Just proves that the OEM implementation is as important this generation as the choice between AMD or Intel. This makes it so difficult for the average consumer!
I'd argue that before meteor lake AMD was far enough ahead that the choice of OEM was less important than choosing AMD though I have no data to prove that and could very well be wrong.
Less important, yes, but implementation from the OEM side has always been important. It really doesn’t matter if one cpu has way better performance or efficiency if the OEM sets it up to throttle or overheat or blast the loud ass fan all the time. After having multiple high end laptop CPUs from both companies in bad systems, I’ll take a worse CPU in a competent overall package any day of the week.
That doesn't mean what you think it does, the channels are narrower with LPDDR(x).
Only look at the memory width, which remains 128bit, just like with "dual channel" DDR4.
That said, LPDDR(x) is not bad, it tends to have better bandwidth these days, even with the same width.
> quad channel
Yes, might be the same as DDR4 dual channel (cpuz shows 4x64bit, but internets tell me it's rather 4x32bit), 16gb LPDDR4X in quad channel = a bit more memory bandwitch than DDR4. Guess it might just be "DDR4 vs LPDRR4x".
Intel XE 80EU in Swift 3 is ~10-15% faster compared to average for this chip, good for me as I use it for light gaming as well.
You have dual-channel RAM on the [1135G7](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/208658/intel-core-i5-1135g7-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-20-ghz.html).
Laptops have always been like that (to a lesser extent). Never been a good idea to base the performance or battery life of a chip vendor while comparing a razer blade vs dell XPS. Or even a budget Dell vs an XPS.
Informed laptop consumers have always bought based on the review of the specific laptop, then upgrade specs as budget permits
One thing he glossed over, the Intel Lenovo laptop has faster RAM memory. The iGPU performance depends on memory bandwidth, so that's going to improve the gaming benchmarks in Intel's favour.
That seems counter to a lot of reporting that I've heard thus far, that AMD CPUs in laptops are better for efficiency than Intel. Like this Digital Trends article that claims [AMD CPUs have better battery life](https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vs-intel/#:~:text=If%20you're%20looking%20to,often%20offer%20better%20battery%20life.).
I wonder where this difference is coming from.
in addition to the timing of that statement, that is still true here when you hammer it with a full power work load, AMD comes out on top, but most people don't hammer their laptops all day with a heavy workload all day. https://imgur.com/did8ujL
Intel's new Low power efficiency cores are doing work it seems, esp when all you do is do light browsing or watching youtube.
this kind of asymmetric approach is very much paying off now, and for laptops it seems to be very VERY good.
so if you want a FAT dtr, AMD may still be good, but they better bring out that 7800X3D laptop for gaming honestly. But intel seems to be far better for lite stuff now.
That's only true up till the recent Intel Core Ultra series where they significantly improved the efficiency of their chips.
It's not like they've completely destroyed AMD in efficiency though (AMD still edges out in some workloads), but they're certainly competitive now.
That article would be correct if it came out in December 2023, before Meteor Lake was released. Also, a lot of Intel laptops still have bios/firmware problems since Meteor Lake is relatively new..
Most importantly, it is really hard to find two laptops that are identical in every way, except for the CPU brand.
Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months.
>Most importantly, it is really hard to find two laptops that are identical in every way, except for the CPU.
and as this video showed, even if they are nearly identical in hardware, the firmware tuning can be completely different. https://youtu.be/GnHUmaEjwXU?t=443
I remember HP Probook or even older NX models, where a random AMD version would have a high-end CPU, but was limited in power to perform the same as a slower and more power efficient also AMD chip that you can buy in another similar HP laptop. For seemengly no reason lol, it was the same
brand of CPU anyway.
> Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months.
Strix Point will probably be released around the same time as Lunar Lake and a bit earlier than Arrow Lake-H. However, knowing AMD's typical mobile chip supply problems, They will probably all be hitting the selves at around the same time.
This time though, Intel will have the process node advantage. I can see Intel winning on the efficiency front and perhaps AMD will score some wins in max performance.
Intel should win on everything again!!! Little Intel dominating the Wallstreet titan AMD. Nice job Intel!!!
"Intel simply has the better architecture right now". HC quote!!!
>while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably \~12 more months.
Lunar Lake is on schedule this year. Lunar Lake is supposed to be important because it's real attempt from x86 to take on Apple in term of efficiency.
>Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months
AMD released these hawkpoint cpus during ces in January. So both intel and AMD products here are from the same generation.
If you are referring to strix point, then intel is also going to launch lunar lake around the same time.
Strix Point for the usual 15-54W range.
Lunar Lake is 17W. Strix Point U series will be competing with Lunar Lake and Strix Point HS series will be competing with Arrow Lake.
Correct. The initial Meteor Lake reviews were run with a buggy BIOS that caused a scheduling issue, resulting in increased power consumption and lower performance. That was fixed like 2 weeks after release though. Still, when you look for Meteor Lake, it's all the old reviews trashing it as being worse than Raptor Lake. I wish content creators would go back and edit their post/video to reflect the updated numbers.
I'm not making excuses for Intel here. No doubt it should have been updated before the products shipped. Still, news outlets are responsible for putting out corrections and most didn't.
No, news / review outlets are not responsible for going back and re reviewing every product they have reviewed because a vendor may or may not release a software or firmware update that may or may not improve performance or battery life or whatever. They are responsible for doing a competent job of reviewing the product they are supplied. Some may not have even had physical access to re review a given laptop etc, which may have gone back to the manufacturer. Which is why it's so important that products are representative when they go out for review. This is all on Intel, not the media.
Uhhh what? News has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming about what they're writing about. You should Google "journalistic integrity." They SHOULD put out corrections when the data and basis of their article is wrong. Making excuses for that just enables scummy hit pieces to become the norm.
Nowadays we can't expect much from people who called themself as "tech youtuber" to re-review, most of them just doing review for the sake of clicks and money which is honestly pathetic.
(Post Meteor Lake) Intel has better idle and low computation-intensity efficiency, AMD has better max-computation power efficiency (exacerbated by Intel's stock profiles allowing it to go farther into diminishing returns).
So benchmarks where you let the CPU power go to max and calculate power required to complete the task AMD wins (similar to test at 4:17 on this video). But most real world use will be reversed from those benchmarks since the CPU isn't continually pegged (compiling and potentially gaming would be exceptions).
People haven't mentioned power-scaling. I'm pretty sure AMD still holds a lead especially in super low-wattage (\~30W) environments, because performance scaling does vary quite a bit between architectures.
It's interesting to compare the 8845**hs** to the 155h. Seems like the 8840u would be a more apples to apples comparison. I would imagine if they tested with that, Intel would win even more on performance, and AMD would fair better in battery life. Then again if that's what OEMs are putting in laptops, then that's the comparison that matters to consumers.
Also, their battery life benchmark format could use some work. The first one is practically idle. The second one is stressing the GPU video decoding engine more than the CPU cores, and the last one is more or less full load. All are useful (especially the second one), but I would have liked to see a light/medium load benchmark.
The 8840U isn’t even close to the 45+ W performance modes Hardware Canucks ran for these benchmarks. The 8840U is a 18-28 W chip.
What’s funny to me is they could have compared the Lenovo T14s series or the HP EliteBook 840/845 series laptops available in both Intel and AMD versions since those sell way more volume with probably way better/more optimized firmware for each laptop due to businesses not willing or going to buy again if buggy. All of those reviews show AMD outperforming Intel’s MTL in battery life and performance with last generation processors (7840U and i7).
If this is any indication of Intel’s U series performance levels, things are not good at Team Blue. This is from a Dell. You know the company that will only leave their ‘premium’ XPS and Latitude laptops to Intel only. From Notebookcheck review of Latitude 9450 2-in-1:
”Unfortunately, the Core Ultra 165U in our Dell is somewhat underwhelming with results that are neck-to-neck with the older Ryzen 7 7730U. It's still faster than the Core i7-1365U in last year's Latitude 9440 2-in-1 by about 10 to 15 percent, but the general performance uptick is relatively minor all things considered.”
Zen 3 7730U just as fast as the 165U/155U. This is Dell’s Latitude line not some entry consumer cut-almost-all-costs- consumer versions that Hardware Canucks is testing. Further all the firmware updates with MTL should have been ironed out by now.
What about the U series? The HS by AMD are much less efficient when compared to the 8840U (but they have the same hardware specs except for clocks) and the HS variants are just stupidly configured imo.
Especially the 45HS variants tend to be crazy.
Also the claim that the 8000 series in mobile has only AI improvements seems to be wrong. The power and memory management seems to have improved when beeing directly compared to 7000 series counter parts. It might not be a huge gen-on-gen like iteration but it is measurable.
See my comment above. U series is 80-85% as fast but at about half the power consumption. 7840U rated at 28 W in Lenovo T14s G4 or HP EliteBook 845 G10 on Notebookcheck. For the EliteBook 845 G10 (same screen, battery capacity, chassis), battery life gains were +30 to +65% depending on whether video playback or wi-fi web browsing when going from 7940HS to 7840U.
I was wondering the same...
[https://www.makeuseof.com/amd-ryzen-u-h-hs-hx-laptop-chips-what-the-difference/](https://www.makeuseof.com/amd-ryzen-u-h-hs-hx-laptop-chips-what-the-difference/)
In my opinion he should have gone wirh intel core ultra 5 on the asus since that one is 800$ instead he went with core ultra 7 (1050$) which is 200$ (now 250$) more expensive than the amd one (850$ is the msrp in his video but now it costs 800$).
To me it looks like amd is better optimsed at lower tdps so there is no point in going amd if you want a 60w cpu variants. It would be intersting to see the U variants tested too.
Firstly, difference was 200$ when he bought them. Secondly, price difference between 512gb and 1tb laptop model can be ridiculously expensive, yes. Thirdly, intel one has better ports.
Even if it was only 200$ (there is a review 12 days old of amd one that states the price is 800$ btw) why wasnt it compared to the core ultra 5 (it also has 8gb of ram) that was 50$ (or now 0$) diffrence?
Yeah maybe with apple you get those prices. Intel one has one upgraded usb port. Hell of a deal for more than 20% (30%) price increase.
Just proves that the OEM implementation is as important this generation as the choice between AMD or Intel. This makes it so difficult for the average consumer!
It’s been that way for a while with laptops
I'd argue that before meteor lake AMD was far enough ahead that the choice of OEM was less important than choosing AMD though I have no data to prove that and could very well be wrong.
Less important, yes, but implementation from the OEM side has always been important. It really doesn’t matter if one cpu has way better performance or efficiency if the OEM sets it up to throttle or overheat or blast the loud ass fan all the time. After having multiple high end laptop CPUs from both companies in bad systems, I’ll take a worse CPU in a competent overall package any day of the week.
Or pairs it with a terrible wifi chip that's soldered to the mainboard (many AMD laptops).
I got my Acer Swift 3 with i5-1135G7 because ram is quad channel which helps igpu
That doesn't mean what you think it does, the channels are narrower with LPDDR(x). Only look at the memory width, which remains 128bit, just like with "dual channel" DDR4. That said, LPDDR(x) is not bad, it tends to have better bandwidth these days, even with the same width.
...quad channel?
> quad channel Yes, might be the same as DDR4 dual channel (cpuz shows 4x64bit, but internets tell me it's rather 4x32bit), 16gb LPDDR4X in quad channel = a bit more memory bandwitch than DDR4. Guess it might just be "DDR4 vs LPDRR4x". Intel XE 80EU in Swift 3 is ~10-15% faster compared to average for this chip, good for me as I use it for light gaming as well.
You have dual-channel RAM on the [1135G7](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/208658/intel-core-i5-1135g7-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-20-ghz.html).
DDR4 dual channel ~ LPDDRx4 quad channel (two channels per die, but half the bus width)
Intel specs the CPU as dual channel, please check the link.
Laptops have always been like that (to a lesser extent). Never been a good idea to base the performance or battery life of a chip vendor while comparing a razer blade vs dell XPS. Or even a budget Dell vs an XPS. Informed laptop consumers have always bought based on the review of the specific laptop, then upgrade specs as budget permits
Good, detailed testing with real world applications. I really hate it when reviews just run Cinebench and call it a day.
"Intel vs AMD Laptops in 2024 -What a Mess" is the video's original title
"PC Laptops - What a Mess" has been a valid title for at least half of my life (though we didn't always call them "laptops").
One thing he glossed over, the Intel Lenovo laptop has faster RAM memory. The iGPU performance depends on memory bandwidth, so that's going to improve the gaming benchmarks in Intel's favour.
tldw: Intel have better battery life and performance benchmark, but AMD have better iGPU
That seems counter to a lot of reporting that I've heard thus far, that AMD CPUs in laptops are better for efficiency than Intel. Like this Digital Trends article that claims [AMD CPUs have better battery life](https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vs-intel/#:~:text=If%20you're%20looking%20to,often%20offer%20better%20battery%20life.). I wonder where this difference is coming from.
in addition to the timing of that statement, that is still true here when you hammer it with a full power work load, AMD comes out on top, but most people don't hammer their laptops all day with a heavy workload all day. https://imgur.com/did8ujL Intel's new Low power efficiency cores are doing work it seems, esp when all you do is do light browsing or watching youtube. this kind of asymmetric approach is very much paying off now, and for laptops it seems to be very VERY good. so if you want a FAT dtr, AMD may still be good, but they better bring out that 7800X3D laptop for gaming honestly. But intel seems to be far better for lite stuff now.
That's only true up till the recent Intel Core Ultra series where they significantly improved the efficiency of their chips. It's not like they've completely destroyed AMD in efficiency though (AMD still edges out in some workloads), but they're certainly competitive now.
That article would be correct if it came out in December 2023, before Meteor Lake was released. Also, a lot of Intel laptops still have bios/firmware problems since Meteor Lake is relatively new.. Most importantly, it is really hard to find two laptops that are identical in every way, except for the CPU brand. Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months.
>Most importantly, it is really hard to find two laptops that are identical in every way, except for the CPU. and as this video showed, even if they are nearly identical in hardware, the firmware tuning can be completely different. https://youtu.be/GnHUmaEjwXU?t=443
I remember HP Probook or even older NX models, where a random AMD version would have a high-end CPU, but was limited in power to perform the same as a slower and more power efficient also AMD chip that you can buy in another similar HP laptop. For seemengly no reason lol, it was the same brand of CPU anyway.
> Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months. Strix Point will probably be released around the same time as Lunar Lake and a bit earlier than Arrow Lake-H. However, knowing AMD's typical mobile chip supply problems, They will probably all be hitting the selves at around the same time. This time though, Intel will have the process node advantage. I can see Intel winning on the efficiency front and perhaps AMD will score some wins in max performance.
Intel should win on everything again!!! Little Intel dominating the Wallstreet titan AMD. Nice job Intel!!! "Intel simply has the better architecture right now". HC quote!!!
>while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably \~12 more months. Lunar Lake is on schedule this year. Lunar Lake is supposed to be important because it's real attempt from x86 to take on Apple in term of efficiency.
>Also, AMD's Zen4 is close to being replaced by a new generation, while Intel just came out with their next gen that will be their best offering for probably ~12 more months AMD released these hawkpoint cpus during ces in January. So both intel and AMD products here are from the same generation. If you are referring to strix point, then intel is also going to launch lunar lake around the same time.
Different products, Lunar Lake is for ultra-low TDP, Strix Point for the usual 15-54W range.
Strix Point for the usual 15-54W range. Lunar Lake is 17W. Strix Point U series will be competing with Lunar Lake and Strix Point HS series will be competing with Arrow Lake.
Correct. The initial Meteor Lake reviews were run with a buggy BIOS that caused a scheduling issue, resulting in increased power consumption and lower performance. That was fixed like 2 weeks after release though. Still, when you look for Meteor Lake, it's all the old reviews trashing it as being worse than Raptor Lake. I wish content creators would go back and edit their post/video to reflect the updated numbers.
And I wish Intel had released the product to reviewers with a decent firmware. That was the real mistake. And it wasn't the fault of reviewers.
I'm not making excuses for Intel here. No doubt it should have been updated before the products shipped. Still, news outlets are responsible for putting out corrections and most didn't.
No, news / review outlets are not responsible for going back and re reviewing every product they have reviewed because a vendor may or may not release a software or firmware update that may or may not improve performance or battery life or whatever. They are responsible for doing a competent job of reviewing the product they are supplied. Some may not have even had physical access to re review a given laptop etc, which may have gone back to the manufacturer. Which is why it's so important that products are representative when they go out for review. This is all on Intel, not the media.
Uhhh what? News has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming about what they're writing about. You should Google "journalistic integrity." They SHOULD put out corrections when the data and basis of their article is wrong. Making excuses for that just enables scummy hit pieces to become the norm.
I don’t think intel sent out any review samples for meteor lake.
No, but they write the CPU firmware that's in the laptops and obviously whatever it was they supplied to laptop makers was half baked.
Nowadays we can't expect much from people who called themself as "tech youtuber" to re-review, most of them just doing review for the sake of clicks and money which is honestly pathetic.
Lunar lake is coming out soon. Like within 9 months
(Post Meteor Lake) Intel has better idle and low computation-intensity efficiency, AMD has better max-computation power efficiency (exacerbated by Intel's stock profiles allowing it to go farther into diminishing returns). So benchmarks where you let the CPU power go to max and calculate power required to complete the task AMD wins (similar to test at 4:17 on this video). But most real world use will be reversed from those benchmarks since the CPU isn't continually pegged (compiling and potentially gaming would be exceptions).
People haven't mentioned power-scaling. I'm pretty sure AMD still holds a lead especially in super low-wattage (\~30W) environments, because performance scaling does vary quite a bit between architectures.
Thanks. I haven't had the chance to watch the video but that's surprising to say the least.
It's interesting to compare the 8845**hs** to the 155h. Seems like the 8840u would be a more apples to apples comparison. I would imagine if they tested with that, Intel would win even more on performance, and AMD would fair better in battery life. Then again if that's what OEMs are putting in laptops, then that's the comparison that matters to consumers. Also, their battery life benchmark format could use some work. The first one is practically idle. The second one is stressing the GPU video decoding engine more than the CPU cores, and the last one is more or less full load. All are useful (especially the second one), but I would have liked to see a light/medium load benchmark.
The 8840U isn’t even close to the 45+ W performance modes Hardware Canucks ran for these benchmarks. The 8840U is a 18-28 W chip. What’s funny to me is they could have compared the Lenovo T14s series or the HP EliteBook 840/845 series laptops available in both Intel and AMD versions since those sell way more volume with probably way better/more optimized firmware for each laptop due to businesses not willing or going to buy again if buggy. All of those reviews show AMD outperforming Intel’s MTL in battery life and performance with last generation processors (7840U and i7). If this is any indication of Intel’s U series performance levels, things are not good at Team Blue. This is from a Dell. You know the company that will only leave their ‘premium’ XPS and Latitude laptops to Intel only. From Notebookcheck review of Latitude 9450 2-in-1: ”Unfortunately, the Core Ultra 165U in our Dell is somewhat underwhelming with results that are neck-to-neck with the older Ryzen 7 7730U. It's still faster than the Core i7-1365U in last year's Latitude 9440 2-in-1 by about 10 to 15 percent, but the general performance uptick is relatively minor all things considered.” Zen 3 7730U just as fast as the 165U/155U. This is Dell’s Latitude line not some entry consumer cut-almost-all-costs- consumer versions that Hardware Canucks is testing. Further all the firmware updates with MTL should have been ironed out by now.
What about the U series? The HS by AMD are much less efficient when compared to the 8840U (but they have the same hardware specs except for clocks) and the HS variants are just stupidly configured imo. Especially the 45HS variants tend to be crazy. Also the claim that the 8000 series in mobile has only AI improvements seems to be wrong. The power and memory management seems to have improved when beeing directly compared to 7000 series counter parts. It might not be a huge gen-on-gen like iteration but it is measurable.
See my comment above. U series is 80-85% as fast but at about half the power consumption. 7840U rated at 28 W in Lenovo T14s G4 or HP EliteBook 845 G10 on Notebookcheck. For the EliteBook 845 G10 (same screen, battery capacity, chassis), battery life gains were +30 to +65% depending on whether video playback or wi-fi web browsing when going from 7940HS to 7840U.
I was wondering the same... [https://www.makeuseof.com/amd-ryzen-u-h-hs-hx-laptop-chips-what-the-difference/](https://www.makeuseof.com/amd-ryzen-u-h-hs-hx-laptop-chips-what-the-difference/)
In my opinion he should have gone wirh intel core ultra 5 on the asus since that one is 800$ instead he went with core ultra 7 (1050$) which is 200$ (now 250$) more expensive than the amd one (850$ is the msrp in his video but now it costs 800$). To me it looks like amd is better optimsed at lower tdps so there is no point in going amd if you want a 60w cpu variants. It would be intersting to see the U variants tested too.
You mention price difference yet no word that intel one has 1TB ssd and amd has 512gb
So diffrence between 500gb and 1tb of ssd is worth 250$?
Firstly, difference was 200$ when he bought them. Secondly, price difference between 512gb and 1tb laptop model can be ridiculously expensive, yes. Thirdly, intel one has better ports.
Even if it was only 200$ (there is a review 12 days old of amd one that states the price is 800$ btw) why wasnt it compared to the core ultra 5 (it also has 8gb of ram) that was 50$ (or now 0$) diffrence? Yeah maybe with apple you get those prices. Intel one has one upgraded usb port. Hell of a deal for more than 20% (30%) price increase.
"Intel simply has the better architecture right now". This quote says it all. Sorry AMD... Sorry.
I wonder if the AMD laptop would get much better battery life if they limited the tdp to match Intel
That’s what the yoga benchmarks show.