Monday, July 6th 2020

Intel Core i7-1165G7 "Tiger Lake" Mauls Ryzen 7 4700U "Renoir" in Most Geekbench Tests

Intel's upcoming Core i7-1165G7 4-core/8-thread processor based on the 10 nm "Tiger Lake-U" silicon packs a mean punch in comparison to the AMD Ryzen 7 4700U processor, despite half the number of CPU cores. A Geekbench comparison between two Lenovo laptops, one powered by an i7-1165G7, and the other by a 4700U, shows a staggering 36.8% performance lead for the Intel chip in single-threaded performance, while also being 0.5% faster in multi-threaded performance. The i7-1165G7 features a 4-core/8-thread CPU with "Willow Cove" cores, while the 4700U lacks SMT, and is an 8-core/8-thread chip with "Zen 2" CPU cores. The game changes with the Ryzen 7 4800U, where the 8-core/16-thread chip ends up 22.3% faster than the Core i7-1165G7 in the multi-threaded test owing to SMT, while Intel's single-threaded performance lead is lowered to 29.3%.
Sources: Geekbench Database 1, 2
Add your own comment

43 Comments on Intel Core i7-1165G7 "Tiger Lake" Mauls Ryzen 7 4700U "Renoir" in Most Geekbench Tests

#1
watzupken
Geekbench is the last place I would check performance. Looking forward to proper reviews to see what Tiger Lake can do.
Posted on Reply
#2
dont whant to set it"'
That 36.8% single core score over the Zen 2 part with 40% more base frequency over later base clock speed. And so it begs the question : where the tests done at only base clocks?
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
I wonder what the wattage and thermal requirements will be of the intel chips, those ryzens may have kickstarted the mobile segment again
Posted on Reply
#4
BoboOOZ
watzupken
Geekbench is the last place I would check performance. Looking forward to proper reviews to see what Tiger Lake can do.
Nope, the last place would be sysmark :)
Posted on Reply
#5
dyonoctis
Leaks also showed the i7 1165G7 cpu getting beat by the 4700u in 3D Mark, so I don't know who I'm supposed to trust :


On the otherside, if this is true, then that means that this U low power chip is basically as fast as a desktop gaming pc running intel 9th gen :
Posted on Reply
#6
Object55
Knowing how intel conducts testing, I assume that AMD actually beats Intel by 25%.
Posted on Reply
#7
Vya Domus
Object55
Knowing how intel conducts testing, I assume that AMD actually beats Intel by 25%.
Nah, it's just Geekbench being garbage.
Posted on Reply
#8
cyneater
wait until its released .... then see.
Posted on Reply
#9
birdie
Overall I'm very pleased with the TGL results. Intel has seemingly solved their 10nm woes as the TGL CPUs are boosting up to 4.7GHz. Hopefully desktop parts will come before 2022. Here's a complete list of leaked TGL results.

20% faster in single threaded mode than the Ryzen 3700X. Floating point performance is simply outstanding (see SFFT test). The 8-core CPU is just 50% faster despite having twice as many cores. Overall, it's a huge achievement considering that the 3700X consumes up to 91W while this TGL CPU is limited to 25W.
watzupken
Geekbench is the last place I would check performance. Looking forward to proper reviews to see what Tiger Lake can do.
Yet GB5 represents real life performance quite well unlike GB4 which had certain glaring issues, e.g. it favoured RAM speeds (the test was completely removed in GB5) and AES performance quite a lot (it has a much less performance impact on the final scores in GB5).
Object55
Knowing how intel conducts testing, I assume that AMD actually beats Intel by 25%.
GeekBench is an independent company which has never been known for favouring any CPU/GPU vendor. Your criticism is completely unwarranted.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
That's clearly Geekbench 4 by the way not 5 though and on different versions at that. :roll:

I pity whoever unironically believes a 25W CPU has similar performance to a 125W+ desktop CPU, imagine being this gullible. Intel's 10nm went from barely any better than 14nm to providing 5-6 times the efficiency ? Right.
Posted on Reply
#11
Rus4kova
birdie
Yet GB5 represents real life performance quite well unlike GB4 which had certain glaring issues, e.g. it favoured RAM speeds (the test was completely removed in GB5) and AES performance quite a lot (it has a much less performance impact on the final scores in GB5).
The only reason AES performance has less impact on the final score is simply because Ryzen did really well in it compared to Intel.
Posted on Reply
#12
yeeeeman
I like how AMD fanboys are commenting here with ZERO technical knowledge.
IF you would took 5 minutes from your time, you would have seen that Ice Lake already has 10% better IPC vs Zen 2 aaaand Tigerlake adds at least 5 more over that. Wtf people can't use their brains is sad.
Add 15% better IPC with possibly higher frequencies and you get 25-30% better ST score. What is so hard to believe? Ah, it is because your AMD will always be the best bubble is bursting? Guess what, Intel had process issues (that is fabrication issues) not IP issues. Intel already has many more cores with much higher IPC ready so stop believing AMD is some kind of technical god that no one can ever touch again.
AMD is using 7nm process vs a shitty 10nm. AMD is using latest and greatest uArch designed by Jim Keller vs a dinosaurus age Skylake uArch. No wonder it wins, it is like comparing Bugatti Chiron with Mercedes Benz SL55 from 2000. No shit it wins by a mile. But don't ever go into believing Intel doesn't have better IP than AMD. The fact that it can't fabricate is one thing, but otherwise, there is no contest.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mussels
Moderprator
yeeeeman
I like how AMD fanboys are commenting here with ZERO technical knowledge.
IF you would took 5 minutes from your time, you would have seen that Ice Lake already has 10% better IPC vs Zen 2 aaaand Tigerlake adds at least 5 more over that. Wtf people can't use their brains is sad.
Add 15% better IPC with possibly higher frequencies and you get 25-30% better ST score. What is so hard to believe? Ah, it is because your AMD will always be the best bubble is bursting? Guess what, Intel had process issues (that is fabrication issues) not IP issues. Intel already has many more cores with much higher IPC ready so stop believing AMD is some kind of technical god that no one can ever touch again.
AMD is using 7nm process vs a shitty 10nm. AMD is using latest and greatest uArch designed by Jim Keller vs a dinosaurus age Skylake uArch. No wonder it wins, it is like comparing Bugatti Chiron with Mercedes Benz SL55 from 2000. No shit it wins by a mile. But don't ever go into believing Intel doesn't have better IP than AMD. The fact that it can't fabricate is one thing, but otherwise, there is no contest.
the only fanboy here seems to be you, want to tone that attitude down a little?
Posted on Reply
#14
hurakura
What's with these titles? Tone it done a bit.

BTW muticore score is practically the same, so no mauling this time
Posted on Reply
#15
dyonoctis
yeeeeman
I like how AMD fanboys are commenting here with ZERO technical knowledge.
IF you would took 5 minutes from your time, you would have seen that Ice Lake already has 10% better IPC vs Zen 2 aaaand Tigerlake adds at least 5 more over that. Wtf people can't use their brains is sad.
Add 15% better IPC with possibly higher frequencies and you get 25-30% better ST score. What is so hard to believe? Ah, it is because your AMD will always be the best bubble is bursting? Guess what, Intel had process issues (that is fabrication issues) not IP issues. Intel already has many more cores with much higher IPC ready so stop believing AMD is some kind of technical god that no one can ever touch again.
AMD is using 7nm process vs a shitty 10nm. AMD is using latest and greatest uArch designed by Jim Keller vs a dinosaurus age Skylake uArch. No wonder it wins, it is like comparing Bugatti Chiron with Mercedes Benz SL55 from 2000. No shit it wins by a mile. But don't ever go into believing Intel doesn't have better IP than AMD. The fact that it can't fabricate is one thing, but otherwise, there is no contest.
It's not even the comparison against low power Zen 2 that's surprising, but the fact that those low powered chips are also just as good as intel desktop cpu, while being far more efficient. If those results are accurate, it's a tremendous improvement, and if they can make 8 core cpu based on that, then you have to wonder why did they even bothered to made the desktop 10th gen instead of that ?
Posted on Reply
#16
Sykobee
AVX-512 is pulling a lot of weight in the TGL results here - that's why the FP figures are so good. Not a lot of software uses this currently, although ICL and TGL supporting it means more will be added over time.

Zen 3 significantly improves FP performance as well, although to be fair Zen 3 APU is a fair way off, and TGL is only a few months away. On the other hand, at least we're back to a period of leapfrogging performance between the two vendors. And AMD would suggest putting your heavily multithreaded FP code onto a compute-oriented GPU anyway.

And as always, let's wait to see the cost of devices using TGL versus the known cheap pricing of devices using Renoir. And let's wait to see a wide range of benchmarks instead of GB.
Posted on Reply
#17
Sykobee
dyonoctis
It's not even the comparison against low power Zen 2 that's surprising, but the fact that those low powered chips are also just as good as intel desktop cpu, while being far more efficient. If those results are accurate, it's a tremendous improvement, and if they can make 8 core cpu based on that, then you have to wonder why did they even bothered to made the desktop 10th gen instead of that ?
Intel is very constrained on 10nm capacity - they have 2 or 3 fabs instead of the originally planned 4, because of the problems with the process, and the move to concentrate on EUV 7nm. That's why they're still on 14nm for the desktop CPUs and a lot of mobile CPUs, and why they are pushing 200W+ under load on the K series chips. Also 10nm wasn't clocking well until TGL, and that's seemingly only 4.7GHz, so could they get to the 5.x GHz they like?

Additionally, AMD's move to 8C in mainstream and 16C in enthusiast has push Intel to up the core count as well, which increases die sizes to further constrain product availability.

And finally, Intel put too much GPU in TGL and not enough CPU. 4C8T is performing admirably, but you can imagine a 6C12T chip with 64EUs would have been more balanced - however Intel had their targets. 15W TGL will perform well in GPU without needing the low-end dGPU that many Intel laptops have.
Posted on Reply
#18
Xuper
Geekbench is very sensitive to memory latency.
Posted on Reply
#19
Dredi
10900k scores higher in single core GB 4.4.2, so no miracles to be had here. Just a test that performs a lot better on intel for whatever reason combined with avx-512 (which is almost completely absent in all actual pc software people use).
Posted on Reply
#20
Object55
birdie
GeekBench is an independent company which has never been known for favouring any CPU/GPU vendor. Your criticism is completely unwarranted.
Do you even read ? I didn't say anything about geekbench.
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
Vya Domus
That's clearly Geekbench 4 by the way not 5 though and on different versions at that. :roll:

I pity whoever unironically believes a 25W CPU has similar performance to a 125W+ desktop CPU, imagine being this gullible. Intel's 10nm went from barely any better than 14nm to providing 5-6 times the efficiency ? Right.
ICL is more efficient than anything Intel has on 14nm, mobile or desktop, though having said that TGL isn't going to be a major step forward unless they've drastically improved 10nm kinda like going from early 14nm (Broadwell) to 14nm++++ :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
Crackong
And a laptop with 1165G7 will cost $300 more than one with not 4700 but 4800U
Posted on Reply
#23
R0H1T
Don't forget benchmarks don't matter anymore, at least when Intel is losing :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#24
Vya Domus
R0H1T
ICL is more efficient than anything Intel has on 14nm, mobile or desktop, though having said that TGL isn't going to be a major step forward unless they've drastically improved 10nm kinda like going from early 14nm (Broadwell) to 14nm++++ :laugh:
Even if you assume a colossal 2x performance/watt form the architecture itself which is practically impossible and a further 2x performance/watt from the supposedly improved node you still couldn't quite reach the sort of efficiency this chip would need to have.

Either this is no where near 25W, think of the 135W mobile 10th series CPU that Intel classify as being "45W" or Geekbench is being a garbage benchmark as always. Or a combination of both.
Posted on Reply
#25
yeeeeman
dyonoctis
It's not even the comparison against low power Zen 2 that's surprising, but the fact that those low powered chips are also just as good as intel desktop cpu, while being far more efficient. If those results are accurate, it's a tremendous improvement, and if they can make 8 core cpu based on that, then you have to wonder why did they even bothered to made the desktop 10th gen instead of that ?
Margins are very small on desktop
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment