawing around 138A. The CPU is water-cooled and at 75C. This Intel job is drawing 50A per core on two cores in a laptop. That's mental.
As for running two cores with no hyperthreading - a lot of our PCs at work are like that. To boot and log in to a working desktop can take 10 mins to the point where I've set some machines to turn in automatically at 0800. Then, atop that you have to open Internet Explorer. Oh yes. And that can easily take a minute. Then using the browser based applications is like wading through treacle. Treacle which frequently complains of a lack of system resources.
Yes we got the core arch, which was built on something. zen is built on a philosophy that is very old, Interconnect, and not it's core. Zen definitely has a good core no doubt, Intel also has a superb core but intel missing the glue to attach it's components together and also missing a superior node they've always had until now.
>the fudging of graphs was so huge and so over the top Hey, at least you could still tell what they're trying to pull from the graphs alone, remember the GPU Turbo fiasco? Huawei directly compared a last gen SoC w/o "Turbo" to a current gen SoC w/ "Turbo" and refused to acknowledge that they were comparing fundamentally different SoCs on any slide in the whole presentation, and that was all anybody had to work with for months. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13285/huawei-gpu-tu... Look at that slide, I doubt if anybody could surpass Huawei in playing dirty tricks for at least a decade.
Sounds like you need some SSDs. I put an SSD in a Core 2 Duo laptop and gave it to a friend and he uses it all the time, boots in way less than a minute.
On the flip side of that coin, I sprung for a 3990X. It's pretty amazing being able to tackle threaded workloads that previously took hours in a matter of minutes.
The power draw is pretty extreme - it's like a space heater when running at full load - but what an amazing tool, and not that far out of reach for normal buyers (at least compared to top-end Intel server chips priced in the multiple tens of thousands just for the CPU).
I look forward to a future - not seeming so far away anymore - where average consumer CPUs have thousands of cores, and software is properly engineered to run on such processors.
At your workplace, it's probably domain networking slowing down your boot times. I've seem some fast machines choke when joined to the domain and it has little to do with processors and memory. Take them off the domain, and they boot fast again.
Hello! I am looking for a laptop with a powerful processor (I plan to do web development). I choose between these processors https://vsrank.com/en/intel-core-i7-7700hq-vs-inte... Is it worth overpaying for Intel Core i7-10750H?
I just bought a Ryzen 3 laptop with two cores and it does average computer stuff just fine and boots really fast. $279 for Ryzen 3, 8GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, cant beat it.
I have at my parents a desktop with a dinosaur AMD Athlon II X4 620; 6GB of RAM, SSD, and it boots Windows 10 in a bit more than a minute. In your case, I would really check the system, Windows instalation etc.....
It's all a gimmick. It can go that fast only that it also gets as hot as a desktop class CPU. Which means it never gets to use that boost clock for any practice purpose. Let alone boost 14nm struggles to sustain a constant 40watts even in a Thinkpad chassis. That too after replacing the thermal paste and adding copper pads to move the heat better between the cpu-gpu heatpipes. So best case these can only sustain 3.6ghz for my six core with undervolting. And I for once donot believe that Intel is struggling with 10nm, they are just squeezing 14nm profits as long as they can, fooling people with these 5.3 ghz gimicks
Citation plz? I'd like to believe that AMD is beating Intel 5:1 in the desktop space, but if you're going to sling numbers, it benefits your argument if you show the source.
To be fair, a higher max boost can make a difference in SOME situations. Given a theoretical infinite speed and a tiny cooling capacity, a CPU could complete all work instantly and never overheat because it would instantly return to rest.
So postulate a work item that might take a slower cpu 15 seconds at full boost, which then overheats at 10 seconds and throttles down to 50% speed, dragging out the total time to 20 seconds. If the CPU was 30% faster, it could complete the work item within 10 seconds without overheating. 10 secs vs 20 secs, a doubling in perceived speed with only a 30% increase in CPU speed.
Practically speaking, it makes more of a difference for users who's work hovers on that margin of very short very intense use - launching 10 apps at a time, regular autosaving of complex work, switching between heavy duty apps, momentary high demand within apps or browsers etc.
And it is running a Microsoft OS, so there are Always multiple things on the cpu scheduler…
This is just another fool the benchmark - marketing trick from Intel. There 14nm and current X times refreshed core design is not capable of handling 8 cores in a low TDP package. After several revisions and flaw fixes its back at the Pentium burst era. Where ghz is needed for higher performance which always results in heat.
The Intel Core architecture has only been efficient a 4c or less and clock speeds 4.0GHz or less. Just look at the difference in power draw between the i7-4770k (84W TDP) and i7-4970k (88W TDP). At stock clocks figuring max boost for 1T, at 3.9GHz the 4770k uses 14.76W where as at 4.4GHz the 4970k uses 32.58W. To get that extra 500MHz requires a massive 120% increase in power. At 8T they use 67.09W & 88.67W respectively. Yes that is on the 22nm process, but the absolute core power draw isn't any much better on 14nm. For 1T going 4.5GHz on i7-7700k is 26.29W, a drop of 20% compared to 14nm. 8T between the 7700k & 4970k is almost equal in power draw 91.36W vs 88.67W.
There is a point where doing the work faster is a lot more efficient, where you have the best performance per Watt. Anything else either produces less work, or does it in more time, or uses more energy to do so.
Since when is heat output matter at all when it comes to performance. No one goes "oh know i see my laptop is making more heat, sucks that i'm getting more performance though because of it". lol
If your laptop generates more heat, i.e. uses more energy this means both reduced battery run time but also that the CPU will throttle, so actual performance will be reduced.
It will also mean that your laptop and power brick will need to be larger and heavier. Add a high end dGPU to that and either it or the CPU cannot run at full performance since the cooling solution needs to handle the heat of both.
Better performance / watt means that all components can run at a higher sustained speed.
I'm passing up ordering food to allow you all to bask in my wisdom here. Be grateful (or just absolutely lay into my arguments as usual...). There are other issues with a high power draw laptop - I used a DESKTOP Pentium 4 laptop. A few things were evident. It was several kilos for a start and what was due to the huge heat sinks required. This meant a lot of space was required so the thing was very thick. Then you had about 5 or 6 fans in it if I remember rightly and those mostly sucked in from the base. So you couldn't put it on your lap without cooking the laptop. Also the heat output was such that it was very unpleasant to use in summer due to the palm rest areas getting just so hot. And then we get to the fact that it gradually cooked itself. These high temperature devices eventually fry themselves due to the heating and cooling cycles eventually breaking something. Mine had several parts fail bit by bit and finally became unusable.
So yes, people can be very happy with a hot running laptop. But if you use it on your lap, you'll end up with a blistered penis.
It matters for mobile devices when the CPU hits its throttle temps and actually gives lower not much greater performance for the power consumed...also, if your laptop is on your lap, and it suddenly gets scaldingly hot.
Your example also forgets about the extra power draw for that instance. While it might not heat up instantly, you have to be able to send that massive amount of power required to do it as well. As was stated by Ian "t does mean that in order to hit 5.3 GHz, the Core i9 is by default allowed to take 135 W across two cores, or 67.5 W per core. Even at 60W per core, you're looking at 50A of current per core... in a laptop."
Their current 6 core mobile 45W i9 cant maintain its boosts for any real usable length of time, and you think that, somehow, intel is going to get HIGHER boosts out of a chip with two more cores on the same tDP still on 14nm?
Mate you're delusional. Those single core boosts are worthless, windows 10 has so much going on in the background that even if you did have software that was single threaded it wouldnt use that max turbo for more then a fraction of a second or two. No real world performance difference with production software, just some bigger numbers for artificial benchmarks that nobody cares about.
What intel is doing on recent generation mobile chip, is very much like AMD's rx470 rx480 rx570 rx580 rx590 etc. They are basically the same thing, with little improvement on frequencies but pay a heavy price on thermal and power consumption. This indicates a total lose for intel, it really doesn't have anything refreshing to offer for customers, they even losing their dominated mobile chip markets.
It should be, as a 2 generation old technology that had to be reduced in price to appeal to it's target audience. To be fair though, I hear it did better in crypto-mining...at least until that bubble burst.
Intel 10nm currently doesn't clock high enough to be competitive in higher performance markets. It's barely competitive with Comet Lake in low-voltage U-series chips after all. Even with the 18% ICL IPC increase any ICL H-series would lag behind significantly due to much worse clock/voltage scaling.
Umm yes Tiger looks a summer launch, more like Ice Lake last year and Tiger will be 8 cores (and 4 cores obviously). For now Coffee Lake is well enough, AMD have not enough silicon on 4000 mobile serie.
It's likely the H-series variant of Tiger Lake will be 8 cores (I'm assuming they're just going to skip Ice Lake H), and it may very well be the case that AMD won't get much traction in the market before it's out (Ryzen 4xxx is the first competitive mobile AMD CPU in a long time, and IT departments are conservative), but Intel has only shown a 4-core die so far.
I rather suspect Apple is going to skip this one. Even though thermals have improved in the 16", they are already on the edge with the 9980HK. Also the model only came out in December. They'll wait for Tiger Lake.
When will we see their new Sunnycove arch in anything is that still on track for this year? I thought Cometlake would be the 1st with these but clearly not the case - so I guess Tigerlake later on in the year?
Ice Lake laptops based on Sunny Cove are already out there. Xeons are supposed to show up this year. The first desktop with anything thats not based on Skylake will be Rocket Lake (the successor of Comet Lake)
My thinking of this is, yes there are some improvements in clock speed maybe enough to be competitive with AMD new lineup. But to maintain 65c or below at full load is gonna be very difficult even in big chassis designs in the gamer segment. It will be at the laptop manufactures shoulders to implement more efficient cooling designs in order to maintain that kind of turbo speeds.
I’m gonna wait for the next generation of 14nm that can phantom turbo to 5.5GHz. When friends with Ryzen 4000 series laptops question the performance of my CPU, I will say, This goes to 11 (divided by 2).
It's not really even about the cooling here for the short time it would sustain it, they're correctly saying that Apple uncaps TDP and lets things run right to their tjunctionmax on both battery and AC power, however shortly.
When faced with a duopoly wanting one side to fail risks total stagnation. It just takes AMD or TSMC to drop the ball again as they have in the last 5 years and the whole market stagnates. But maybe you enjoy gambling!
I don‘t think any reasonable person wants Intel to completely fail. That said, imho they need to continue to stumble and hurt a lot more / longer until we get to the point where they can no longer get OEM to not offer the best possible solution because of their financial horsepower.
If it‘s just a short stretch, Intel will kill competition and progress just like they did in the past. No reasonable person would want that either.
Intel failing for another 3-5 years is a good thing. They have PLENTY of money, they can easily survive that long.
But give another 3-5 years and OEMs might finally start using AMD across their lineups, and Intel would really hurt, to the point they finally have to cut the crusty useless folds of their enormous mass and actually compete again.
With the economy plummeting into a recession... AMD's lead may never amount to anything. And with an entire world working remotely, Laptops are selling like crazy. The best mobile designs all use Intel processors, and I'm never buying a laptop from ASUS again... NEVER. Their support was pi$$-poor. TOTAL GARBAGE COMPANY.
I don't deal with support very often, but from my experiences Dell has pretty good support...but not the best stuff, the best thin and lights are Lenovo's and the best gaming/workstation solutions are Asus's and Razer's.
Even if more technical readers understand that this Comet-Lake mobile launch with "up to 5.3Ghz turbo" is just a slight refresh, a lot of laptop buyers just buy based on numbers blasted at them. So if the speed says "5.3Ghz!!!" , then they can be convinced to buy it just by seeing a bigger number. Basically, Intel has done what it needs to do to continue selling on mobile.
More technical buyers might understand that Ryzen 4000 APU-based laptops could give them great performance at lower power usage, but often for the average buyer, bigger numbers win.
Another April Fool's joke from Intel...;) Who cares about "up to 5.3Ghz" if a competitor's CPU running less MHz processes data 20% faster using less power? Nobody, hopefully. Intel is now burning through its stored up market "good will" at a prodigious rate.
this is just intels usual trick of a hero product coveting all the top spots in the review because the headline number is great dig a little deeper and the gloss comes off the sows ear am looking forward to the AMD reviews the ones already out show very positive numbers and make this intel hovercraft look old and outdated
maybe foe you, but i have had issues with both amd AND nvidia, but i figured you would say that, you seem like and anti amd person going by most of your posts.
I've used AMD, nVidia, and Intel products. Typically I am at or near the most current drivers and I haven't had any issues, regardless of the company. When I have had driver issues, it was never one company specifically or most often. All companies will have issues with drivers at some point in time.
Their woefully incomplete ryzen 3000 AGESA code and the stumbling faceplant that was ryzen 3000's turboboost springs to mind. Or the rushed 5600xt change. Or their constant driver issues that only get fixed when there is media attention (frame pacing, black screens, and more recently general instability). Oh hey, remember when the ryzen 2000 mobile APUs came out and AMD went "LOL you have to make the driver packages yourself BYE"?
There was also a thread on the ASUS forums last year that broke down how much less time AMD gave board makers to test motherboards, that the code and documentation were incomplete, and that the AMD ES CPUs couldnt turbo boost at ALL. And lord knows you can go back years and find thread after thread of game developers in the AMD EVOLVED program getting jack shit from AMD in terms of support. Hell, RMAing a CPU through AMD is a month long affair, as any response to a support Email or question takes 2-3 days, so just getting to the third troubleshooting point takes upwards of 3 weeks. Takes 10 minutes through intel's online chat or phone support, neither of which AMD has.
Support has been AMD's Achilles heel for two decades now. You dont have to accept it, but its true, and its why AMD has long struggled in the server space, and why despite being superior to FERMI the TERASCALE GPUs couldnt ascertain market dominance. AMD has radically improved ont he hardware side, but only time will tell if Lisa su is finally implementing changes to fix their utterly borked support side of things, especially after ryzen 3000 didnt explode like ryzen 2000 did and AMD got pushback from motherboard manufacturers.
As a tech enthusiast and software engineer, I will continue to buy Intel over AMD until AMD fires whoever is in charge of the disaster called software division and also replaces GUI designers with actual competent programmers.
Which CPU software?? I have a Ryzen with an OCed 2080 Ti and was never happier. I had AMD gpus before and never had software issues. What you're talking about is the 5700XT software issues because its a new gpu. They're solved long time ago. Nvidia software sucks, sluggish and looks like Win XP. Very bad.
AMD software is faster and more modern and had less bugs. My nvidia control panel doesn't reset settings when I click reset. Idle clocks are high until I reinstall the whole driver and control panel.
It has less bugs, thats why the number of bugs in AMD drivers became such an issue that tech forums and reviewers started writing stories about how many customers were returning Navi GPUs in favor of Nvidia RTX cards and how the problems had been going on for 6 months and the problems were now boiling over?
Your nvidia driver has bugs? Have you gone through DDU and a system wipe that AMD owners seem to think is a legitimate way to fix driver bugs? In fact, if AMD has such good software....why do you have an Nvidia card anyway?
i actually went through a complete wipe of my comp, and reinstalled windows to see if i could fix the issue i had with nvidia's drivers, and guess what, still wasnt fixed till a few driver releases from nvidia later. havent had to go to that extreme with my 7970 way back when before i replaced it with the 1060 i now have.
Translation: I will put in random credentials to make my post look more relevant, but I don't have any actual experience using anything but Intel & nVidia since they can do no wrong.
So basically we are back to the pentium, there is absolutely no improvement in process or else, and Intel is just giving you the right to consume exponentially more power for a few percents at most of increased speed, leaving you with no battery autonomy and a hot and loud system.
I seriously hope the 45W AMD are good and that Apple will produce Non-intel Macs. Intel really needs a painful wake-up call.
It's time to forget 14 nm, and it's already time to forget 10 nm.
Ultrabookreview tested an Asus Tuf A15 with Ryzen 7 4800H. It's faster than Core i9-9880H on repeated cinebench R15 runs while consuming 10% less CPU power.
Unless Intel a. includes AVX512 in most/all of those chips and b. pushes software publishers with all might to use AVX512 whenever it could even remotely make sense, they're toast. Outside that, the Ryzen 4000 chips are far better value for the money. The other thing that could also prevent AMD from taking a huge portion of the mobile PC market is if manufacturing capacity and pricing keep the 4000 series mobile Ryzen back. I am set to buy a new laptop this year, and unless unforeseen changes occur, it'll be Intel outside this time!
Its like we've gone back to 2003, Intel pushing clocks way to high to make up for IPC deficiencies, this is exacerbated by the never ending 14nm node.
AMD is very well poised to take huge marketshare in a very quick time, higher IPC, half the power and cheaper. A rare Win/Win/Win scenario. Mindshare is the big hurdle now, AMD needs to get the word out that they have the performance crown now. Intel will have an answer eventually, make hay while the sun shines!
I remember when cTDP skus were initially released and was anxiously awaiting a near paradigm-shifting change. Finally, we could have laptops that had great battery life but, when plugged in, and, perhaps, attached to a cooling dock, something that could approach desktop-level perf. For some reason this hasn't really happened... That's the kind of device where 50A cores make sense. Include a igpu and optional dgpu (though it would likely need to be external, and, with a dock, that wouldn't be something the user need care about) and you've got a really versatile set-up. Seeing laptops plugged in at desks always makes me a bit wistful that this never happened.
Laptops have a problem called how to remove heat. These Intel chips will have a really rough time with higher frequencies due to generally poor cooler designs. The "theory" of how fast these things can operate ends up being complete garbage in the real world.
oh, like you are doing to bash amd ? come one vlad, ooops, sorry, anti amd vlad. i upgraded 2 comps finally after about 5 years from intel cpus, one to a 3600x, and a 3900x, and both are running rock solid, no issues at all, using up to date drivers.
expand on your comments please with evidence that AMD laptop parts are unable to work due to AMDs software, if you cant it just proves what an intel shill you are
Not impressed by the this chip honestly. The steady state TDP and clock speeds are more in the realm of what to expect under sustained load situations. Burst speed and burst TDP are both not reasonably sustainable in a laptop form factor for any length of time even with good cooling design. Intel's move to list short duration burst speeds that are well above a sustained threshold have been leaving a bad taste since they started up with that practice. Just give me good steady-state performance at a reasonable <25W TDP and leave me alone with a nice quiet, cool-running laptop please.
It's funny reading CPU comment threads. Intel has *always* been, at best, a mediocre CPU company and until very recently an astounding lithography company.
Now people are talking like AMD is an amazing CPU design company and Intel is terrible. Like most of the time in the history of tech, put then on the same process node and there would be very little difference.
What surprised me is when Renoir was announced, there is nothing much mentioned on Anandtech, while Intel’s released got the headlines here.
Anyway, from some of the preliminary results shown on some other sites, it’s clear that despite the 5.3Ghz boost on a single core, it’s barely performing better than a much lower clocked Renoir. Multi core results reveals that given the limited 35/45W TDP, there is absolutely no way Intel’s current chip can maintain boost for long. Therefore it’s trailing AMD Renoir big time in some cases.
i believe in another thread,. either ian or ryan mentioned an embargo date change that they werent aware of, and the review should be out early next week
In this case, there is no review as such in this headline article. Its just marketing slides from Intel mostly. While I don't expect every review site to have a review immediately, but its clear there's a difference in treatment here.
That's funny. I think in this one they favored AMD more than not. They pointed out all of the lies, instead of just following them blindly like other websites.
They didn't have to tell us it would take 50A, and how bad that sounds in a laptop. But they did.
The only thing they did this week was lift the embargo on benchmarks, which we didn't publish anything for since we hadn't been aware of an embargo change. So we've published everything we have on Renoir at this time. We'll have more next week, at which point we'll publish that too.
Meanwhile Intel announced it's new Comet Lake-H processors, and we've covered the announcement here. The hardware is not yet for sale, so this is everything we know about Comet Lake-H at this time.
In both cases, we're publishing everything we can as soon as we can. So it is certainly intended to be equitable treatment. But if you think we're somehow failing in that, please let us know.
Thank you for taking time to clarify. It seems that you have made the Renoir announcement here sometime back in mid March. Unfortunately I missed out on the article. As a result, it seems like there is a big bang announcement for Intel, but not for AMD. I understand earlier the review will take another week, but not seeing any announcement on the day when quite a number of hardware sites have shared their review, gave me the wrong impression. For this I apologize. I look forward to the Renoir review on AT. Thank you once again.
Why do I read comments saying something about Intel being more energy efficient because it is faster to complete the work; Lol read up on dirac distribution. Actually it's not even same area, its area is multiplied with something like c* exp(freq). But whatever. Smart monkeys.
Why are Intel comparing Comet Lake-H to an arbitrary "3 year-old PC" instead of laptops with AMD's 4000 APU -H series? We all know the answer but even so, some among the many disclaimers Intel listed should stretch Comet Lake-H's performance quite higher than its actual performance, and thus artificially increase its performance over a "3 yo PC".
Legal disclaimer #3 alone is enough to blow up performance, since "optimized for performance only on Intel processors" strongly suggests usage of aggressive compiler flags only on the newer processors (the "3 year old PC" is as vague and arbitrary as it can possibly get, so there's nothing to suggest the same compiler flags were employed). Intel have never shied away from dirty tricks like the above, and now that AMD surpassed them in performance even in the laptop market my educated guess is that they will try to conjure up even more creative BS.
" now that AMD surpassed them in performance even in the laptop market " not according to gondalf and Deicidium369 in the review of the amd 4k laptop here, according to them, intel is still king and isnt losing anything, or in any tests.
Hello! I am looking for a laptop with a powerful processor (I plan to do web development). I choose between these processors https://vsrank.com/en/intel-core-i7-7700hq-vs-inte... Is it worth overpaying for Intel Core i7-10750H?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
157 Comments
Back to Article
TheMighty - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Yes a few hundred mghz is going to make a big difference lol. Still 14nm, still the same architecture this is going to be hot and not in a good way. A pass for me I'm buying AMD specially if you look at the prices.deil - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I did not feel any reason to upgrade since i5-3210m. Its on verge of beeing to too weak but it was not compelling to change to literally ANYTHING since. I was looking into ryzenz 3X series but then I heard about 4'th and decided to wait :) a good choice.yankeeDDL - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Wow, good for you. I have an i7-5500u and I am really, really looking forward to a Ryzen 4800H or 4900HS (I'm waiting for the reviews to see if the 4900HS is worth the extra money ... the Zephyrus G14 sure looks good on paper).2 cores are miserable today, miserable. My high-end Portegé laptop, with NVM and 16GB of RAM takes 2 minutes to boot. 2 minutes ... I cannot imagine having 2 cores and no hypertreading.
close - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Assuming you haven't done anything weird with your OS, that slow boot is down to BIOS/UEFI and drivers. I have machines where the one with better CPU and SSD boots slower than the other even with a fresh OS installation and the minimum set of drivers (Intel chipset/GPU).The problem is actually *running* stuff where the CPU just chokes when you're starting up something new. One of my laptops does this and the CPU just spikes to 100% and chokes when I start Webex for example, leaving me unable to do almost anything else. If you can wait and take your time it may be fine. Same if you don't do much on your PC. But having to do something productive (WFH for example) and waiting for the system to slowly digest any workload can be very frustrating.
yankeeDDL - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
A fresh install would probably help, but the point is, to put it in your words, that the CPU chokes easily when you push it. I'm a heavy multitasker, with email, a couple of browsers with several tabs, OneNote, various Office programs, and some cooperative suites. Nothing that by itself would be CPU intensive, but add background services (syncing on cloud drives, backup, antivirus) and you "feel" it slowing down more often than not. In my opinion, buying a new laptop, today, means quad-core, 8-thread, as an absolute minimum, but looking ahead a few years, 6-cores or more is the way to go. That said ... 135W peak ... No, thank you.imaheadcase - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
What you described has nothing to do with the CPU, that is %100 ram.yankeeDDL - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Highly unlikely: I have 16Gb...ICT Buff - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
16GB is really not a measure of the ultimate resource that it alone gives faster boot times. The key is a combo of factors 1) Reduce start-up items 2) Get new NVMe stick preferably MLC NAND 3) Reinstall OS on new NVMe without cloning then transfer files and reinstall apps 4) Match RAM speeds to PCB/ Motherboard FBS, if higher power rating change to lower 5) Check thermals at boot to make sure fan is optimally functioning if not correct by cleaning CPU and GPU heat-sink contacts with isopropyl alcohol and reapplying thermal paste.... There are so many correctives but something is surely wrong. Have 2TB SSD, 50% used that is faster than your machine. I do 1 min 34 sec at boottamalero - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link
No, each browser tab consumes power, multi tasking between multiple browser windows AND tabs can destroy a dual core and heavily affect a quad core.add Office and other apps like Photoshop, etc..
Man.. its a good time to upgrade of laptops.
PeachNCream - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I don't think I can explain your boot time. I have a Bay Trail Celeron N2840 in my Aspire E11. It has 8GB of RAM and a cheap Kingston 1TB 2.5 inch SSD with an OEM Windows 8.1 install copied off the original 250GB hard drive via Clonezilla. It boots to a login screen in about 8 seconds and after typing in my password, I'm at a usable desktop in another 10 or so seconds. Yes it very quickly reaches the limits of its low power dual core CPU, but there is something horribly wrong if going from pressing the power button to getting to a usable system takes it two minutes.yankeeDDL - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I just rebooted and timed it.The BIOS POST takes 12s, Windows 10 brings me to the login screen in 14s, after login the desktop appears in 16s. BUT, I open Task Manager and the CPU is maxed out for 2 minutes exactly. This is pure CPU-limited, while loading the usual startup software (again, Skye, Teams, the AV...).RAM is at 5.5GB (of 16). Acer must be doing a fantastic job with their BIOS, if Toshiba doesn't even start loading windows in 8 seconds, and you're already at the login screen.
milkywayer - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Dual core is definitely insufficient for multi tasking. My work requires 10-30 browser tabs over multiple active browsers and my 2016 late MBP i5 2 core definitely struggles as more tabs are open. I think at this point the dual core and quad core offerings on $1000+ is simply down to corporate greed. AMD ha shown 8 core cpus are possible in the $1000-1500 laptops now and their cpus are more power efficient even then. So just screw Intel for artificially dripping down cores to make more money and now screw most oems for selling 4gb and 8gb laptops in the $1000-1500 range. It costs them pennies for these upgrades but they happily charge hundreds for any sensible and reasonable ram and cpu cores.umano - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
LTT just made a review and yes it seems it is worth the extra money, that power at 35w tdp it is really impressivephilehidiot - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I saw that LTT review. It was insane. I then saw this and it was the 50A per core which really rubbed it home. Also, that the fudging of graphs was so huge and so over the top that anandtech refuse to show them means Intel must be playing a really dirty game. To give an idea, I was running the COVID folding at home stuff on my 12 core Ryzen. 12 cores running at 4GHz was drawing around 138A. The CPU is water-cooled and at 75C. This Intel job is drawing 50A per core on two cores in a laptop. That's mental.As for running two cores with no hyperthreading - a lot of our PCs at work are like that. To boot and log in to a working desktop can take 10 mins to the point where I've set some machines to turn in automatically at 0800. Then, atop that you have to open Internet Explorer. Oh yes. And that can easily take a minute. Then using the browser based applications is like wading through treacle. Treacle which frequently complains of a lack of system resources.
eek2121 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Reminds me of the Pentium 4 days! ;)Of course we got the Core architecture from that debacle, so maybe something positive will come from this...
oleyska - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Yes we got the core arch, which was built on something.zen is built on a philosophy that is very old, Interconnect, and not it's core.
Zen definitely has a good core no doubt, Intel also has a superb core but intel missing the glue to attach it's components together and also missing a superior node they've always had until now.
s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
>the fudging of graphs was so huge and so over the topHey, at least you could still tell what they're trying to pull from the graphs alone, remember the GPU Turbo fiasco? Huawei directly compared a last gen SoC w/o "Turbo" to a current gen SoC w/ "Turbo" and refused to acknowledge that they were comparing fundamentally different SoCs on any slide in the whole presentation, and that was all anybody had to work with for months.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13285/huawei-gpu-tu...
Look at that slide, I doubt if anybody could surpass Huawei in playing dirty tricks for at least a decade.
29a - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Sounds like you need some SSDs. I put an SSD in a Core 2 Duo laptop and gave it to a friend and he uses it all the time, boots in way less than a minute.twtech - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
On the flip side of that coin, I sprung for a 3990X. It's pretty amazing being able to tackle threaded workloads that previously took hours in a matter of minutes.The power draw is pretty extreme - it's like a space heater when running at full load - but what an amazing tool, and not that far out of reach for normal buyers (at least compared to top-end Intel server chips priced in the multiple tens of thousands just for the CPU).
I look forward to a future - not seeming so far away anymore - where average consumer CPUs have thousands of cores, and software is properly engineered to run on such processors.
Namisecond - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
At your workplace, it's probably domain networking slowing down your boot times. I've seem some fast machines choke when joined to the domain and it has little to do with processors and memory. Take them off the domain, and they boot fast again.Andriivas - Sunday, November 22, 2020 - link
Hello! I am looking for a laptop with a powerful processor (I plan to do web development). I choose between these processors https://vsrank.com/en/intel-core-i7-7700hq-vs-inte... Is it worth overpaying for Intel Core i7-10750H?29a - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I just bought a Ryzen 3 laptop with two cores and it does average computer stuff just fine and boots really fast. $279 for Ryzen 3, 8GB RAM and a 128GB SSD, cant beat it.speedyxvn - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 - link
I have at my parents a desktop with a dinosaur AMD Athlon II X4 620; 6GB of RAM, SSD, and it boots Windows 10 in a bit more than a minute. In your case, I would really check the system, Windows instalation etc.....sharath.naik - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
It's all a gimmick. It can go that fast only that it also gets as hot as a desktop class CPU. Which means it never gets to use that boost clock for any practice purpose. Let alone boost 14nm struggles to sustain a constant 40watts even in a Thinkpad chassis. That too after replacing the thermal paste and adding copper pads to move the heat better between the cpu-gpu heatpipes. So best case these can only sustain 3.6ghz for my six core with undervolting. And I for once donot believe that Intel is struggling with 10nm, they are just squeezing 14nm profits as long as they can, fooling people with these 5.3 ghz gimickss.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Really? AMD is outselling Intel 5:1 in the desktop space, you'd think that if they've got any tricks up their sleeves they'd have pulled them by now.Namisecond - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Citation plz? I'd like to believe that AMD is beating Intel 5:1 in the desktop space, but if you're going to sling numbers, it benefits your argument if you show the source.s.yu - Monday, April 6, 2020 - link
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Ryzen-5-3600-and-Ryz...This is about 5:1, and unless the data from this particular retailer is somehow severely skewed in AMD's favor, this is the state of the market.
senttoschool - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
So literally the exact same CPUs as the last generation but only upped the max Turbo boost which could never be achieved with any normal laptop.Tomatotech - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
To be fair, a higher max boost can make a difference in SOME situations. Given a theoretical infinite speed and a tiny cooling capacity, a CPU could complete all work instantly and never overheat because it would instantly return to rest.So postulate a work item that might take a slower cpu 15 seconds at full boost, which then overheats at 10 seconds and throttles down to 50% speed, dragging out the total time to 20 seconds. If the CPU was 30% faster, it could complete the work item within 10 seconds without overheating. 10 secs vs 20 secs, a doubling in perceived speed with only a 30% increase in CPU speed.
Practically speaking, it makes more of a difference for users who's work hovers on that margin of very short very intense use - launching 10 apps at a time, regular autosaving of complex work, switching between heavy duty apps, momentary high demand within apps or browsers etc.
supdawgwtfd - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
That extra 30% performance isn't free...It increases heat output by more than the performance gained...
So your example is flawed.
duploxxx - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
And it is running a Microsoft OS, so there are Always multiple things on the cpu scheduler…This is just another fool the benchmark - marketing trick from Intel. There 14nm and current X times refreshed core design is not capable of handling 8 cores in a low TDP package. After several revisions and flaw fixes its back at the Pentium burst era. Where ghz is needed for higher performance which always results in heat.
schujj07 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
The Intel Core architecture has only been efficient a 4c or less and clock speeds 4.0GHz or less. Just look at the difference in power draw between the i7-4770k (84W TDP) and i7-4970k (88W TDP). At stock clocks figuring max boost for 1T, at 3.9GHz the 4770k uses 14.76W where as at 4.4GHz the 4970k uses 32.58W. To get that extra 500MHz requires a massive 120% increase in power. At 8T they use 67.09W & 88.67W respectively. Yes that is on the 22nm process, but the absolute core power draw isn't any much better on 14nm. For 1T going 4.5GHz on i7-7700k is 26.29W, a drop of 20% compared to 14nm. 8T between the 7700k & 4970k is almost equal in power draw 91.36W vs 88.67W.close - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
There is a point where doing the work faster is a lot more efficient, where you have the best performance per Watt. Anything else either produces less work, or does it in more time, or uses more energy to do so.Nokiya Cheruhone - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Read a little about the dirac distribution. This point is not reached as the actual energy consumption per calculation is an exp(freq).imaheadcase - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Since when is heat output matter at all when it comes to performance. No one goes "oh know i see my laptop is making more heat, sucks that i'm getting more performance though because of it". lolIrata - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
If your laptop generates more heat, i.e. uses more energy this means both reduced battery run time but also that the CPU will throttle, so actual performance will be reduced.It will also mean that your laptop and power brick will need to be larger and heavier. Add a high end dGPU to that and either it or the CPU cannot run at full performance since the cooling solution needs to handle the heat of both.
Better performance / watt means that all components can run at a higher sustained speed.
philehidiot - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I'm passing up ordering food to allow you all to bask in my wisdom here. Be grateful (or just absolutely lay into my arguments as usual...). There are other issues with a high power draw laptop - I used a DESKTOP Pentium 4 laptop. A few things were evident. It was several kilos for a start and what was due to the huge heat sinks required. This meant a lot of space was required so the thing was very thick. Then you had about 5 or 6 fans in it if I remember rightly and those mostly sucked in from the base. So you couldn't put it on your lap without cooking the laptop. Also the heat output was such that it was very unpleasant to use in summer due to the palm rest areas getting just so hot. And then we get to the fact that it gradually cooked itself. These high temperature devices eventually fry themselves due to the heating and cooling cycles eventually breaking something. Mine had several parts fail bit by bit and finally became unusable.So yes, people can be very happy with a hot running laptop. But if you use it on your lap, you'll end up with a blistered penis.
Cullinaire - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link
You are ordering polish dogs for lunch I take it?Namisecond - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
It matters for mobile devices when the CPU hits its throttle temps and actually gives lower not much greater performance for the power consumed...also, if your laptop is on your lap, and it suddenly gets scaldingly hot.schujj07 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Your example also forgets about the extra power draw for that instance. While it might not heat up instantly, you have to be able to send that massive amount of power required to do it as well. As was stated by Ian "t does mean that in order to hit 5.3 GHz, the Core i9 is by default allowed to take 135 W across two cores, or 67.5 W per core. Even at 60W per core, you're looking at 50A of current per core... in a laptop."TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Their current 6 core mobile 45W i9 cant maintain its boosts for any real usable length of time, and you think that, somehow, intel is going to get HIGHER boosts out of a chip with two more cores on the same tDP still on 14nm?Mate you're delusional. Those single core boosts are worthless, windows 10 has so much going on in the background that even if you did have software that was single threaded it wouldnt use that max turbo for more then a fraction of a second or two. No real world performance difference with production software, just some bigger numbers for artificial benchmarks that nobody cares about.
goatfajitas - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
"So literally the exact same CPUs as the last generation but only upped the max Turbo boost which could never be achieved with any normal laptop."\Yup, pretty much 5 years straight of that. Got rut?
PerplexedWill - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
What intel is doing on recent generation mobile chip, is very much like AMD's rx470 rx480 rx570 rx580 rx590 etc. They are basically the same thing, with little improvement on frequencies but pay a heavy price on thermal and power consumption.This indicates a total lose for intel, it really doesn't have anything refreshing to offer for customers, they even losing their dominated mobile chip markets.
Irata - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
That‘s actually a pretty good analogy, except for Polaris having decent prices.Namisecond - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
It should be, as a 2 generation old technology that had to be reduced in price to appeal to it's target audience. To be fair though, I hear it did better in crypto-mining...at least until that bubble burst.vFunct - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Any world on Ice Lake or Tiger Lake versions of these?Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
No word on Ice Lake. Tiger Lake has not launched and remains a holiday 2020 product.Valantar - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Intel 10nm currently doesn't clock high enough to be competitive in higher performance markets. It's barely competitive with Comet Lake in low-voltage U-series chips after all. Even with the 18% ICL IPC increase any ICL H-series would lag behind significantly due to much worse clock/voltage scaling.Gondalf - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Umm yes Tiger looks a summer launch, more like Ice Lake last year and Tiger will be 8 cores (and 4 cores obviously).For now Coffee Lake is well enough, AMD have not enough silicon on 4000 mobile serie.
alufan - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
loolQasar - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
hey Gondalf, care to post sources for your BS ? or are these just your own personal biased opinions, as usual?shabby - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
His source is foxnewsdrothgery - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
It's likely the H-series variant of Tiger Lake will be 8 cores (I'm assuming they're just going to skip Ice Lake H), and it may very well be the case that AMD won't get much traction in the market before it's out (Ryzen 4xxx is the first competitive mobile AMD CPU in a long time, and IT departments are conservative), but Intel has only shown a 4-core die so far.duploxxx - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Tiger Lake is a summer paper launch product.... Real availability is several months after.svan1971 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Which "Holiday 2020" ?1_rick - Monday, April 6, 2020 - link
Well, usually that means "end of year".vFunct - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
We're talking 45W mobile for Tiger Lake in holiday 2020, right? Not the weak 15W cpus?I'm looking out for next-gen MacBook Pro 16".
ABR - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I rather suspect Apple is going to skip this one. Even though thermals have improved in the 16", they are already on the edge with the 9980HK. Also the model only came out in December. They'll wait for Tiger Lake.Unashamed_unoriginal_username_x86 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I like to think I'm gentler on Intel than a lot of tech followers, but Dadgum are they Aholes, especially with their graphs.s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Witness the absolute master of Aholes:https://www.anandtech.com/show/13285/huawei-gpu-tu...
albertmamama - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Sustained for microseconds?smilingcrow - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
They have trademarked the term Phantom Turbo.schujj07 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
If that long.colinisation - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
When will we see their new Sunnycove arch in anything is that still on track for this year?I thought Cometlake would be the 1st with these but clearly not the case - so I guess Tigerlake later on in the year?
nevcairiel - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Ice Lake laptops based on Sunny Cove are already out there. Xeons are supposed to show up this year. The first desktop with anything thats not based on Skylake will be Rocket Lake (the successor of Comet Lake)Alien959 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
My thinking of this is, yes there are some improvements in clock speed maybe enough to be competitive with AMD new lineup. But to maintain 65c or below at full load is gonna be very difficult even in big chassis designs in the gamer segment. It will be at the laptop manufactures shoulders to implement more efficient cooling designs in order to maintain that kind of turbo speeds.ltcommanderdata - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
"One positive for 10th Gen is that it supports two TB3 controllers, rather than previous generations that only supported one."Hasn't Apple been using two TB3 controllers in the MacBook Pro for several generations now?
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Yes. But don't tell Intel that.smilingcrow - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I’m gonna wait for the next generation of 14nm that can phantom turbo to 5.5GHz.When friends with Ryzen 4000 series laptops question the performance of my CPU, I will say, This goes to 11 (divided by 2).
shabby - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Does the laptop need to be plugged in to hit 5.3ghz? Lol 130w...TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
If it's a Windows laptop .. Yes.If it's a MacBook Pro .. No.
svan1971 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
yes Macbooks with their inferior cooling have mastered the art of down clocking and undervolting no doubt.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Lies... It's all you really have to work with.tipoo - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
It's not really even about the cooling here for the short time it would sustain it, they're correctly saying that Apple uncaps TDP and lets things run right to their tjunctionmax on both battery and AC power, however shortly.isthisavailable - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
DOA for me.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Me Too... But only because I just got my new 16" MacBook Pro. I already have 8 cores, 16 Threads, and FOUR Thunderbolt three ports. I'm all set.wrkingclass_hero - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Every intel article for the last few years has filled me with glee. I hope they continue in their current trajectory.smilingcrow - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
When faced with a duopoly wanting one side to fail risks total stagnation.It just takes AMD or TSMC to drop the ball again as they have in the last 5 years and the whole market stagnates.
But maybe you enjoy gambling!
Irata - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I don‘t think any reasonable person wants Intel to completely fail.That said, imho they need to continue to stumble and hurt a lot more / longer until we get to the point where they can no longer get OEM to not offer the best possible solution because of their financial horsepower.
If it‘s just a short stretch, Intel will kill competition and progress just like they did in the past. No reasonable person would want that either.
TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Intel failing for another 3-5 years is a good thing. They have PLENTY of money, they can easily survive that long.But give another 3-5 years and OEMs might finally start using AMD across their lineups, and Intel would really hurt, to the point they finally have to cut the crusty useless folds of their enormous mass and actually compete again.
sorten - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Yikes, Intel is hurting. They need Tiger to show up on time.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
With the economy plummeting into a recession... AMD's lead may never amount to anything. And with an entire world working remotely, Laptops are selling like crazy. The best mobile designs all use Intel processors, and I'm never buying a laptop from ASUS again... NEVER. Their support was pi$$-poor. TOTAL GARBAGE COMPANY.schujj07 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Now AMD has the better laptop CPU and the designs are equal.Qasar - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
and teamswitcher is and intel fanboy most of the time, point is ?Namisecond - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
I think you are mistaken, teamswitcher is an Apple fanboy.s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I don't deal with support very often, but from my experiences Dell has pretty good support...but not the best stuff, the best thin and lights are Lenovo's and the best gaming/workstation solutions are Asus's and Razer's.iranterres - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
LOL Intel fails.romrunning - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Even if more technical readers understand that this Comet-Lake mobile launch with "up to 5.3Ghz turbo" is just a slight refresh, a lot of laptop buyers just buy based on numbers blasted at them. So if the speed says "5.3Ghz!!!" , then they can be convinced to buy it just by seeing a bigger number. Basically, Intel has done what it needs to do to continue selling on mobile.More technical buyers might understand that Ryzen 4000 APU-based laptops could give them great performance at lower power usage, but often for the average buyer, bigger numbers win.
WaltC - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Another April Fool's joke from Intel...;) Who cares about "up to 5.3Ghz" if a competitor's CPU running less MHz processes data 20% faster using less power? Nobody, hopefully. Intel is now burning through its stored up market "good will" at a prodigious rate.alufan - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
this is just intels usual trick of a hero product coveting all the top spots in the review because the headline number is great dig a little deeper and the gloss comes off the sows ear am looking forward to the AMD reviews the ones already out show very positive numbers and make this intel hovercraft look old and outdatedvladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
AMD's software failures are much bigger than Intel's trickling hardware improvements.Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
what software failures? their drivers ?? as if nvidia is any better ...vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Yes Nvidia and Intel drivers are a million times more stable than AMD's who never failed to release a new gen without crashes and bugsQasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
maybe foe you, but i have had issues with both amd AND nvidia, but i figured you would say that, you seem like and anti amd person going by most of your posts.vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Yeah at least I tested both AMD and Intel hardware in each generation in the past 15 years or so.Sorry that my experience and conclusions offends your fanboy delusions
schujj07 - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I've used AMD, nVidia, and Intel products. Typically I am at or near the most current drivers and I haven't had any issues, regardless of the company. When I have had driver issues, it was never one company specifically or most often. All companies will have issues with drivers at some point in time.Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
sorry your anti amd, intel fanboy, clouds your judgment, but hey, if you like supporting intel and its BS, by all meansTheinsanegamerN - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Their woefully incomplete ryzen 3000 AGESA code and the stumbling faceplant that was ryzen 3000's turboboost springs to mind. Or the rushed 5600xt change. Or their constant driver issues that only get fixed when there is media attention (frame pacing, black screens, and more recently general instability). Oh hey, remember when the ryzen 2000 mobile APUs came out and AMD went "LOL you have to make the driver packages yourself BYE"?There was also a thread on the ASUS forums last year that broke down how much less time AMD gave board makers to test motherboards, that the code and documentation were incomplete, and that the AMD ES CPUs couldnt turbo boost at ALL. And lord knows you can go back years and find thread after thread of game developers in the AMD EVOLVED program getting jack shit from AMD in terms of support. Hell, RMAing a CPU through AMD is a month long affair, as any response to a support Email or question takes 2-3 days, so just getting to the third troubleshooting point takes upwards of 3 weeks. Takes 10 minutes through intel's online chat or phone support, neither of which AMD has.
Support has been AMD's Achilles heel for two decades now. You dont have to accept it, but its true, and its why AMD has long struggled in the server space, and why despite being superior to FERMI the TERASCALE GPUs couldnt ascertain market dominance. AMD has radically improved ont he hardware side, but only time will tell if Lisa su is finally implementing changes to fix their utterly borked support side of things, especially after ryzen 3000 didnt explode like ryzen 2000 did and AMD got pushback from motherboard manufacturers.
vladx - Sunday, April 5, 2020 - link
@TheinsanegamerN: Indeed, unfortunately rabid fanboys here disregard any such issues existing.AMD software is a disaster, at least compared to Intel's and Nvidia's.
alufan - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
hmm lets not talk about the Intel security issues then shall we?vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
As a tech enthusiast and software engineer, I will continue to buy Intel over AMD until AMD fires whoever is in charge of the disaster called software division and also replaces GUI designers with actual competent programmers.Zizo007 - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Which CPU software??I have a Ryzen with an OCed 2080 Ti and was never happier. I had AMD gpus before and never had software issues. What you're talking about is the 5700XT software issues because its a new gpu. They're solved long time ago.
Nvidia software sucks, sluggish and looks like Win XP. Very bad.
Zizo007 - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
AMD software is faster and more modern and had less bugs. My nvidia control panel doesn't reset settings when I click reset. Idle clocks are high until I reinstall the whole driver and control panel.TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
It has less bugs, thats why the number of bugs in AMD drivers became such an issue that tech forums and reviewers started writing stories about how many customers were returning Navi GPUs in favor of Nvidia RTX cards and how the problems had been going on for 6 months and the problems were now boiling over?Your nvidia driver has bugs? Have you gone through DDU and a system wipe that AMD owners seem to think is a legitimate way to fix driver bugs? In fact, if AMD has such good software....why do you have an Nvidia card anyway?
Qasar - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
i actually went through a complete wipe of my comp, and reinstalled windows to see if i could fix the issue i had with nvidia's drivers, and guess what, still wasnt fixed till a few driver releases from nvidia later. havent had to go to that extreme with my 7970 way back when before i replaced it with the 1060 i now have.schujj07 - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Translation: I will put in random credentials to make my post look more relevant, but I don't have any actual experience using anything but Intel & nVidia since they can do no wrong.Silma - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
So basically we are back to the pentium, there is absolutely no improvement in process or else, and Intel is just giving you the right to consume exponentially more power for a few percents at most of increased speed, leaving you with no battery autonomy and a hot and loud system.I seriously hope the 45W AMD are good and that Apple will produce Non-intel Macs.
Intel really needs a painful wake-up call.
It's time to forget 14 nm, and it's already time to forget 10 nm.
psyclist80 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
We are back to the Pentium 4 days aka NetBurst. Pentium 3 was greatJust waiting for the Extreme Editions to show up! Seems they didnt learn the first time.
SolarBear28 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Ultrabookreview tested an Asus Tuf A15 with Ryzen 7 4800H. It's faster than Core i9-9880H on repeated cinebench R15 runs while consuming 10% less CPU power.eastcoast_pete - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Unless Intel a. includes AVX512 in most/all of those chips and b. pushes software publishers with all might to use AVX512 whenever it could even remotely make sense, they're toast. Outside that, the Ryzen 4000 chips are far better value for the money.The other thing that could also prevent AMD from taking a huge portion of the mobile PC market is if manufacturing capacity and pricing keep the 4000 series mobile Ryzen back. I am set to buy a new laptop this year, and unless unforeseen changes occur, it'll be Intel outside this time!
Cullinaire - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link
If this Mhz gimmick is at the expense of power & heat, why bother with AVX512 which is more of the same?eva02langley - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
ROFL @ 8:30"AMD brought a baseball bat to the fight.... while Intel brought a WET REUSED NOODLE..."
https://youtu.be/_64ZCN2JBNQ?t=511
eva02langley - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
HOT AND LOUD people!eva02langley - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Ian, you should rename the part "Intel Presentation" to "Intel Deception"...s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Really this record shattering deception needs more publicity:https://www.anandtech.com/show/13285/huawei-gpu-tu...
psyclist80 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Its like we've gone back to 2003, Intel pushing clocks way to high to make up for IPC deficiencies, this is exacerbated by the never ending 14nm node.AMD is very well poised to take huge marketshare in a very quick time, higher IPC, half the power and cheaper. A rare Win/Win/Win scenario. Mindshare is the big hurdle now, AMD needs to get the word out that they have the performance crown now. Intel will have an answer eventually, make hay while the sun shines!
tuxRoller - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
I remember when cTDP skus were initially released and was anxiously awaiting a near paradigm-shifting change.Finally, we could have laptops that had great battery life but, when plugged in, and, perhaps, attached to a cooling dock, something that could approach desktop-level perf.
For some reason this hasn't really happened...
That's the kind of device where 50A cores make sense. Include a igpu and optional dgpu (though it would likely need to be external, and, with a dock, that wouldn't be something the user need care about) and you've got a really versatile set-up.
Seeing laptops plugged in at desks always makes me a bit wistful that this never happened.
mrvco - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Does this mean that water cooled gaming laptops are going to be a 'thing'?s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Um?https://www.asus.com/uk/Laptops/rog-gx700vo/
DannyH246 - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Intel squeaks and www.IntelTech.com rushes out 2 pages of waffle in a vain attempt to try to make Intel look and sound relevant...No mention of the fact that the current AMD parts are cheaper, faster, more power efficient, unlocked and better in pretty much every way. LOL
Targon - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Laptops have a problem called how to remove heat. These Intel chips will have a really rough time with higher frequencies due to generally poor cooler designs. The "theory" of how fast these things can operate ends up being complete garbage in the real world.[email protected] - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
You honestly have to be completely out of your minds to buy one of these over AMD's option...1. More expensive.
2. Less performance
3. More heat.
4. More power usage.
5. Less battery life.
6. Throttles.
vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
All of that doesn't matter as long as AMD's software is a disaster and you can't be guaranteed to use your PC or laptop with frequent crashes.Fulljack - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
except you don't really need any user software for cpu. it's all handled by the oses anyway, or in this case, windows.I don't really get AMD's software disaster. unlike gpu, cpu is "just worked".
vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Every PC or laptop comes with chipset drivers. Also ever heard of APU?Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
same thing, must just be the anti amd vladxvladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Nothing screams desperation more than responding to every comment I made hereQasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
oh, like you are doing to bash amd ? come one vlad, ooops, sorry, anti amd vlad. i upgraded 2 comps finally after about 5 years from intel cpus, one to a 3600x, and a 3900x, and both are running rock solid, no issues at all, using up to date drivers.alufan - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
expand on your comments please with evidence that AMD laptop parts are unable to work due to AMDs software, if you cant it just proves what an intel shill you areQasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
vlad cant expand or prove it, its just his anti amd opinion.PeachNCream - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
Not impressed by the this chip honestly. The steady state TDP and clock speeds are more in the realm of what to expect under sustained load situations. Burst speed and burst TDP are both not reasonably sustainable in a laptop form factor for any length of time even with good cooling design. Intel's move to list short duration burst speeds that are well above a sustained threshold have been leaving a bad taste since they started up with that practice. Just give me good steady-state performance at a reasonable <25W TDP and leave me alone with a nice quiet, cool-running laptop please.BenSkywalker - Thursday, April 2, 2020 - link
It's funny reading CPU comment threads. Intel has *always* been, at best, a mediocre CPU company and until very recently an astounding lithography company.Now people are talking like AMD is an amazing CPU design company and Intel is terrible. Like most of the time in the history of tech, put then on the same process node and there would be very little difference.
vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Finally I can upgrade my laptop, i9-10980x with 4K UHD, GTX 1660 TI and 32GB here I comeQasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
along with a bank loan to pay for it, and your power bill ?? :-)vladx - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
Troll harder, €2k is nothing when you keep your laptop for at least 5 years like I am.And I don't need a loan for a few grand
Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
only if you do vlad, as i said in a post father up, most of your posts are anti amd in some form or another.s.yu - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
5 years and not even RTX2060??Irata - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
No, he followed one of those „earn thousands working from home“ links and is now promoting Intel on web forums.watzupken - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
What surprised me is when Renoir was announced, there is nothing much mentioned on Anandtech, while Intel’s released got the headlines here.Anyway, from some of the preliminary results shown on some other sites, it’s clear that despite the 5.3Ghz boost on a single core, it’s barely performing better than a much lower clocked Renoir. Multi core results reveals that given the limited 35/45W TDP, there is absolutely no way Intel’s current chip can maintain boost for long. Therefore it’s trailing AMD Renoir big time in some cases.
Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
i believe in another thread,. either ian or ryan mentioned an embargo date change that they werent aware of, and the review should be out early next weekwatzupken - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
In this case, there is no review as such in this headline article. Its just marketing slides from Intel mostly. While I don't expect every review site to have a review immediately, but its clear there's a difference in treatment here.Fataliity - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
That's funny. I think in this one they favored AMD more than not. They pointed out all of the lies, instead of just following them blindly like other websites.They didn't have to tell us it would take 50A, and how bad that sounds in a laptop. But they did.
Qasar - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
AT's reviews, are also alot more in depth then other sites too.Ryan Smith - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Hi watzupken,While I appreciate the feedback, I'm not sure I follow.
AMD announced the Ryzen 4000 APUs a month ago, which we covered the technical details of in-depth: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15624/amd-details-r...
The only thing they did this week was lift the embargo on benchmarks, which we didn't publish anything for since we hadn't been aware of an embargo change. So we've published everything we have on Renoir at this time. We'll have more next week, at which point we'll publish that too.
Meanwhile Intel announced it's new Comet Lake-H processors, and we've covered the announcement here. The hardware is not yet for sale, so this is everything we know about Comet Lake-H at this time.
In both cases, we're publishing everything we can as soon as we can. So it is certainly intended to be equitable treatment. But if you think we're somehow failing in that, please let us know.
watzupken - Wednesday, April 8, 2020 - link
Hi Ryan,Thank you for taking time to clarify. It seems that you have made the Renoir announcement here sometime back in mid March. Unfortunately I missed out on the article. As a result, it seems like there is a big bang announcement for Intel, but not for AMD. I understand earlier the review will take another week, but not seeing any announcement on the day when quite a number of hardware sites have shared their review, gave me the wrong impression. For this I apologize. I look forward to the Renoir review on AT. Thank you once again.
krumme - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
135w pl230% more than a 3950x in eco mode
PaulHoule - Friday, April 3, 2020 - link
I wonder when Intel is going to come out with the "8088 MAX"Nokiya Cheruhone - Saturday, April 4, 2020 - link
Why do I read comments saying something about Intel being more energy efficient because it is faster to complete the work; Lol read up on dirac distribution. Actually it's not even same area, its area is multiplied with something like c* exp(freq). But whatever. Smart monkeys.Tilmitt - Monday, April 6, 2020 - link
Five years on and they're still rereleasing Skylake. Incredible.aadish151 - Monday, April 6, 2020 - link
First of all, Intel should change that ridiculous 5-digit naming scheme.Ansh_G - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link
I have been planning on getting a notebook for regular use - is this a viable option or should I stick with an ipad ?Santoval - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link
Why are Intel comparing Comet Lake-H to an arbitrary "3 year-old PC" instead of laptops with AMD's 4000 APU -H series? We all know the answer but even so, some among the many disclaimers Intel listed should stretch Comet Lake-H's performance quite higher than its actual performance, and thus artificially increase its performance over a "3 yo PC".Legal disclaimer #3 alone is enough to blow up performance, since "optimized for performance only on Intel processors" strongly suggests usage of aggressive compiler flags only on the newer processors (the "3 year old PC" is as vague and arbitrary as it can possibly get, so there's nothing to suggest the same compiler flags were employed).
Intel have never shied away from dirty tricks like the above, and now that AMD surpassed them in performance even in the laptop market my educated guess is that they will try to conjure up even more creative BS.
Qasar - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link
" now that AMD surpassed them in performance even in the laptop market " not according to gondalf and Deicidium369 in the review of the amd 4k laptop here, according to them, intel is still king and isnt losing anything, or in any tests.Andriivas - Sunday, November 22, 2020 - link
Hello! I am looking for a laptop with a powerful processor (I plan to do web development). I choose between these processors https://vsrank.com/en/intel-core-i7-7700hq-vs-inte... Is it worth overpaying for Intel Core i7-10750H?