Sunday, December 22nd 2019

AMD "Renoir" 4700U Beats i7-1065G7 "Ice Lake" at PCMark 10, 18% Faster than 3700U

AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 4700U "Renoir" mobile processor posts an 18 percent performance gain in PCMark 10 over its predecessor, the 3700U, according to benchmark results data compiled by Reddit enthusiast _rogame. The 4700U combines a 4-core/8-thread CPU ticking at 2.00 GHz (base) with up to 4.20 GHz boost, according to the SystemInfo module. It also ends up about 2.8 percent faster than a Core i7-1065G7 "Ice Lake" processor.

The 4700U is rumored to feature AMD's new "Zen 2" CPU cores, an iGPU with up to 13 "Vega" NGCUs (832 stream processors), and leverage the 7 nm silicon fabrication process to boost CPU clock-speeds without affecting the ultraportable platform's typical TDP. 3DMark 11 figures of the iGPU surfaced earlier suggesting competitiveness to Intel's Gen11 graphics. "Renoir" also supports the cutting-edge LPDDR4X memory standard, which could further lower platform power draw, while boosting memory clocks as high as 4266 MHz DDR. Below are comparative "best result" screenshots.
Source: _rogame (Reddit)
Add your own comment

45 Comments on AMD "Renoir" 4700U Beats i7-1065G7 "Ice Lake" at PCMark 10, 18% Faster than 3700U

#1
Darmok N Jalad
The new memory support will make a big difference for graphics performance. I don’t think Vega 13 is underpowered, since anything with more CUs probably needs more memory bandwidth anyway.
Posted on Reply
#2
R0H1T
It's showing 8 real cores isn't it, with SMT disabled?
Posted on Reply
#3
TheGuruStud
R0H1T
It's showing 8 real cores isn't it, with SMT disabled?

Yeah. The high end models are 16 thread, though :eek:
Posted on Reply
#4
Apocalypsee
Memory clock is only 2666MHz, needs moar speed!!
Posted on Reply
#5
candle_86
Finally an Ultrabook that can game without buying a dedicated gpu, this opens up gaming laptops under 700
Posted on Reply
#6
notb
Apocalypsee
Memory clock is only 2666MHz, needs moar speed!!
This is a 25W CPU. There's no way this has the memory/IF performance of desktop parts (they have uncore power draw around that figure already).

For me it's very slow. I don't see the point of forcing 8 cores into this segment at this moment.
There's just no way around physics. TSMC 7nm and Intel 10nm have similar efficiency.
8-core CPU can't be significantly faster than 4-core in multithreaded tasks if they're both limited to 15/25W.

If AMD manages to make this CPU hugely flexible, i.e. it'll get near the power limit it 1 or 2 or 4 core tasks, I won't care.
If not, this thing will be slow in most applications. They won't sell it to OEMs based on Cinebench score...
Posted on Reply
#7
R0H1T
candle_86
Finally an Ultrabook that can game without buying a dedicated gpu, this opens up gaming laptops under 700
You're mistaken if you think this will compete against Nvidia's mobile xx50/Ti chips, secondly an 8c/8t or 8c/16t APU or CPU will likely not sell for anything less than a substantial premium given the competition's chips (i9) are a furnace & well overpriced atm.
Posted on Reply
#8
notb
TheGuruStud
Yeah. The high end models are 16 thread, though :eek:
The ones that go into huge gaming notebooks with 200W power bricks...
Posted on Reply
#9
R0H1T
notb
The ones that go into huge gaming notebooks with 200W power bricks...
That's still a substantially big enough "premium" segment, just like TR & would give AMD a fair amount of gross margins.
Posted on Reply
#10
candle_86
R0H1T
You're mistaken if you think this will compete against Nvidia's mobile xx50/Ti chips, secondly an 8c/8t or 8c/16t APU or CPU will likely not sell for anything less than a substantial premium given the competition's chips (i9) are a furnace & well overpriced atm.
Not compete but maybe finally be able to play games from the last few years I acceptably. I wouldn't even attempt a modern game on an Intel gpu right now, but they can finally handle civ 5 so there's that I guess.

As for cost and chips in laptops always end up in the lower build quality budget systems and I don't expect this to change which I'll count as a win
Posted on Reply
#11
notb
R0H1T
That's still a substantially big enough "premium" segment, just like TR & would give AMD a fair amount of gross margins.
I'm not saying it isn't. It's a small niche, but certainly large enough for AMD.
That said, I'm not surprised people on this forum underestimate (even criticize) the idea of mobile computing, if their idea of notebook is the size of a small mITX box...

Going back to the 4700U - I totally understand that AMD would love a marketing banner "first with 8 cores in an ultrabook", but this really is pointless. For a brief moment Ryzen desktop CPUs matched Intel in single core and look what happened. Almost no more stupid topics like "single core doesn't matter" or "software makers have to evolve" etc.

If AMD launches an 8-core 25W CPU and it can't boost a single core high enough, it'll be 20% behind Intel in things like web browsing and a lot of productivity/office software. It'll bottleneck the IGP in gaming as well. I just don't see the point. :o
Posted on Reply
#12
1d10t
...and suddenly mobile PC,notebooks, portable doesn't matter anymore, just like desktop,servers and HEDT :rolleyes:
Oh wait...
Posted on Reply
#13
Melvis
Very impressive to beat intels latest and greatest 10nm CPU's.
Posted on Reply
#14
birdie
And no one is slightly concerned that Ice Lake and Comet Lake CPUs are a whole lot faster in most CPU tests.

And GeForce MX250 will beat the shat out of the integrated graphics in the Ryzen 4700U.

As an integrated solution 4700U is decent but not stellar by any means.

AMD fans again continue to overhype only to get upsets later on. Ryzen 4700U should have been based on the Zen 3 uArch, not Zen 2, then we'd have had something to talk about but AMD plays it safe and we get what we get. Year 2020 Ryzen U CPUs still will be slower than SkyLake CPUs (Comet Lake is still Sky Lake) from 2015.
Posted on Reply
#15
HD64G
notb
This is a 25W CPU. There's no way this has the memory/IF performance of desktop parts (they have uncore power draw around that figure already).

For me it's very slow. I don't see the point of forcing 8 cores into this segment at this moment.
There's just no way around physics. TSMC 7nm and Intel 10nm have similar efficiency.
8-core CPU can't be significantly faster than 4-core in multithreaded tasks if they're both limited to 15/25W.

If AMD manages to make this CPU hugely flexible, i.e. it'll get near the power limit it 1 or 2 or 4 core tasks, I won't care.
If not, this thing will be slow in most applications. They won't sell it to OEMs based on Cinebench score...
:wtf: You cannot stand AMD winning over Intel in every PC segment apart from mobile and you try too hard to not allow many to take notice of AMD's upcoming mobile superiority too eh? You are outdoind even Intel's personnel in propaganda attempts for a while now... ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
yotano211
notb
The ones that go into huge gaming notebooks with 200W power bricks...
Hey hey, dont talk bad about 200w power supply laptops, some of us prefer a work out so we go with 330w power-brick/exercise equipment.
Posted on Reply
#17
notb
HD64G
:wtf: You cannot stand AMD winning over Intel in every PC segment apart from mobile and you try too hard to not allow many to take notice of AMD's upcoming mobile superiority too eh? You are outdoind even Intel's personnel in propaganda attempts for a while now... ;)
On the contrary: I'm perfectly fine with AMD winning. My only problem is that AMD is still not making CPUs that cater towards my needs. So maybe you're benefiting from their latest technological resurgence, but I don't.

You, on the other hand, can't stand that someone has needs other than yours. So often when I write a post that points some issue in Zen or even just shows my opinion, you activate and attack me. It's like if prefering Intel isn't allowed in your world.

For a long time AMD CPUs were years behind Intel's. You supported them anyway. Have I ever attacked you because of that? Maybe someone else did? Because you behave like people beaten during childhood.

Yes, I prefer Intel's business model and products in general. I prefer their support, documentation, drivers and libraries.
Until another company offers everything I expect, I'll support the one that does - even during this difficult period when the competition got an upper hand in performance. Do you have a problem with that?
Posted on Reply
#18
efikkan
So an 8-core with higher (rated) clocks beats a 4-core in synthetic workloads by a margin o 2.8%… Which one is the more impressive then?

notb
For me it's very slow. I don't see the point of forcing 8 cores into this segment at this moment.
Yeah, having 4 cores is nice, but anything beyond that will sacrifice clock speeds, especially in the 15/25W TDP range. These 6 and 8 core laptop CPUs only really make sense for these synthetic benchmarks, as laptop CPUs typically boosts for a few seconds and receive great scores, but falls short in sustained workloads. There is just no way a 8 core 15W is going to do well in sustained heavy multithreaded tasks.

To me laptops is always a hard choice; if it's going to be powerful enough to do any real work on it, then it needs to be chained to the wall anyway. So laptops only make sense if they are fairly light, have decent battery life and is decently sturdy(!) for light surfing and typing on the go.
Posted on Reply
#19
R0H1T
notb
Going back to the 4700U - I totally understand that AMD would love a marketing banner "first with 8 cores in an ultrabook", but this really is pointless.
Looking at the other thread seems like it will not be ULV, besides as you said 8c in 15/25W will not work. Also I don't see how "4700u" string is concrete evidence of anything. Not saying this is total BS but I'll be mightily surprised if AMD handicaps their flagship(?) mobile chips like that!
Posted on Reply
#20
Mats
Just because the benchmarks of a few CPU's are listed next to each other, does that really mean that the rest of the hardware is identical, or at least similar enough? It's nothing we should take for granted, especially with laptops.

Also, there will be faster models than the 4700U, while the Intel models are the fastest available, but yeah, 8C and 15 W doesn't really help..
Posted on Reply
#21
1d10t
Yeah, 8 core without proper driver beat 4 core with dedicated GTX 1650 Max-Q with mature driver :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
efikkan
1d10t
Yeah, 8 core without proper driver beat 4 core with dedicated GTX 1650 Max-Q with mature driver :laugh:
Why would this CPU need its own driver?
Vega is very mature by now.
Also, AMD GPUs tends to do better in synthetic tests.
Posted on Reply
#23
Mats
I don't expect AMD to beat Intel just like that here, but these benchmarks doesn't tell me enough about the setup so it's not that interesting.
Posted on Reply
#24
Darmok N Jalad
I’m especially curious about the mobile design. Since Zen2 went to chiplets, how is this going to be designed? Is the Vega bolted to the IO die, or will this go back to a monolith die? Since IF is an idle energy hog, I wonder if they are working around it somehow.
Posted on Reply
#25
notb
Darmok N Jalad
I’m especially curious about the mobile design. Since Zen2 went to chiplets, how is this going to be designed? Is the Vega bolted to the IO die, or will this go back to a monolith die? Since IF is an idle energy hog, I wonder if they are working around it somehow.
Why would this use chiplet design at all? There's just one CCX. And space is precious.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment