25% less iGPU compute units. AMD isn't concerned about Intel at all.

Why not give it a hyperthreading?

Undying:

Why not give it a hyperthreading?

it's only the x500 part. can reserve the x600 part with +100mhz + SMT

So glad there is finally competition in the laptop segment, as well as hardware that is not completely put to shame by what's available on desktop. Good times.

Typo Hilbert, you missed the 5-Key ^^ "AMD Ryzen 5 4600U is a processor that does not have SMT."

Waiting to see 4800h/4800hs reviews.

I bought two Acer SF315-41 last year, great laptops, very solid build, can take a hit like you meant to smash it. The 2500U CPU (4/8T) in it is good enough for most ESports gaming. ...Easily recommended if you guys need to upgrade your laptops this year with these new 4000 series CPU's coming out.

Undying:

Why not give it a hyperthreading?

AMD's method of SMT involves substantially more transistors than Intel's. To enable SMT would make this a significantly higher watt part, unless they lowered clock speeds (which they don't want to do on something that is already much slower than the desktop counterpart). What I personally don't understand is why they don't have a 3c/6t part. Under certain conditions, that would be more efficient than 6c/6t. However, I think a 6c/12t mobile chip would make sense for AMD to make. I'm not sure if they have such a thing.

"7 nm"

If nothing changed Intels Hyperthreading is give you much better performance that AMD SMT bonus, i remember when enabling SMT gave you actually worse performance in some games.. I hope that situation is now better, but i dont aim on it with present gaming or other benchmarks.. True is that Intel had much more time to optimize such technology, some same as compilers etc. I was introduced in 2002 with some Pentium 4.

ruthan:

If nothing changed Intels Hyperthreading is give you much better performance that AMD SMT bonus, i remember when enabling SMT gave you actually worse performance in some games.. I hope that situation is now better, but i dont aim on it with present gaming or other benchmarks.. True is that Intel had much more time to optimize such technology, some same as compilers etc. I was introduced in 2002 with some Pentium 4.

I don't recall HT ever being a unanimously faster solution. It's faster in a select few cases, particularly ones where a single task isn't multi-threaded. HT is basically just a way to keep a pipeline busier.

interesting, the 6 CU vega 1.5ghz are 6% "slower" than the 8 * 1.2ghz and 8% faster in fire strike and 27% faster in time spy!!! so the improved design appear to works fine. but we have to see in depth the speed of the ram and the impact on the results.

schmidtbag:

I don't recall HT ever being a unanimously faster solution. It's faster in a select few cases, particularly ones where a single task isn't multi-threaded. HT is basically just a way to keep a pipeline busier.

I was able to add 10-20% performance, can we say the same for AMD solution? I would like to see some test both side with enabled and disable multithreading and games and non games.. maybe someone did that?

This CPUs look interesting but for me even the current Ryzen laptops are good enough. I´m eyeing an Asus laptop with the 3500/3700u chip and if they drop the prices considerably after the realease of Ryzen, i may get one of them.

H83:

This CPUs look interesting but for me even the current Ryzen laptops are good enough. I´m eyeing an Asus laptop with the 3500/3700u chip and if they drop the prices considerably after the realease of Ryzen, i may get one of them.

The 3700h/u is a 4core part just be aware.

Loophole35:

The 3700h/u is a 4core part just be aware.

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.

ruthan:

I was able to add 10-20% performance, can we say the same for AMD solution? I would like to see some test both side with enabled and disable multithreading and games and non games.. maybe someone did that?

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.