Surface Book 3 - Intel stomps AMD

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,291
Over at Laptop Mag, the Intel-equipped unit is showing better CPU performance, better battery life, and surprisingly better GPU performance!

From the article:
"The Surface Laptop 3 for Business is better than the AMD version in every important way but the price. The Intel processor offers significantly faster performance and better graphics than its AMD counterpart. You even get an extra 1.5 hours of battery life with the Intel version."
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,572
I need this fight to heat up so they bring out a Surface Pro worth upgrading to from the Surface Pro 4.
 

FearTheCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
4,873
In case anyone is wondering, and since the article mysteriously doesn't point it out, the Intel version uses a higher end mobile i7 while the AMD version uses a middle of the road Ryzen 5 processor.

So good for Intel on being able to beat AMD when comparing their high end versus the competition's mid grade!
 

Rvenger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,965
LOL -Apples VS Oranges, nice shill article. Of course its better, because common sense.


Also, the Ryzen in the MS Surface Laptop was kind of like a beta "lets see how this works in the market" and Microsoft kind of set it up to fail by using a midrange SKU. People looking for Surface products don't normally have a cheap budget in mind. Just put the best in there and call it a day.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,291
I need this fight to heat up so they bring out a Surface Pro worth upgrading to from the Surface Pro 4.
Not been looking at Microsoft's laptops -- more of an XPS fan -- but really what I want is a decent GPU with decent battery life.

Where AMD would get me would be for Dell (under Alienware) or Razer to produce and ultrabook-class laptop with a 1080p 120Hz VRR panel with a Zen 2 / Navi APU. Intel has claimed to support VRR, but it's not in Ice Lake, so AMD does have the opportunity to beat them to the punch here.
 

Mav451

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
4,591
I do believe that AMD made an odd decision putting a Vega 9 part in the 3580U (instead of a Vega 10).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen+#Mobile

I don't think it's a coincidence that the the 3580U is the only October 2019 part - released to directly compete with Intel's Q3'19 release of the Core i7-1065G7.

If we're being honest, I do think it's confusing for AMD to also have a Ryzen 7 mobile product that's only a quad-core, the Ryzen 7 3780U.
For as much shit as people gave Intel for doing this in the mobile space, AMD had no problem using the Ryzen 7 name for a quad-core part as well. So why isn't this the part in the Surface laptop for this review? Here's why.

If you configure the Surface with the Ryzen 7, the price starts at $2,099. The lowest price for the 3580U configs start at $1,199 (something is wrong with the prices on the laptopmag article), so there's definitely product stratification on.
I just think AMD simply didn't have something in the same price range. It is what is is.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,291
I just think AMD simply didn't have something in the same price range. It is what is is.
That is really the challenge. The article puts the price delta at US$200, which is pretty close. And consider further that a higher-performance AMD part would have even less battery life in a product that's decidedly focused on being mobile.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,278
Title is awkward. This is about the surface laptop not the book. Totally different machine
 

blandead

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
266
Intel is still very much superior for laptops. Current AMD laptop chips are zen+ based since they will be one gen behind desktop parts. So you are not going to see the IPC gains that ryzen 3000 showed
 

MMitch

Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
807
That is really the challenge. The article puts the price delta at US$200, which is pretty close. And consider further that a higher-performance AMD part would have even less battery life in a product that's decidedly focused on being mobile.
Well the higher SKU of AMD for the surface edition is also a 15W default TDP and their battery life isn't calculated on CPU/GPU intensive tasks. "involves continuous web surfing over Wi-Fi at 150 nits."
They didn't mention which WiFi standard was used here and the Intel has the advantage of having AX standard, anyway.

I'm skeptical on the pricing scheme here but yeah the price premium seems justifiable in this case but I would point out that they're basically using older generation against latest release from Intel. Would be nice to see an updated Surface edition using the newer Zen 2 cores one available.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
8,646
So the AMD 5 is slower than the I7 Intel? I am glad OP pointed this out! I had no idea!

Maybe post a better comparison next time?
 
Top