Hi. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. We do not collect your personal data.  I agree  Find out more  About cookies

AMD Ryzen 7 4800H benchmarks & review, vs Ryzen 5 4600H, Ryzen 7 4800HS and Ryzen 7 3750H

By Andrei Girbea - @ andreigirbea , last updated on March 30, 2020

For years now, AMD barely mattered in the laptop space, and even if their platforms have improved in recent years, they’ve only been the lower-tier budget alternatives for the Intel Core H platforms.

Not anymore, though. As of Spring 2020, Ryzen 4000 Mobile platforms are available in stores and boy they change everything.

This article is a review of the Ryzen 7 4800H platform, the mid-range APU that replaces last year’s Ryzen 7 3750H and competes with the Intel 9th and 10th gen Core H i7s in performance notebooks.

We’re not going to get much in-depth on the specs and particularities, you’ll find them on AMD’s site and in the quick sheet down below. Instead, we’ll focus on benchmarks results, have a look at how this platform performs in demanding loads and in games when paired with mid-range RTX 2060 graphics, as well as how it handles daily use in terms of thermals and efficiency.

That aside, we’ll also pitch this against the lower-tier Ryzen 5 4600H processor and the previous Ryzen 7 3750H. We’ve left the AMDF HS and the Intel options out of this, as we’re covering those in separate articles that should be available on the site shortly.

Ok, so first off, the specs sheet for the Ryzen 7 4800H APU.

Ryzen 7 4800HRyzen 7 4800HSRyzen 5 4600HRyzen 7 3750H
Build process7 nm14 nm
GenerationZen 2Zen 1
TDP45 W35 W45 W35 W
Cores/Threads8/168/166/124/8
CPU Base Frequency2.9 GHz2.9 GHz3.0 GHz2.3 GHz
CPU Max Turbo4.2 GHz4.2 GHz4.0 GHz4.0 GHz
L3 Cache8 MB4 MB
Memory Type
DDR4 3200 MHz, LPDDR4X 4266 MHzDDR4 2400 MHz
GraphicsRadeon Vega, 8 CUsRadeon Vega, 7 CUsRadeon Vega, 6 CUsRadeon RX Vega 10
Graphics Speedup to  1600 MHzup to  1600 MHzup to  1500 MHzup to  1400 MHz
Processing Power1.43 TFLOPs1.43 TFLOPs1.15 TFLOPs

The updated Zen2 Ryzen 4000 platforms offer not just a significant increase in core/thread count over the Ryzen 7 3750H, but also improved IPC and multiple other various optimizations, as well as a more powerful Vega iGPU implementation. That’s not going to matter much though, as Ryzen H APUs are always bundled with some sort of dedicated GPU that will handle the demanding graphics loads instead.

As far as the performance goes, let’s jump straight into the demanding CPU loads. We ran tests on two different Ryzen 7 4800H notebooks from Asus (the TUF Gaming A15 and A17 variants), which offer a Turbo power profile that increases the CPU’s power allocation in demanding loads. That’s similar for Intel platforms, just keep in mind that not all notebook are created equally, and some might not be as generous.

For the first test, we’re running Cinebench R15 for 15+ loops on these Turbo profiles, which set a TDP of 54W for these Ryzen 7 4800H. That’s allowing them to run at higher clocks than on a standard 45W implementation.

 

Ryzen 4800H Cinebench Benchmarks - Turbo modes

However, Asus also offers a Performance profile that tames down the fans and sets a lower 35W TDP, and we’ve included these results down below as well. The two scenarios paint a general picture of what to expect from various implementations on this Ryzen 7 4800H platform.

Ryzen 7 4800H Cinebench benchmarks in Performance power profiles

And here’s a quick comparison between these several AMD platforms. These results are based on the Ryzen 7 4800HS in the Asus ROG Zephyrus G14, the Ryzen 5 4600H in the Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA506IU (review available soon), and the Ryzen 7 3750H results on the Asus TUF Gaming FX505. We haven’t properly logged our findings for the Cinebench R20 tests on the 35W 4800H implementation, so we’ll update that in a future article.

Ryzen 7 4800H (FA506)Ryzen 7 4800H (FA706)Ryzen 7 4800HS (GA401)Ryzen 5 4600H (FA506)Ryzen 7 3750H (FX505)
Cinebench R15 CPU – 54W1846 cb1869 cb1731 cb1446 cb776 cb
Cinebench R15 Single Core – 54W188 cb188 cb188 cb177 cb153 cb
Cinebench R15 CPU – 35W1645 cb1678 cb1570 cb1325 cb776 cb
Cinebench R20 CPU – 54W4236 cb4249 cb3928 cb3245 cb1727 cb
Cinebench R20 Single Core – 54W468 cb481 cb478 cb449 cb362 cb

We also ran Prime95 on the 4800H configurations in order to show how the CPU deals with longer 100% loads. In both implementations the Ryzen 7 4800H kicks in hard, at around 54 W, but then settles at 45W after a few minutes, with slight frequency and temperature variations. The log below also shows what to expect in terms of temperatures, although that’s not really relevant in this sort of scenario, but rather in combined CPU and GPU chores. We’ll get to those further down.

This aside, we also ran a few other benchmarks on the various configurations, including GeekBench and 3DMark, as well as Blender, Handbrake video encoding and x265 Bench decoding. All these tests are running on the Turbo/Highest-performance settings.

Ryzen 7 4800H (FA506)Ryzen 7 4800H (FA706)Ryzen 7 4800HS (GA401)Ryzen 5 4600H (FA506)Ryzen 7 3750H (FX505)
3DMark – Fire Strike Physics2220722320209841837811436
3DMark – Time Spy CPU91269533823667923293
Blender – BMW Scene, CPU3m 35s3m 18s3m 44s4m 32s
Blender – Classroom Scene, CPU11m 15s10m 21s11m 32s14m 32s
Geekbench 4 64-bit – Multi-Core3094531614293342595513239
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Multi-Core82948370770167633660
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Single Core1195119811951117974
HandBrake 4K > 1080p encoding43.48 fps44.65 fps41.79 fps40.18 fps
PassMark CPU208352095019686171709766
PCMark 10 – Productivity74437245741169996076
PCMark 10 – Digital Content Creation65986101655858664667
x265 HD Benchmark33.48 fps32.68 fps35.58s41.02s74.76s

A couple of things to take out of these results:

  • First off, the 4800H implementation in the larger 17-inch TUF Gaming A17 scores a little bit higher in demanding CPU loads than the sample processor in the smaller 15-inch FA506.
  • The efficient 4800HS version holds its way excellently in most Single-Core tests, as scores within 10% of the full-power 4800H in multi-threaded loads. that’s excellent considering it runs at significantly less power.
  • The Ryzen 5 4600H scores at about 75% of what the Ryzen 7 in multi-core loads, and the differences get smaller in tasks such as video encoding/decoding or in the Productivity/Content Creation loads.
  • Keep in mind that PCMark 10 scores are influenced by the entire configuration, RAM, SSD and GPU.
  • Finally, the older Ryzen 7 3750H is outperformed across the board. The Ryzen 5 4600H offers roughly twice the performance, and the Ryzen 7 offers 2.5x results in most multi-threaded tests, with significant gains in single-core tests as well.

Finally, we should also talk about the gaming experience and thermals. These will vastly vary between implementations, based on graphics and thermal implementations available in each product. However, the fact that we’re comparing fairly similar Asus notebooks helps here.

We’ve added some results down below. Keep in mind we’re looking at the following configurations, and all the games are running on the Turbo profiles and FHD resolution:

FA506IVFA506IUGA401IVFX505DV
Battlefield V (DX 12, Ultra Preset, Ray-Tracing OFF)74-88 fps78-84 fps
Far Cry 5 (DX 11, Ultra Preset, SMAA)91 fps83 fps84 fps72 fps
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (DX 11, Ultra Preset)147 fps140 fps138 fps
Red Dead Redemption 2 (DX 12, Ultra Optimized, TAA)69 fps59 fps59 fps
Rise of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Very High Preset, FXAA)91 fps85 fps82 fps61 fps
Shadow of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Highest Preset, TAA)78 fps73 fps70 fps65 fps
Strange Brigade (Vulkan, Ultra Preset)119 fps106 fps109 fps
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (DX 11, Ultra Preset, Hairworks On 4)64-98 fps58-82 fps58-90 fps68-92 fps
  • The Witcher 3 – recorded with Fraps/in-game FPS counter in campaign mode;
  • Far Cry 5, Middle Earth, Strange Brigade, Red Dead Redemption 2, Tomb Raider games – recorded with the included Benchmark utilities;
  • Red Dead Redemption 2 Optimized profile based on these settings.

Finally, as far as thermals go, the entire range of Ryzen 7 4000 CPUs hit high temperatures with gaming and complex CPU/GPU loads, in the 85-95 degrees Celsius. Having a lower-tier GPU helps, but not that much, as you can see on the TUF A17 FA706II log.

In conclusion, AMD did a great job with the Ryzen 4000 H platform and the updated generation is a massive improvement of the previous Ryzen lineups. Unfortunately, AMD still needs to win more SKUs, especially in the premium implementations. Right now there are few Ryzen 4000 H laptops out there, and most are mid-tier and lower-end variants with up to RTX 2060 graphics. What I’m looking forward to are higher-tier models with RTX 2080+ graphics, which hopefully will be available later in the year.

That’s about for our review and benchmarks of the Ryzen 7 4800H platform. Let me know what you think about it in the comments section down below, and don’t forget that more details are available in each of our detailed laptop reviews.

Disclaimer: Our content is reader-supported. If you buy through some of the links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.
Andrei Girbea, Editor-in-Chief of Ultrabookreview.com. I've been covering mobile computers since the 2000s and you'll mostly find reviews and thorough guides written by me here on the site.

2 Comments

  1. Nicolas Jafelle

    April 1, 2020 at 5:12 pm

    Great comparision!! So, do you say that any of this new chipsets will be hotter than old ryzen 3500u and 3700u? maybe the 4600u will be the sweet spot between thermals, fan noise and performance? Thanks!

    • Andrei Girbea

      April 1, 2020 at 6:10 pm

      Wait, U series are different than H series and not included here. Did you mean the 4600H? If yes, that's also 45W. Temperatures are dependant on the power profiles implemented in each laptop, with the TUF Gaming models we've reviewed so far, Asus offers high TDP + High fans or average TDP and average fans, and both end up with hot CPU temperatures. Average TDP + high fans should offer better thermals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *