News AMD Z1 Extreme beats Intel Core Ultra 7 258V in DX12 gaming benchmark — Zen 4 chip offers over 90% higher performance

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Too many * in here for this to be a comparison to draw any conclusions from. A test really needs to be done with the same RAM and video resolution at a minimum. There is roughly a 2.5x pixel difference in the tested resolutions, RAM alone is not going to make up for that difference. Both I believe have configurable TDPs as well, without knowing that, which is "better" is almost impossible to say be simply looking at benchmark numbers alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albert.Thomas, TCA_ChinChin, rluker5 and 2 others
The 2.5x more pixel to render for Intel Core is overkill, having more RAM doesn't mean it will run that much faster with higher resolution, Actually RAM doesn't affect speed for this slow mobile GPU
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
While the Intel chip is likely carrying a heavier burden due to the higher resolution (2880x1800 vs. 1920x1080), it does have double the RAM to help it out.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most astounding things I've read given this is a tech site. A 150% increase in the number of pixels to render isn't going to be offset by having more DRAM. The only thing memory has to do with graphical rendering is whether or not you exceed the allocation and end up with terrible performance.
Gururu said:
Are the 258V systems using alchemist integrated graphics?
Click to expand...
Battlemage
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyrusfox, rluker5 and Jagar123
"That’s why you should wait for the results of trusted reviewers, like Tom’s Hardware"

and-you-said-5b031b.jpg
 
This is probably the most stupidest tech article I've come across in recent times. A Tom's Hardware reviewer who's comparing GPUs doesn't even know he has to test it with same/similar resolutions, otherwise the GPU will grossly under perform.

He's comparing Intel GPU with a resolution of 2880x1800 vs AMD GPU with a resolution of 1920x1080. That forcing the Intel GPU to process 2.5X more pixels! It's hilarious.

And the worst part is, he believes extra RAM can compensate this when he says "While the Intel chip is likely carrying a heavier burden due to the higher resolution (2880x1800 vs. 1920x1080), it does have double the RAM to help it out". It's mind numbing!

What is happening to Tom's Hardware?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyrusfox
The only thing this article really does is to illustrate what TH is. Most articles here are nothing but click bait, trying desperately to find ways to make interesting headlines going as far comparing apples and oranges while pretending there is a winner.

Come TH - do better.
 
I don't think any respected tech sites are dumb enough to dilute their reputation with these kinda of brainless click baits. Hurts their bottom line in the long run.

Looks more like an oversight that they've allowed one of their intern/new/junior reviewer to post this foolish article without checking it.
 
As most of the comments mentioned, there's a huge pixel difference between 2880x1800 and 1920x1080.

1920x1080 is about 2.1 million rendered pixels on screen and 2880x1800 is about 5.2 million rendered pixels (both numbers rounded to the nearest 100,000).

That's a huge difference in the number of pixels the GPU is rendering at any given time. How could it possibly be useful to compare two products at such different resolutions?
 
paviko said:
The 2.5x more pixel to render for Intel Core is overkill, having more RAM doesn't mean it will run that much faster with higher resolution, Actually RAM doesn't affect speed for this slow mobile GPU
Click to expand...
As we are not talking discreet GPU's with their own graphics memory, but setups where the main memory is being shared between the CPU and the on-die GPU ram maters a great deal. To little ram and it severely limits performance.

However so does the amount of pixels and really this article is full of problems like that, it is sadly a clear illustration of what TH is. That Anandtech recommended TH in it's goodbye message is a sad joke.
 
So a product running a totally different setup with pre release drivers is doing worse than a released one.

Not that you would want to buy any of those mobiles solutions if they don’t atleast have 64 GB for your vms and stuff.
 
the Ryzen Z1 Extreme had 12GB. It’s hard to make a faithful comparison since we’re looking at chips designed for different segments. This is quoted from the original article ...why in God's name do you still compare them.......the quality was already garbage on this website but it seems we can go down some more.
 
Awe, look at all the AMD fanboys weeping in the comments.

The article states what it needs to to keep you informed of what it's talking about. Despite some things being off.

All signs point to the Intel integrated solution moving forward is way ahead of its earlier hardware.

This is good. Not bad. Competition is great for all of us.

Better integrated GPUs are also good news for more budget gaming laptops. Although I'd still pay extra for an actual discreet GPU.

Igps still suck despite the tech tubies shilling for AMD all the time.
 
ManDaddio said:
Awe, look at all the AMD fanboys weeping in the comments.

The article states what it needs to to keep you informed of what it's talking about. Despite some things being off.

All signs point to the Intel integrated solution moving forward is way ahead of its earlier hardware.

This is good. Not bad. Competition is great for all of us.

Better integrated GPUs are also good news for more budget gaming laptops. Although I'd still pay extra for an actual discreet GPU.

Igps still suck despite the tech tubies shilling for AMD all the time.
Click to expand...
You likely didn't see the original article with inaccurate analysis claiming AMD was faster than Intel which is what everyone in the comments is talking about. Nobody was going fanboy as you suggest here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom