Ryzen Mobile 5 4500U-hexacore review appears online
A website in Ukraine posted review of a laptop with a Ryzen 5 4500U online. That would be a non hyper-threading / SMT based hexa-core processor made at 7nm with a TDPof 15W. The chip performs a lot better in most benchmarks than AMD's previous laptop processors.
The review itself contains relatively little benchmark comparisons in order to be able to assess the performance very precisely but measurements on battery life are actually very interesting. The product is an Acer Swift 3 and a 50.29 Wh battery. In a test with PCMark 8, it achieved a runtime of 7 hours and 18 minutes. With PC Mark 10 Video and PC Mark 10, on the other hand, it achieved 9 hours 44 minutes and 12 hours 4 minutes, respectively.
In the Cinebench R15 Multi the Acer laptop scores 785 points. That's more than recent quad-cores from Intel, Intel's hexacore with HyperThreading, the Core i7-10710U achieves a higher score in a thousand points marker. AMD Ryzen 5 4600U is a processor that does not have SMT. The processor has a Radeon Vega 6 GPU and thus has fewer shader cores than the Vega 8 and 10 GPUs of Ryzen laptop processors of previous generations, but the cores are clocked higher.
Processor | Node | architecture | Cores / threads | Base / (Turbo clock) | L3 cache | TDP | GPU | Max. GPU clock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ryzen 5 4500U | 7 nm | Zen2 | 6/6 | 2.3 GHz (4.0 GHz) | 8 MiB | 15 W. | 6 CPU Vega | 1.5 GHz |
Ryzen 5 3500U | 12 nm | Zen+ | 4/8 | 2.1 GHz (3.7 GHz) | 4 MB | 15 W. | 8 CU Vega |
1.2 GHz |
The Swift 3 with Ryzen 5 4500U would have great battery life. If you take some numbers from an Acer Swift 3 SF314-41 at Notebookcheck.com you can compare a bit back and forth with last gen. Laptops with Ryzen 4000 processors should be released around March or April.
Acer Swift 3 SF314 ‑4 | Acer Swift 3 SF314-42 | |
---|---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5 3500U | Ryzen 5 4500U |
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi | 646 | 785 |
Cinebench R 20 CPU (Multi-Core) | 1294 | 1843 |
3DMark Time Spy | 742 | 947 |
3DMark Fire Strike | 2433 | 2641 |
PCMark 10 | 3907 | 5024 |
Geekbench 5 Single-core | 886 | 1074 |
Geekbench 5 Multi-core | 3067 | 4282 |
AMD promises that OEMs will issue more driver updates for Ryzen Mobile - 11/23/2018 12:48 PM
It has been a topic of discussion a couple of times already in the past year. AMD Radeon Desktop GPUs get very regular updates, however, the APUs, OEM products and Laptop APUs rarely get updated. And ...
AMD to add Qualcomm LTE modems to Ryzen Mobile laptops - 12/06/2017 09:53 AM
AMD announced that it is working with Qualcomm to integrate Snapdragon LTE modems. Together with the company, it has tested various combinations to connect the Ryzen Mobile chips to the Snapdragon L...
AMD Announces Ryzen Mobile With Vega Graphics - 10/27/2017 08:14 AM
AMD just announced the first two Ryzen Mobile processors with Vega graphics. AMD is going rather hardcore with the release of their Ryzen 5 2500U and Ryzen 7 2700U quad core processors....
ASUS Launches ROG STRIX Ryzen Motherboard - 05/23/2017 09:23 AM
ASUS just released an ROG STRIX motherboard for the AMD Ryzen platform. The ROG STRIX X370-F Gaming would be positioned just under the Crosshair VI Hero series. The Motherboard looks great with a ra...
Biostar adds X370GTN and B350GTN Mini-ITX Ryzen Motherboards - 04/19/2017 07:58 AM
Biostar announces the latest addition to the growing mini-ITX family of BIOSTAR motherboards with the introduction mini-ITX motherboards for AMD AM4 platform and the first mini-ITX RGB LED-capable mot...
Senior Member
Posts: 6492
Joined: 2012-11-10
Are you saying that HT gave you a 10-20% performance yield vs it being off? Because with modern mitigations, that sounds about right. Without migitations, HT yields an overall benefit of 30%, and there isn't much room for it to go any faster.
AMD's solution is a bit more hit of miss, because it relies on a competent scheduler and it's not as flexible about workloads as HT is. When used properly, it can result in a 50% performance gain (theoretically, even higher). For the average workload, it's not really any better than HT.
The way I like to look at it:
Intel's solution is better if you like to multitask. The idea behind HT is to fill up the pipeline with queued instructions, which works great when running many independent single-threaded tasks (or in the case of games, a thread for logic and a thread for rendering, for example). But because HT doesn't truly run tasks in parallel, this is where it can actually hurt your performance, because such an application has to wait for the logical threads to sync with the main process. In the early days of HT, a lot of gamers deliberately disabled HT.
AMD's solution is better if you run individual tasks that are multithreaded. This is because a pair of integer and FP units share the same fetch, encode, decode, etc. Unlike Intel, AMD's solution has physically separate transistors, allowing truly parallel workloads per clock cycle. But, because of the shared resources, this makes AMD CPUs very inefficient at running many unrelated tasks. So using games for an example again, a single AMD core isn't ideal to run a logic thread and a rendering thread because their instructions are very different.
Like Intel, AMD's CPUs can lose performance with SMT enabled, depending on the workload. However, now that getting many-core CPUs is becoming so affordable, AMD's method begins to look much more appealing. What would normally make AMD's SMT yield worse performance can be easily overcome by just using a physically separate core. Intel's method was great for its time, because it allowed Intel to squeeze in more performance with fewer transistors, back when a single core took up a LOT more physical space.
Senior Member
Posts: 3867
Joined: 2009-09-08
I know and for me that´s sufficient. I only need powerful parts for my gaming rig, for everything else even a modern dual core is more than enough.