Intel Core Ultra 7 155H CPU Fails Miserably Against The AMD Ryzen 7 7840U In Linux Benchmarks (See the Phoronix article for the details and actual effort)
the latest version of the F13 with Core Ultra is an interesting choice. It seems to provide worse performance and battery for a higher price, at least in Linux. Is there something I’m missing here? Why would you spend $120 more for the Core Ultra 155H over the Ryzen 7840U?
It seems like the sale on the AMD F13 makes it an even better choice
And how about the with Inter Core Ultra 7 165H?
Same number of cores, .3Ghz faster. I wouldn’t expect any significant difference. 5% at most
I’ve seen pretty different benchmarks, and was surprised when this Phoronix article came out! May be a matter of Micheal Larabel using the 6.7.0 kernel for some reason? That’s quite an old kernel for bleeding edge hardware.
I suggest this video for far more in-depth benchmarks! Written english subs are available.
Yes, if the scheduler was not well adapted to Linux, the performance will be poor. This CPU has 3 types of cores: Performance, Efficiency and (new) Efficiency Low Power. That’s a lot for a scheduler to handle and it has to know a lot about what software the OS is running and which task to hand off to which core type. It can very easily get this wrong.
The simpler P+E cores in the 12th and 13th gen took quite some time to get right in Linux and early benchmarks were bad.
Notebookcheck has reviewed a number of 7840U and 155H laptops at this point. Performance is roughly on par between them so I think you can basically choose whichever color you like.
On the higher-end models (Core Ultra 7/Ryzen 7) the Ryzen might be the better deal. But I think between the Ryzen 7640U and the Core Ultra 5 125H the latter is the better choice as you only lose 2 P cores with the same amount of E cores and 1 CU on the iGPU, so multicore and iGPU performance should turn out to be superior to the 7640U.
With the new display, webcam and 61 Wh battery the price difference is 70,-€, which I think is really worth it.
Hence why I preordered one. I didn’t want to go with the more expensive CPU options as I feel like the next generation Intel/AMD CPUs will be such a big step that I’ll be quickly upgrading anyway, so I figured I’d save myself the 400,-€.
Despite NotebookCheck’s collection of reviews, I think that they are misleading and insufficient due to the broad differences between how OEM SKUs address heat management, CPU power delivery, and more.
I think that an in-depth review of the upcoming Framework Intel Core Ultra 1 series laptops could be a golden opportunity to finally be able to elucidate a truly in-depth, comprehensive and somewhat more scientific comparison between the Core Ultra 1 series (eg. 155H) and the AMD 7040U series (eg. 7480U).
I think that there’s been a lot of uncertainty online in the comparison between these two CPU series, especially because of the rather original approach that Intel has taken (chiplet tiles vs monolithic design) and that this Framework release will provide an opportunity for an unprecedentedly “clean” comparison given that everything aside from the chips would be the same.
In order to make the most of the in-depth comparison, the AMD Framework laptop also should use the same new 2.8k display as the new Intel one (the reviewer would need to upgrade it), in order to eliminate that as a differentiator in terms of battery life.
The article is 6 month old. Phoenix retested both AMD framework laptops, and a 155h laptop together with a 165u laptop last week:
EDIT: The article is new but data are still from Ubuntu 22.04 with kernel 6.5. Did not realized that.
I hope they’ll test in depth the Intel Ultra framework when it comes out.
Thanks everyone for the nuance 
You saying AMD Ryzen 7 784U is better than Intel Core Ultra 7 165H?
Yes it’s better, and will be even better: https://www.phoronix.com/news/AMD-VCN-Dynamic-Power-Gating
Take the AMD one
