Notice: All benchmark results on this page are from AMD's announcement and slide decks. We want to get a sample to prove these are accurate.

AMD Goes For Performance

When manufacturers launch new products, they always have to provide a string of benchmark data points to back up the years of effort into building a new product. This data is almost always from their internal testing, but as they are in the business of promoting and selling the hardware, it is taken with a grain of salt until we can get our own hands on the product. AMD told us that their plan was to ‘under promise and over deliver’, citing that when Zen launched earlier this year, they promised a 40% gain in the base performance (instructions per clock, IPC) but ended up delivering a 52% gain.

For Ryzen Mobile, AMD said that they beat all their targets. Overall, they say that the new Ryzen Mobile parts offer up to 200% more CPU performance, up to 128% more GPU performance, and while consuming 58% less power than their previous generation products.

What they had promised, back at an earlier AMD Analyst day this year, was a 50/40/50 improvement.

Looking back at those numbers, it is clear that the 200% CPU gain comes from doubling the cores/threads (+100%) and increasing the IPC (+52% of ‘200%’ gives ~304%, or a +200% gain). This means that the +50% number given back at the Analyst Day was quite a way off, and presumably miscalculated given the base expectation of the IPC increase in the first place, let alone doubling the cores.

In AMD’s slide nodes, the CPU difference was taken using Cinebench R15 in multithreaded mode – a Ryzen 7 2700U scored 719, while the last generation FX-9800P scored 240.  720/240 = 3.00x, or a +200% gain.

The GPU gains look like a better fit to AMD's earlier predictions, moving from 8 3rd Generation GCN compute units to 10 5th Generation Vega compute units. Even without the throughput improvements in graphics, that’s a base 25% increase in available hardware. The peak frequency moves up from 758 MHz to ~1300 MHz, which is a +70% increase as well. Together that accounts for a +112% increase in performance, leaving the base architecture design improvements to account for the remainder.

In AMD’s slide nodes, the GPU difference was taken using FutureMark’s TimeSpy– a Ryzen 7 2700U scored 915, while the last generation FX-9800P scored 400.  915/400 = 2.29x, or +129% gain.

For power, AMD stated a 58% decrease in (total) power consumption from the previous generation and the new generation. This is listed as taking the total system level power consumption during the Cinebench R15 multithreaded test. The Ryzen 7 took 1594 joules while the FX-9800P took 3782 joules. 1594/3782 = 42% power, or a 58% reduction.

Combining the CPU performance and the power advantage, AMD is quoting a 270% performance per watt improvement for the new Ryzen 7 mobile parts. That’s an impressive number, any way to slice it.

System Level Performance

For non-gaming performance metrics, AMD is quoting a series of numbers for some general purpose benchmarks as well as an interesting look at application launch speed. This seems very similar to our PDF Opening test that we’ve been running in our processor reviews.

Overall AMD is stating that users can expect a 20-40% improvement in program launch speed using these four titles. This is different to AMD’s 52% IPC improvement figure on the basis of there is more to opening programs than just raw CPU performance – typically storage and memory, although both of those should be faster on the new platform than the old platform, leaving power as the reason between the difference. I would have expected AMD to offer some opening times for popular creator workloads here, such as video editing software or Photoshop, especially as that is one segment they expect they will target the hardware towards.

For the more system-wide benchmark tests, AMD gave data using POV-Ray, PCMark 10, TrueCrypt and Passmark. In every circumstance apart from PassMark, AMD shows that both of their Ryzen processors outperform Intel’s latest 8th Generation quad-core Kaby Lake-R processor, the i7-8550U, in the Acer Spin 5, as well as the previous generation FX-9800P (although the footnotes state that the 9800P was tested in single channel mode). In the footnotes AMD also lists data taken for the Core i5-8250U, but for some reason AMD didn’t put it in the graph. This gives the following data table:

AMD's Ryzen Mobile vs Kaby Lake-R Results
*All benchmark results on this page are from AMD, not AnandTech
  PovRay 3.7 PCMark 10 TrueCrypt Passmark 9
Ryzen 7 2700U 1320 3102 4.60 3316
Ryzen 5 2500U 1192 2693 3.55 3254
Core i7-8550U 1101 2533 3.30 3550
Core i5-8250U 1195 2814 3.50 3696
FX-9800P 663 1907 1.85 1887

So what is interesting here is that in each of the benchmarks, the Core i5 scored higher than the Core i7. The Core i7 was in an Acer Spin 5, whereas the Core i5 was in an Acer Swift 3. It is likely that the Swift 3 is a bulkier system capable of dissipating more energy, however it does mean that the Core i5 outperforms the Core i7 in all benchmarks, and it also outperforms the Ryzen 5 in all the benchmarks except TrueCrypt. It would be interesting to ponder why AMD left the Core i5 numbers out of the testing, especially as it puts the other data in such a bad light. It might be worth invoking Hanlon's Razor until we get a statement.

Overall, quad-core to quad-core, AMD is trying to promote that their CPUs offer better performance especially in compute intensive workloads. Interestingly enough, the area where I expected them to be good – PCMark 10 which needs both CPU and good OpenCL implementations – the benefits of Zen plus Vega were not as high as I expected. This is likely due to features such as Intel Speed Shift, and with the same data Intel would likely to ask to see performance per watt numbers for these tests, as well as battery life.

Here, AMD is claiming that its 15W, quad-core mobile processor, outperforms a 91W desktop processor at Cinebench R15 by almost 8%. The point AMD is trying to make is that previous users did not see AMD mobile processors as powerful. The score for the Core i5-7600K from AMD was 662 (in our review of the chip we got 656, so within the margin of error) for four cores and four threads, which is below the score of 707 for the Ryzen 7 2700U which also has four cores but has eight threads. If we look at processors from Intel that are 4C/8T, like the 35W Core i7-7700T, this scores 777 in our testing, which kind of drives away from AMD’s point here. AMD succeeds in touting that it has ‘desktop-class performance’ in a small power package, attempting to redefine its status as high performance. Part of me thinks at this level, it could be said that all the mobile processors in this range have ‘desktop-class performance’, so this is a case of AMD now catching up to the competition.

Gaming Performance

The main push behind AMD’s Carrizo and Bristol Ridge mobile processors in years previous was towards the gaming capabilities – being able to drive a good number of eSports titles at high frame rates without the need for a discrete graphics card. This made sense back then, even at the 35W TDP needed to drive a decent gaming experience, although it was let down by some design choices around single channel memory from the OEMs.

With Ryzen Mobile, the same message still applies, except that there is up to double the performance possible. This means either more frames per second or better image quality.

This data is listed as being taken from the HP Envy x360 system using the Ryzen 7 2700U with Vega 10 graphics and dual channel memory. There are no direct comparisons to previous platforms (unfortunately), but AMD is quoting nearly 60 FPS in League of Legends at 1080p at Medium settings, almost 50 FPS at DOTA2 (1080p, Fastest) and CS:GO (1080p, Medium).

Initially, these results did not seem that impressive – these are average frame rates, not 99th percentile frame rates, and getting 60 FPS with these settings seems a struggle, especially without comparison data to show it. AMD made a secondary point alongside this data: the Ryzen Mobile Vega 10 and Vega 8 graphics will support FreeSync 2 panels, especially in that 30-60 Hz range. With this performance and FreeSync/FreeSync 2 support, OEMs will have added incentive to produce gaming laptops with FreeSync capable panels at next to no extra cost, offering a better user experience. It’s a bold strategy Cotton; let’s see if it pays off.

Ryzen Mobile is Launched Sense Me Ryzen: Better Boost
POST A COMMENT

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • Alexvrb - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link

    No. XB1 has way more bandwidth than delta compression and other efficiency boosts can make up for. Dual channel DDR4 2400 vs quad channel DDR3 2133. That's even BEFORE you count a halfway talented developer's usage of the ESRAM, which when used properly takes a lot of pressure off the main memory. No, compute resources are the real limiting factor on XB1. The new XBOX on the other hand has plenty of both. Reply
  • nightyknight - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

    There is no way they will have the similar GPU performance lol. Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Thursday, October 26, 2017 - link

    Zen is more powerful than the Jaguar cores in the consoles, and even the 4C/8T Zen will beat out the 8C Jaguar, especially when boost is applied. That said, RR should be better than the original XboxOne (S), as that console has to make due with DDR3. The original PS4 uses GDDR5 and has a beefier GPU. I’d estimate it’s something like X1X > PS4pro > PS4 > RR > XboxOne/S
    The qualifier here is that RR is limited to 25W, where some consoles go over 100W. I am pretty excited to see what sort of RR implementation awaits PS5 and Xbox(4).
    Reply
  • Alexvrb - Thursday, October 26, 2017 - link

    The DDR3 in XB1 isn't really a massive handicap like you're claiming, at least not in the hands of a halfway decent developer. First, it's quad-channel, not dual-channel like Raven Ridge. Second, there's a chunk of ESRAM that greatly boosts overall effective bandwidth. Bandwidth isn't the biggest limiting factor for the XB1. I suspect XB1 will still best even the 10 cluster Ryzen Mobile. However, for a 12-25W (15W nominal) design, RR is really impressive. Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Thursday, October 26, 2017 - link

    I forgot that XboxOne used 256bit memory. Still, I would suspect that RR still might beat it, at least if initial 1080P benchmark claims hold true. Many XboxOne titles didn’t render at 1080P, but more like 900P. If RR can do decent 1080P gaming even at medium, that’s pretty promising. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link

    If you scale detail level to match, I highly suspect the framerate on XB1 will be higher. Match framerates and resolution and XB1 will have more detail. Don't get me wrong, again, I think RR will be entry-level game-capable which is more than I would say for any Intel chip that isn't paired with discrete graphics. But there will be compromises. Reply
  • Lolimaster - Saturday, October 28, 2017 - link

    In cpu is probably way fast but in GPU it had like 2X less performance and probably more once you factor the lack of GDDR5 or HBM2 as dedicated ram. Reply
  • tipoo - Monday, October 30, 2017 - link

    Or the MX150, which is popular in this segment. Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, October 26, 2017 - link

    That ideapad looked good until I saw "single channel"... Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, October 26, 2017 - link

    Typical Lenovo fuckup right there. At least HP didn't commit their usual crime of cramming a 768p screen in a 15" laptop... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now