Oh yes the gap is as big as it sounds.
Seriously?
Here's the original post:
Well ****. Quad cores in 2020... when we could have six, or eight... great... so it’s like... slightly faster than my 2018.
So, the criticism was that the 13-inch MBP only goes up to four cores, and that six or eight would've been nice.
You then correctly point out that eight cores is indeed an option with AMD.
But here's the thing: when people want to go from four to eight cores, they expect a performance boost of close to double. Something like 80-90%.
That's not what's happening here.
I seem to be arguing with a fanatic, so facts won't convince u
OK honey.
Several points:
First, you seem to overlook that the i7-1068NG7 is a 28W CPU, which you're comparing with a 15W CPU (Ryzan 4700U). And yet that AMD CPU is beating the Intel CPU. I think that speaks for itself.
I picked the most powerful CPU that 1) fits in Apple's chassis and 2) has available benchmark results. The 4700U is a 10-25W part.
The next one would have been the 4800HS (neither the 4750U nor the 4800U seem to have a lot of benchmark results, and the ones I did find were worse than the 4700U), but that's 35W and probably too much for the 13-inch. It's very clearly meant to compete with Intel's H CPUs; hence the naming.
So yes, the 4700U is the one I chose to compare. Which one would you suggest?
The numbers for the 4800U (that can very easily be found everywhere on the web) are quite the opposite of poor.
Let me google just a few:
The AMD Ryzen 7 4800U and Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 have been flexing their muscles again, this time outscoring 45 W Intel processors in Geekbench. The Ryzen 7 4800U blows away recent Intel U series processors too, including the Core i7-10710U and Core i7-1065G7.
www.notebookcheck.net
Not sure why someone would still use Geekbench 4 scores in 2020, but sure.
But also, the scores compare against a H CPU?
So, this one is more interesting.
In Cinebench, AMD does 36% better. In Blender, it does 26% better. In WinRAR, it does 18%
worse. In PCMark, it does 18% better.
So, pretty good! Just like I said. Not sure how you get "20-40%" from that. And also, given that it has 33% more cores, I stand by my assertion that it's not quite the jump one would expect from the core count.
And here's a comprehensive 4700U review
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
www.anandtech.com
In all these reviews, the corresponding 15W Intel CPU lagged 20-40% behind in multicore benchmarks.
Yeah, but again — these pit the AMD against a CPU with
half the cores. Don't you think it should be closer to 60-80% in multicore benchmarks? (And in single-core benchmarks, it does poorer than the Ice Lake part.)
In single core there's a slight advantage for Intel, but that lost its relevance years ago,
Hardly. Single-core matters a ton for all kinds of things, including, oh, I dunno, displaying this very website.
Your point about the thermal limit is moot. You will easily reach that limit with one core, so that issue has been around since there were thermal limits. The point is: what are u doing with the limit, and AMD is clearly doing better.
I'm not denying that AMD is doing better.
Something tells me you'd celebrate a 19% increase in performance and of course the much better GPU, which you kinda forgot to mention, with great joy, if it were an Intel CPU.
Of course I celebrate a 19% increase in performance.
What does the GPU have to do with anything? I can also bring up that the Intel part includes Thunderbolt and the AMD part doesn't?
The only thing we were discussing is that, right now, AMD has 10-25W parts that offer eight cores, whereas Intel's only offer either six cores (with a very weak GPU) or only four (with a slightly better GPU). But those eight cores don't bring quite the boost one might expect.
But the truth is, the performance increase is way more than that, so I don't really know what your point is.
Someone complains that the 13-inch MacBook Pro only goes up to four ports, and wants six or eight. Someone else says that's not possible. You correctly point out that, in fact it is, with AMD. I mention that, yes indeed, AMD does offer more cores, and it does help with multi-threaded performance. But it doesn't double the performance; it doesn't even offer 50% more performance. In the best mult-threaded scenarios, which are rare, it edges out at about 40% more performance.
