It’s the battle of the quad core laptop CPUs, in this video I’ll be comparing the
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H against the Intel i5-8300H CPU to find out which is superior in a number
of applications and games.
Let’s start off with the differences in specs before getting into the benchmarks.
Both of these CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads. Both CPUs have the same 2.3GHz base clock
speed, and they both also have a maximum boost of 4GHz, however the Intel chip has a 45 watt
TDP while the Ryzen has a 35 watt TDP, though that’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison
due to different architectures.
The Intel chip is using their 14nm Coffee Lake architecture, while the Ryzen is based
on 12nm Zen+. There’s a cache difference too, 4mb for the Ryzen chip while the Intel
chip is doubled at 8mb. The last key difference between them is the memory support. The Ryzen
7 3750H supports dual channel memory at DDR4-2400, while the Intel i5-8300H supports DDR4-2666,
so the Intel platform has a slight advantage on the memory speeds as well.
Alright with the specs out of the way let’s check out the machines we’re testing with.
For the Intel i5-8300H I’m using my Lenovo Y530, a good option as it doesn’t seem to
pass the 45 watt TDP limit while under CPU only load, like some other laptops do. For
the Ryzen 7 3750H I’m testing with the ASUS TUF FX505DU, and both laptops were tested
with dual channel memory. You can find links to my full reviews of each and pricing in
the description.
Let’s start out with the classic Cinebench R15, because so many people are still so familiar
with the scoring system. In this test the Intel 8300H is ahead both in single core and
multi core performance, with an 11.6% lead for single core and a 6.7% lead for multi
core when compared to the Ryzen 3750H.
Don’t worry, I’ve got the newer Cinebench R20 results as well. Again the 8300H was coming
out ahead, with a 3.8% higher single core score and 8% higher multi core score, so not
quite as high when compared to the older R15 version shown previously.
Let’s look at something more practical, at least for me. I use Adobe Premiere to create
all my videos, and these are the export times for a 10 minute 1080p video. You’ll note
that the 8300H is ahead at the top, but much farther ahead in the middle bar which has
Quick Sync enabled. Adobe Premiere is able to take advantage of this, and it’s something
Intel CPUs have had at the hardware level for years, and is something Premiere can’t
do with AMD CPUs at this time. This gives a huge boost to the Intel CPU. The result
up the top is with the 8300H and software only, so no hardware acceleration just like
the AMD CPU, and even without Quick Sync we’re seeing the 8300H complete the task 37% faster
than the 3750H, so video editors probably want to preference an Intel option.
I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere, basically it analyzes a
piece of footage and smooths it out, and I believe it only uses a single CPU core. In
this case the Intel 8300H was only completing the task 3.3% faster than the Ryzen 3750H,
nowhere near as big of a difference compared to exporting a video.
My blender tests were done using Blenchmark, so the standard BMW and Classroom benchmarks.
The results were interesting, this was one of the few tests where the 3750H was actually
coming out ahead, though the differences are quite small, but it was completing the tasks
a few seconds faster. I ran this multiple times and got pretty much the same results,
under this workload the 8300H was seeing more power limit throttling than other tests, which
resulted in lower clock speeds, hence the close results.
Next up we’ll look at some Handbrake results. I’ve converted one of my 4K video files
to 1080p, shown by the smaller lighter purple bars, and a separate 1080p video file to 720p,
shown by the longer darker purple bars. In both cases the 8300H is faster than the 3750H
in terms of how many frames per second are processed, 6.8% faster for the 4K file but
then 14% quicker with the 1080p file.
I’ve used the 7-Zip benchmark to test compression and decompression speeds, and while the 8300H
was a large 32.7% faster at compression, the 3750H scores a small win, and is about 4%
faster when it comes to decompression. Much less of a difference between the two when
it comes to decompression compared to the bigger compression difference though, so all
around the 8300H is looking like a more balanced option.
I’ve used VeraCrypt to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and there was a much
smaller difference between the two CPUs in this test. The 8300H was performing encryption
operations just 2% faster, and decryption 2.4% faster than the Ryzen 7 3750H, so doesn’t
appear that it matters much which you pick for this workload.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, and in this specific workload
there was a fairly large 19.5% higher score with the i5-8300H CPU, which was getting about
1000 points higher in this test.
The Corona benchmark also uses the CPU to render out a scene, and with this test the
8300H was 15% faster than the 3750H.
I’m not personally a fan of GeekBench and don’t usually use it, however I had quite
a few requests to add it in, so here we are. There was a 15.7% higher score with the 8300H
for the multicore result, and a similar 15.8% higher score when it came to single core performance.
When we combine the results of all of these tests, the Intel i5-8300H is around 17% faster
than the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, however we can see this is skewed quite a bit by the massive
result up the top, which was the Adobe Premiere export with quick sync. While it’s completely
valid that Intel CPUs can complete these tasks significantly faster due to hardware acceleration
that the software can take advantage of, I’ve also got a graph showing the results without
that one. Not everyone is a video editor, and not everyone with an Intel CPU will use
quick sync either, I think it doesn’t work if you export with the two pass setting, for
example. Anyway without the quick sync result on average the 8300H is still 10% faster,
but it really depends on the specific workload. The 3750H was ahead in decompression with
7-Zip, and just slightly faster in Blender, though it was very close.
Before we get into the gaming results, let’s check out the power draw. I’ve measured
the total system power draw from the wall, so this is the entire laptop and not only
the CPU, however I’ve measured during the Blender BMW benchmark, so the CPU should be
getting smashed. Additionally, if you recall the blender results previously both machines
actually completed the task in almost the same amount of time, but despite this the
8300H laptop was consuming 20% more power. Higher power draw on the Intel CPU was expected
due to its higher TDP, plus there will be differences with Intel’s 14nm architecture
and AMD’s 12nm Zen+.
This probably means we can expect more battery life out of a 3750H machine due to that lower
TDP and lower power draw. This isn’t a perfect apples to apples comparison, but the Lenovo
Y530 I’m using has a 3 cell 52.5 watt hour battery, while the ASUS TUF FX505DU has a
3 cell 48 watt hour battery, so the 8300H machine is a little larger. With the screen
on 50% brightness, keyboard lighting off and background apps disabled and just streaming
YouTube videos, the 3750H system lasted slightly longer despite having a smaller battery. This
could be down to the Vega graphics consuming less power than the Intel iGPU while streaming
video, I’m not certain, but the 3750H machine lasted longer with a smaller battery and running
the same task, which looks like a plus towards the Ryzen chip.
While I could have improved the performance a little with the i5-8300H by undervolting
it, I haven’t done that here, as I wanted to show real performance from an average laptop
with this chip, and you can’t currently undervolt the mobile AMD chips at the moment.
You could argue that that’s an advantage of the Intel chip, and I’d agree, though
I don’t think most people buying laptops will be doing this, it’s more of an enthusiast
thing. For what it’s worth, I did run the Blender test again with the undervolt applied,
as I wanted to see if this would help reduce the power limit throttling that made both
CPUs basically even in that test.
I only saw a few seconds difference though, so in my specific case I don’t think there’s
too much to gain, but it would of course vary by workload and probably even between different
laptops with the same CPUs. In most workloads, undervolting should also see less overall
power draw from the Intel system, unless it’s still hitting the power limit once undervolted,
which mine was doing in the Blender test, so I had no change in that workload to power
draw either. Maybe in future I should note the power draw for every single CPU test and
compare, however I didn’t do that here.
For the gaming tests I’m using the Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics that are built into the
Ryzen CPU, and the UHD 630 graphics built into the Intel CPU. Neither of these are going
to provide an amazing gaming experience, but I think it’s still important to see what
we’re getting in the cases where we may not have discrete graphics available.
Overwatch was tested at 720p with high settings, and we’re getting more than double the average
frame rate with the Vega graphics, or a massive 136% improvement, pretty crazy. It was actually
playable and went well on Vega, but noticeably worse, though still usable with the Intel
graphics.
Similar deal in Fortnite at 720p at high settings, except this time there’s a huge 196% improvement
to average FPS with the Vega graphics, and even the 1% low with is far ahead of the average
FPS the 8300H was able to give us.
CS:GO was tested at 720p and all settings maxed out, the Vega graphics were again coming
out far ahead, with a large 108% lead in average frame rate when compared to the Intel CPU.
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to properly test gaming differences here using discrete
graphics. My 8300H laptop has a GTX 1060, while my 3750H laptop has a GTX 1660 Ti. It
would be nice if I could get a 8300H laptop with the 1660 Ti, but that seems unlikely,
as the Intel 9th gen CPUs came out around the same time I don’t think there would
be any. Even if they are, I don’t have any available to test with at the moment. With
that said, I might compare these two machines in gaming in a future video if there’s enough
interest, let me know, but for the purposes of this CPU comparison it doesn’t make sense.
I also haven’t been able to test differences like thermals, as both laptops have entirely
different cooling solutions I can’t do an apples to apples comparison there, however
you can see the temperatures in my full review videos linked in the description. Under heavy
load, I did have note my 8300H system was running hotter while the 3750H ran noticeably
cooler, but yeah it will really depend on the specific laptop and workload. This is
what I’d expect, the Intel chips likely run hotter with their higher TDP, more power
equals more heat.
As for price difference, it’s a little hard to compare. The 8300H was released in Q2 2018,
while the 3750H was released in Q1 2019. The 8300H has already been replaced by the 9300H
in Q2 2019, so I haven’t been able to find good examples of the same laptop with just
different CPUs. Not only that, but there are also GPU differences to account for which
further affect prices, so unfortunately I don’t have good examples.
Based purely on a meeting I had with a laptop company at Computex, Intel CPUs do cost them
more money to buy, which is likely why we’re starting to see these AMD chips enter more
budget friendly mid range machines. It’s no secret that AMD’s current Radeon offerings
for laptops are lacking, so it’s not surprising we’re starting to see hybrid options like
the FX505DU with AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU. Yes, as we saw in my ASUS FX505DU game benchmarks,
the 1% lows are lower compared to Intel options as the CPU is weaker, however when it came
down to it the averages were still good and all games were playable at higher settings,
which I think matters more than numbers on the graph.
So while the 8300H is in general a superior CPU, it has a higher TDP, so uses more power,
likely runs warmer and possibly costs more money. The 3750H is quite capable, and if
it gives us lower cost machines then it’s good to have that option available, but personally
I’m hoping AMD’s success on the desktop side starts trickling over to the laptop side
more in the future, as having more options available benefits everyone.
As for what you should choose, it seems to depend on the specific workload. For example,
video editors using Adobe Premiere would see very nice benefits with the Intel CPU, especially
if using quick sync when exporting. If the laptop has no discrete Nvidia or AMD graphics
then the Vega GPU in the 3750H is going to give a much better experience than the Intel
8300H in gaming, and the Ryzen chip may also see better battery life, but in terms of raw
performance in most applications the 8300H is the clear winner.
Let me know which of these CPUs you’d pick in your next laptop and why down in the comments,
and if you’re new to the channel get subscribed for future comparisons and tech videos like
this one.