The first laptop with an AMD Ryzen mobile processor is now available for purchase, and while the HP Envy x360 15z convertible notebook is a bit large for my tastes, with its 15.6 inch display, it’s still noteworthy as the first commercially available computer with an AMD Ryzen 5 2500U quad-core processor.

So I was happy to see that at least two websites, NotebookCheck and HotHardware, have taken a series of benchmarks for a spin on the new notebook.

The results show that AMD’s first Ryzen Mobile chip to hit the streets outperforms Intel’s 7th-gen Core U-series dual-core notebook processors by a wide margin… and stays pretty competitive with Intel 8th-gen quad-core chips.

That’s good news for consumers, since notebooks with AMD chips tend to be priced a bit lower than those with Intel processors. Of course, that could change as the performance gap lessens and AMD feels it can charge higher prices. But for now you get almost as much bang for a few less bucks.

Oh, and everything I said above? That’s about CPU performance. When it comes to graphics, the Ryzen 5 2500U has integrated AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 graphics which seems to be significantly more powerful than the Intel UHD 620 graphics you get with recent Intel chips for laptops.

In fact, the HP Envy x360 15.6 inch laptop with Ryzen/Vega performs about as well as a machine with an Intel Core i7-7500U chip and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX graphics in 3DMark11. Sure, that means AMD’s latest chip is competitive with a computer featuring a CPU and GPU from 2016… but AMD manages to do it in a single chip rather than two.

Meanwhile, power consumption seems to be pretty similar to a laptop with Intel + NVIDIA chips.

One more thing to keep in mind? The AMD Ryzen 5 2500U processor may be the first Ryzen Mobile chip you can get your hands on. But it won’t be the most powerful. A Ryzen 7 2700U chip is also on the way.

The HP Envy x360 15z is currently available from HP for $630.

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Subscribe to Liliputing via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,533 other subscribers

20 replies on “Early AMD Ryzen mobile benchmarks: They’re within spitting distance of Intel 8th-gen Core chips”

  1. $630 HP, but no actual specification i.e HDD or SSD, what size of battery is being used such as an 6. 8 or even 12 cell battery (which would be awesome) what amount of system ram being used (proper amount so actual dual channel benefit maintained instead of your normal way of using odd mismatched numbers) sure the price does not dictate ultra premium status, but, first out of the gate do NOT make AMD look bad cause you are taking short cuts as has been the case with HP for many number of years now.

  2. Super happy about this, anyone know whether the chips are bound to power only big-ish laptops due to heat / power restrictions? I’d love to see a 13-inch model running off one of these Ryzen chips, it’d beat having crappy Intel integrated graphics.

  3. For the common user the GPU is much more important than the CPU for the overall user experience. This is why these chips should make Intel worry. The fact that the CPU performance is about Intel’s 8th gen performance is just an added bonus.

    1. Despite good ol’ Johnny Walkers claims above…inkflow here is the real thinker in the group. I still love my Richland APU vs any of the Intels Sandy/Ivy/Haswell generation…sure, the cpu isn’t great…but that HD 8650 is a helluva lot better than HD 4000/4200/4600 graphics.

      I’ve waited for this next release since Richland…and I’m looking forward to what is going to be offered. Now…if we could actually get an upgradable socket…I’d probably be ecstatic.

      AMD really pissed me off when they started soldering those chips to the motherboard. SoC in a laptop is as bad as soldered memory….I hate both.

      1. Laptops with upgradable CPUs is never going to happen. There simply isn’t a big enough market to warrant completely overhauling a laptop design to allow for (a) the extra space a socketed processor would need or (b) providing the access users would need to change the processor aftermarket.

        It would also require the manufacturers to adhere to a pin-out standards as they do for desktop processors (for a couple of generations anyway), which would limit what they could do from one design to the next.

        So, yeah, except for some boutique (read expensive) bespoke design, replaceable processors is never going to happen in laptops.

        1. socketed laptop cpus were a thing a while back, source, my Clevo laptops with their socketed sandybridge/ivybridge chips (35 and 45W models, not desktop chips). The only problem with sockets was thickness so we dropped them in the search for shaveable millimeters. None of the other stuff (pinout etc) really matters as we still maintain most of that from one generation to the next.

    2. Actually, that’s not true. People who play 3D video games might care, but “the common user” only cares if their laptop can run their productivity apps, their browser, and their HD videos well. Intel’s current generation of embedded graphics is perfectly capable of doing all those things, without any noticeable slowdown.

      Happy for AMD to have any kind of edge after all this time running way behind Intel, but let’s not kind ourselves, who gets the bulk of the laptop sales next year will be down to which company executes the best when it comes to design wins with manufacturers and stuffing the channels with their products. Most potential new laptop owners couldn’t care less which processor drives their computer.

      1. Having a strong GPU is important for having a fluid and hiccup-free UI. Take your browser window and drag it, my bet is that it won’t be fluid. Most people are “used” to crappy UI, that is why they are not aware that a strong GPU is important for their overall experience.

        If I’ll give you a CPU with 128 cores, chances are you won’t be able to tell the difference from a 2/4 cores CPU. On the other hand, noticing a fluid UI is much more easier.

        1. I’m running on an Atom X7-Z8700 and just did your drag a browser window test and it was nice and fluid. At least, any stutter was not noticeable even though I was looking for it.

          Integrated graphics are sufficient for the “common” user. Anything more would be in the gamer territory and I’m not sure these APUs will be good enough for those people.

          1. Well my quad core i7 + nvidia 940 can’t do it perfectly…

            AMD’s new APUs are certainly not for gamers (or any other graphics intensive application), but they are a good step in the right direction.

            What I’m trying to say is that GPUs are much more of a bottleneck than CPUs and it’s easier to notice a GPU limit than a CPU limit. That said, there are many other bottlenecks in a computer system which are usually much more severe: network bandwidth and latency, HDD speed, USB speed and so on.

        2. Realistically tho, the crappiest Intel integrated graphics can handle the UI just fine by now, hiccup-free video playback however is another story.

  4. Now, does the AMD Chip have a separate processor to allow remote takeover and access, like the i-Series Intel chips have, with their secretive iME processor running a MINUX operating system?

    1. Yes, similar to some Intel chips, some AMD chips have a separate ARM processor for “secure management”. I’m not sure if this specific chip (Ryzen 5 2500U) has it though.

  5. Any idea when we will see these in small HTPC form factors? Really holding out on replacing an aging system for my home office and adding a system to the living room. Would rather wait for Ryzen options, but not knowing is mildly annoying.

    1. CES is coming up soon. Perhaps we’ll know something by then. I recall Zotac refreshing their lines at last year’s CES. And I’ve read they have boards ready for Raven Ridge.

      1. The trouble with CES and stuff like the Zotac line is they seem to announce a bunch of stuff they never actually release to market or talk about it like it is around the corner in January and then it has a trickled release on damn near the last day of the third quarter. I was hoping to purchase this year. If not, I will probably buy NUCs and have a good five years before I next look at an APU (unfortunately). The APU on the system I am using now is getting rather long in the tooth and the resources are getting outstripped by increasing demands.

  6. never mind, i did the research myself and found out that yes, the AMD one uses quite a bit less power (while costing 180.00 dollars less mind you) seeing as you get over 9 hours of battery life than the Intel one that gets about 8 hours, but fanboys will be fanboys will they not? i wonder how long this will comment stay up for.

    1. Good for you John. You went beyond accepting someone else’s opinion and was able to discover the simple truth of the matter. One more question for you. Why do you think HP released the lower performing version of Raven Ridge first? Could it be that they don’t have access to the 2700U chips?

      1. Where did he discover the truth?
        I see no sources published where he “did the research”. Otherwise, its just the opinion of one fan over another.

        Guess, I will have to wait and read professional reviews by the likes of Anadtech and etc etc, when the devices are out.

        (Not that I don’t think it will be more power efficient, I’m starting to doubt the Vega GPU, and the skeptic in me says “let’s wait and see”)

  7. which one uses less power, i don’t care if they are about the same 1 watt less is still 1 watt less. something tells me it is AMD.

Comments are closed.