Ryzen 9 6900HX is 33% faster than the Ryzen 9 5900HX but falls short of Core i9-12900H
Click here to post a comment for Ryzen 9 6900HX is 33% faster than the Ryzen 9 5900HX but falls short of Core i9-12900H on our message forum
kapu
The core difference is colossal . If it would be slower that would be fail of epic proportion.
Devid
This is Geekbench, isn't it?
11th gen Intel was better than Zen 3 in Geekbench if I'm not mistaken.
So let's wait until next week when rhe Zen3+ 6nm mobile is out.
Kaarme
I wonder how the power consumptions compare. The default consumption is the same, 45W, but how much more does the Intel chip use when it's beating the AMD one? Of course it might not matter to a person who buys a laptop with such a chip. The iGPU also probably doesn't matter since the top of the line laptops might always come with a dedicated GPU as well.
mohiuddin
If i am not wrong then 110w i guess. The max allowed tdp
Sebas1985
~ 135-145W max - according to the latest msi notebook tests. so it's a short advantage on battery 😀
BLEH!
Intel TDPmax is now 100 MW... :P
Agonist
Even if it was true and not shitty geekbench, still gonna be a much better buy.
Intel laptops are too many and over priced.
Venix
Consumption will tell the story . Also i think the e cores show their teeth here .
TieSKey
Sorry for being a little harsh here but comparing CPU in a laptop without the entire set of specifications/variables is super silly. RAM speed and max power allowed to cpu can change those values +/- 80% to each side :shrugh:
kanenas
We have a proverb in Greece that says ... What do you have, Giannis, what have I always had.
Do not misunderstand me the performance is there but we are talking about laptops and efficiency has flown out of the room.
JamesSneed
The fact Intel's latest 110w chip beat AMD's 40w chip isn't really news.
tunejunky
exactly.
furthermore, despite the ryzen "6" nomenclature this is just a beefier, faster 5900hx made at the same node.
i'm actually very impressed by the 6900hx, not least that it will be the best APU for gaming. there is no match between RDNA2 and Xe/Iris graphics. 1080p gaming at moderate to high settings from an APU when GPU's are ungodly expensive seems like a win to me.
schmidtbag
If power consumption isn't factored in then who cares? If you're going to go above 65W for the SoC then you don't need to cripple yourself with a mobile chip. Even then, I consider 65W too much for a single chip in a laptop (at least if the iGPU isn't being used).
Airbud
But, but!...it is faster by 3fps!
Astyanax
it also doesn't have PCIE bus issues that i still cannot be sure aren't going to come back to be an issue later in a customers build. (i don't like it when companies turn down error logging and call it a fix)
RED.Misfit
I agree with most, efficiency, temperature, noise, battery life. These points all comme into account when acquiring a laptop/notebook.
And Geekbench does not show anything about what normal usage gonna be on both platform (yes even the Intel platform can be tweeked by OEM to adjust the perf/watt for their design)
fearsjohn
the Intel cpu boosts to 110 or 115 watt then settles a 85 watts sustained, in cinebench it is basically running at 110 watts.
the amd cpu can boost to 85 watts but most only go to 54 watts.
so know wonder the intel chip is faster it uses more power. in a desktop thats not a big deal, in a laptop it is.
Kool64
My watts are bigger!
waltc3
It will eat up a battery much faster, Intel will...but since we are talking laptops, who cares about that?....;) /s
Airbud
Mine is bigger!...get some!....e-pin 😛
in today's world I would bet my girlfriend has one bigger than yours!
oh s*** a comment like that ^ is about getting me in trouble!
Love y'all
