4900HS vs 9980HK vs 9750H vs 3750H vs 9300H – CPU Comparison
. The Intel i9 9980HK is the only other 8 core CPU in this comparison, however, unlike all of the others, its unlocked and can be overclocked, of course, assuming thermal and power limits permit., The 9980HK has double the cache of the 4900HS, a higher power limit and higher Single core turbo boost speed. As the i9 is unlocked. Ive done my testing with it undervolted by 0.15v, overclocked and Ive also boosted the power limit, though I found in practice. Cpu, only workloads would run at about 90 watts., Its also worth considering that the i9 is pretty much only available in thicker 17 inch laptops. There are some 15 inch ones, but I tested mine in the Gigabyte Aero 17, whereas the 4900HS Im testing with here is in a much smaller than usual 14 ASUS Zephyrus G14.. Just for a little perspective, Ive also got results from the Intel. I7 9750H. From my Lenovo Y540 i5 9300H from my Y7000 and the best from AMDs last generation, the Ryzen 7 3750H from the ASUS TUF FX505DU., Starting off with everyones favourite Cinebench R20, we can see that the i9 was able to hit a 6 higher multicore score, though, to Be fair, the 4900HS could score. Similarly, for its first couple of runs before the boost period expired., The 4900HS can run at 60 to 65 watts, but it settles at 35 watts long term. Anyway. The 4900HS is leading the pack when it comes to single core performance.
Something Intel has historically been considered best. At. Ive also got some older Cinebench R15 results for those that still use it, but unfortunately I didnt test out the i9 with this benchmark. When I had it, so we can see how the 4900HS stacks up compared to other chips. However, well move right, along. Handbrake was used to convert a 4K video file to 1080p. Then a separate 1080p file to 720p. In this transcoding test, the Ryzen 9 4900HS was actually faster than the i9, which is honestly quite an impressive achievement., Either way, though, the results were close and both of the 8 core systems have nice leads over the other processors. In the comparison., Blender is another threaded workload that prefers more cores. This time. The i9 was about 10 faster in the Classroom test and about 9 faster for the BMW test.. Although the 4900HS is behind, this test takes a lot longer to complete than the other tests. So the 4900HS is actually running at its 35 watt limit for most of the test. Ill show you a bit later, just how power efficient it is. The results are pretty surprising.. V Ray is another multicore test. This time the i9 was scoring about 20 higher than the 4900HS, while the 4900HS is about 17 faster than the i7 9750H.. Again, when you consider the 4900HS is a smaller 14 inch laptop with a 35 watt limit, the results look quite promising for the Ryzen processor.
. Another benchmark that uses the CPU to render out a scene. The results were similar with the i9 about 22 faster in this test, while the 4900HS was about 24 faster than the 6 core, i7 9750H. 7 Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and the 4900HS was ahead in both regards.. Well, the compression score was very close to the i9. However, when it came to decompression, the 4900HS is almost 10 faster than the i9. AMD have traditionally done very well in this test, though, as you can see even the 3750H down. The bottom beats the i5 9300H. In decompression, where the i5 was otherwise winning in all other workloads, tested. Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds.. This test may not be the most accurate, as results can vary between test run, which is why Ive taken the average of 10 runs here.. The 4900HS was close to the i7 and Ive actually generally found overclocking to negatively affect results in this test. For some reason, which may be why the encryption speed from the i9 is below even that of the i7. In the Geekbench test. The 4900HS was a little behind even the i7, in the single core test, not sure what the deal is here as it was ahead in others like Cinebench, I am using an older version of Geekbench, as this is what I have historic data for Ill move over To the newer version, 5 soon.
In any case, the i7 was almost 5 ahead of the 4900HS in single core performance. While the i9 had a 7 lead. For multicore, though the i9 was only scoring 4.5 ahead of the Ryzen 9. Ive used Adobe Premieres warp, stabilizer effect, which is a single core test. Unfortunately, I didnt test out the i9 when I had the machine here. So no data for it, however. The 4900HS was 19 faster than the 9750H. In this workload, which I found interesting, thats, a pretty big lead against Intel who again have historically been known for superior single core results.. These are the average differences between the Intel, i9 9980HK and AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS. Out of the tests that I have data for both. On average, the i9 was almost 5 faster, however, that overall percentage isnt too useful, as it includes both single and multicore tests., Either way, though in general theres, not that big of a difference, the i9 seems to Have the most advantage in the core heavy rendering workloads which dominate the top 4 results. Heres, where things get interesting? This is what the total system power draw from the wall looked like when running the blender benchmark., The 4900HS laptop was using less power in this test than even the two quad core systems.. The i9 9980HK has blown up because Ive raised the power limit and overclocked it to increase performance above stock and power. Efficiency tends to get worse the higher you go.
Anyway, although the i9 was winning in most tests, consider that in Blender it was only about 10 faster than the 4900HS, but it was using more than double the power to achieve this.. The 4900HS would likely have no issue beating the i9 at stock. If I wasnt undervolting and boosting the power limit, this really goes to show how efficient AMDs 7nm processors are. These are the average clock speeds during the same blender test. Unfortunately, I didnt record this data back when I had the i9 for testing, but I still thought it was interesting that the 4900HS was clocking lower out of these options, while also destroying them as a result of the higher core and thread count.. Likewise, with the temps no data from the i9, but trust me, it would be well up there. In any case. The 35 watt 4900HS was running cooler than the other three machines and remember. The Ryzen processor is in a smaller 14 inch chassis here. My 9750H, 9300H and 3750H are all 15 inch machines.. Unfortunately, there are no gaming results at this time, as all of the laptops tested had different graphics cards, so it wasnt possible to fairly compare, however Ill. Try and do this in the future. If Im able to get my hands on comparable machines., It seems pretty clear to me that AMD finally have a competitive mobile option on their hands. Seriously. My 4900HS is in a smaller 14 inch chassis compared to the i9, which only exists in 15 inch but more commonly 17 inch laptops.
The Ryzen option, uses less power and still offers high levels of performance in most workloads and its also a fair bit cheaper.. The G14 Ive tested with here goes for about 1450 USD good luck, finding any i9 laptop anywhere near that price. If you need CPU processing done., Although Intels 10th gen isnt too far away Im, not expecting big changes being that its still on the 14nm Ive lost track of the plusses architecture.. Let me know what you thought of the performance from the 4900HS down in the comments.. I cant wait to test out the other new Ryzen processors and see how they stack up against, say the Intel i7 9750H so make sure you get subscribed for those future comparisons and upcoming tech.