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 vs Intel Core i7 9750H, i5-9300H and i9-9880 – benchmarks and analysis

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

AMD finally matters in the laptop space with their Zen 2 Ryzen 4000 H platform, and not just when it comes to performance in demanding loads, but also with daily use and gaming.

Gaming, in particular, is something the previous Ryzen platforms have struggled with, and that’s changing now.

In this article, we’re pitching the Ryzen 7 4800H mid-level APU in the Ryzen 4000 lineup, gainst the mid-range Intel Core i7-9750H counterpart, which is part of most competitive gaming laptops out there as of mid-2020. Furthermore, we’re throwing in the higher-tier i9-9880H as well, as although a more expensive option, that’s Intel’s 8C/16T tier-match for the Ryzen 7 4800H APU.

We’re also including the Core i5-9300H in our comparison, and that’s because some of you might consider that as well when shopping in the lower-budget, where Core i7 configurations of certain laptops might jump on top of your budget. And that will happen more often taht you’d think, as AMD APUs are generally implemented in lower and mid-tier notebooks, while Intel still gets a broader offer these days.

On the other hand, this article does not discuss the Intel 10th gen Core H processors (i7-10750H, i7-10875H, etc) though, as that’s a topic we’re covering in a separate article once those are out.

With that out of the way, here’s a quick specs sheet of the Ryzen 7 4800H versus the Intel options.

Ryzen 7 4800H Core i7-9750H Core i9-9880H Core-i5-9300H
Build process 7 nm 14 nm 14 nm 14 nm
Generation Zen 2 Coffee Lake Coffee Lake Coffee Lake
TDP 45 W 45 W 45 W 45 W
Cores/Threads 8/16 6/12 8/16 4/8
CPU Base Frequency 2.9 GHz 2.6 GHz 2.3 GHz 2.4 GHz
CPU Max Turbo 4.2 GHz 4.5 GHz 4.8 GHz 4.1 GHz
L3 Cache 8 MB 12 MB 16 MB 8 MB
Memory Type
DDR4 3200 MHz DDR4 2666 MHz DDR4 2666 MHz DDR4 2666 MHz
Graphics Radeon Vega, 8 CUs Intel UHD 630 Intel UHD 630 Intel UHD 630
Graphics Speed up to 1600 MHz up to 1150 MHz up to 1200 MHz up to 1050 MHz
Processing Power 1.43 TFLOPs ~.384 TFLOPs ~.384 TFLOPs ~.384 TFLOPs

Of course, AMD and Intel use different platforms with their own particularities. Zen 2 is built on a 7 nm processor though, which allows AMD the higher number of CPUs/thread and frequencies at a lower cost. Furthermore, it’s important to note that Zen2 supports faster memory and includes a far more capable iGPU, but that doesn’t actually matter in real-life, where any of these processors are bundled with some sort dGPU, most likely from Nvidia.

And that brings us to the performance of these platforms. Down below we’re including a bunch of different tests, and we’re starting with our Cinebench R15 multi-loop benchmarks which test the processors’ ability to perform and maintain their performance in longer-term demanding loads. The results we’re including in this article are based on these reviews:

We did out best to choose matching configurations across the board, but we had to go with the higher-tier model for the i9, as that CPU is most of the time only paired with this sort of graphics.

Keep in mind we’re using the highest performance profiles available in each case, but without including undervolted results for the Intel models, since that’s not also an option for the AMD products. That means you can expect 5-10% higher scores on some of the Intel models, but that’s varying between implementations.

Ryzen 7 4800H vs Core i7 9750H Cinebench benchmarks

And here’s a quick comparison between the Ryzen 7 4800H and the rest of the Intel Platforms, on their max-performance profiles.

Ryzen 7 4800H
(FA506)
Core i7-9750H
(GE65 Raider)
Core i7-8750H
(Helios 300)
Core i5-9300H
(Legion Y540)
Core i9-9880H
(GS75 Stealth)
Cinebench R15 CPU 1846 cb 1292 cb 1193 cb 844 cb 1668 cb
Cinebench R15 Single Core 188 cb 185 cb 173 cb 169 cb 195 cb
Cinebench R20 CPU 4236 cb 2772 cb 2577 cb 1941 cb 3532 cb
Cinebench R20 Single Core 468 cb 436 cb 416 cb 362 cb 466 cb

We also ran Prime95 on the TUF Gaming FA506IV 4800H configuration in order to show how the CPU deals with longer 100% loads. It kicks hard at around 54 W, but then settles at 45W after a few minutes, with slight frequency and temperature variations.

Most Intel configurations perform about the same in Prime95, but with exceptions.

Prime 95 stress test on the Ryzen 7 4800H

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

Ryzen 7 4800H
(FA506)
Core i7-9750H
(GE65 Raider)
Core i7-8750H
(Helios 300)
Core i5-9300H
(Legion Y540)
Core i9-9880H
(GS75 Stealth)
3DMark – Fire Strike Physics 22207 16800 16139 12081 21182
3DMark – Time Spy CPU 9126 6535 6460 4684 8771
Geekbench 4 64-bit – Multi-Core 30945 6535 19749 30440
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Multi-Core 8294 6052 4327 7762
Geekbench 5 64-bit – Single Core 1195 1188 1100 1208
PassMark CPU 20835 15092 14619 11094
PCMark 10 – Productivity 7443 7107 7149 7052 7308
PCMark 10 – Digital Content Creation 6598 7112 5250 7186 7805
x265 HD Benchmark 33.48 fps 48.92 fps 50.22 63.98s 36.45s

A couple of things to take out of these results:

  • First off, the 4800H is about on par with the Intel options in most single-core loads, and outmatches the i5 by 10-15%;
  • As far as multi-threaded loads go, the i9-9800H is the only one that comes even close to the R7 4800H, but the AMD APU still comes on top in most tests;
  • Compared to the Intel i7s though, the Ryzen 7 is roughly 1.3x faster, due to the improved IPC and higher number of cores/threads.
  • Keep in mind that PCMark 10 scores are influenced by the entire configuration, RAM, SSD and GPU, so no concludent for the CPU’s performance alone.

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. Again, there are the configurations we’re looking at:

We left the i0880H GS75 Stealth out of this one, since the GPU matters more than the CPU in games, and the RTX 2080 is no match for the 2060s in the others.

TUF FA506IV GE65 Raider Helios 300 Legion Y540
Battlefield V (DX 12, Ultra Preset, Ray-Tracing OFF) 80-90 fps 74-96 fps 74-88 fps
Far Cry 5 (DX 11, Ultra Preset, SMAA) 91 fps 98 fps 84 fps 84 fps
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (DX 11, Ultra Preset) 147 fps 123 fps 142 fps 114 fps
Rise of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Very High Preset, FXAA) 91 fps 88 fps 74 fps 88 fps
Shadow of Tomb Raider (DX 12, Highest Preset, TAA) 78 fps 81 fps 71 fps 74 fps
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (DX 11, Ultra Preset, Hairworks On 4) 64-98 fps 80-108 fps 78-94 fps 62-96 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.

Surprisingly perhaps for some, the AMD Ryzen CPU doesn’t help as much when it comes to gaming. In fact, most of the Intel models are on par of fare better with games, even with the lower power GPU in some cases. And keep in mind Intel notebooks can be further tweaked, by undervolting the CPU and then overclocking the GPU, as you can find from our reviews, and thus end-up outmatching the AMD configuration across the board. Yes, even, the i5-9300H/RTX 2060 80W configuration in the Legion Y540 ends up better in games once tweaked.

There’s no way to tweak the Ryzen 7 APU as of right now, though, and it might not be for a while, since Ryzen Mobile has never been supported by AMD Master in the past. Furthermore, AMD systems tend to run very hot: the CPU averages temperatures in the mid-90s on the TUF Gaming FA506, with the GGPU averaging around 80 C. That leaves very little room to further overclock the GPU.

In comparison, most of the Intel configurations run at lower temperatures, and that allows the GPUs to run at higher clocks, and leave that room for overclocking.

In conclusion, Intel still has the edge over AMD models when it comes to the gaming experience, but with Ryzen 4000, AMD are now a lot closer than they were in the past. Furthermore, part of this is due to the fact that Intel platforms are integrated into higher-tier SKUs with superior thermal designs, such as the GE65 Raider or the ROG Scar. AMD hardware still only makes its way inside entry to mid-level products, such as the Asus TUFs and Acer Nitros, and that influences thermals and thus, the overall gaming experience. For what is worth though, this should hopefully change in the future, as there’s a lot of potential in these Ryzen 4000 H platforms and it’s partially wasted at this lower tier.

On the other hand, AMD mops the floor with most mid-level existing Intel platforms in productivity and multi-threaded loads. However, even this might change, though, with the Intel 10th gen Core H mobile platform, which will include an 8C/16T Core i7 CPU for the first time ever. We’ll talk about that in a future article.

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. Babe

    April 10, 2020 at 5:33 am

    Your geekbench Intel is wrong type.

Leave a Reply

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