It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked Specified at 15 Watt TDP, the SoC is intended for thin mid-range laptops. Therefore, the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U should be slightly ahead the Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U. It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked at 2.3 - 4 GHz with a Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics card with 10 CUs (640 Shaders) clocked at up to 1400 MHz. AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 vs Intel Core i7-10700K. The integrated dual-channel memory controller supports up to DDR4-2400 memory.

The Picasso SoCs use the Zen+ microarchitecture with slight improvements that should lead to a 3% IPS (performance per clock) improvements. Using cTDP-down, the CPU can also be configured to 35 Watt resulting in a reduced performance. Furthermore, the 12nm process allows higher clock rates at similar power consumptions. #0 checking url part for id 11141 +0s ... 0s, #1 checking url part for id 11332 +0s ... 0s, #2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s, #3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old!

Therefore, the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U should be slightly ahead the Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U. According to Intel, the CPU is manufactured in an improved 14nm (14nm++) process.

AMD Ryzen 7 3700U: Intel Core i7-8565U: Lenovo ThinkPad E595 - AMD Ryzen 7 3700U Acer Aspire 5 (A515-54G-59WR) HP 14-dk0008ng 14 Zoll Laptop HP 15-db1013ng 15.6 Zoll Laptop HP 17-ca1245ng 17.3 Zoll Laptop HP Envy x360 15-ds0007ng 15.6 Zoll Convertible Notebook: Acer Aspire 5 Acer Spin 3 Acer Swift 3 Acer Swift 5 It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked at 2.3 - 4 GHz with a Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics card with 10 CUs (640 Shaders) clocked at up to 1400 MHz.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is a mobile SoC for business laptops that was announced in April 2019. This comes from the differences of performance in different laptops. In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. AMD 3700U (PRO) vs Intel i7-8665UE Similar microprocessors are based on the same core and fit the same socket as Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U (PRO) and Intel i7-8565U. Share links #0 checking url part for id 11332 +0s ... 0s, #1 checking url part for id 11350 +0s ... 0s, #2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s, #3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! On this page, you'll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information. The Intel Core i7-9850H is a high-end processor for laptops with six cores based on the Coffee Lake architecture (2019 refresh, CFL-HR). Specified at 15 Watt TDP, the SoC is intended for thin mid-range laptops.

The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, It has 8 … As the features of the Picasso APUs are the same compared to the Raven Ridge predecessors, we point to our Raven Ridge launch article.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is a mobile SoC for business laptops that was announced in April 2019.

We do expect a performance improvement, but as a low-end solution it will probably only display current games smoothly at reduced details - if at all. The Picasso SoCs use the Zen+ microarchitecture with slight improvements that should lead to a 3% IPC (performance per clock) improvements. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U is a mobile SoC for business laptops that was announced in April 2019. It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked at 2.3 - 4 GHz with a Radeon RX Vega 10 graphics card with 10 CUs (640 Shaders) clocked at up to 1400 MHz.

AMD states that the Picasso APUs are about 8% faster than the predecessors. AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U remove.

You can select more than one device. Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11), - CB R15 + R20 + 7-Zip + X265 + Blender + 3DM11 CPU, AMD Picasso (Ryzen 3000 APU) R7 PRO 3700U, 2048MB Dual-Channel Adrenalin 19.5.2 (26.20.11015.5009), DDR4 (Shared-Memory)MB AMD Adrenalin 14.84.20.01, 2048MB DDR4 (shared Memory) Adrenalin 18.41.18, 2048MB DDR4 (shared Memory) Adrenalin 18.41.18 Edge: 44.17763.1.0, 2048MB DDR4 Adrenalin 18.41.18 Edge 44.17763.1.0, DDR4 (Shared-Memory)MB AMD Adrenalin 14.84.20.01 EDGE: 44.17763.1.0, 2048MB Dual-Channel Adrenalin 19.5.2 (26.20.11015.5009) Edge 44. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700U is a mobile SoC that was announced in January 2019. Compare the main Features, Specifications, Prices and Select the Best Model. AMD states that the Picasso APUs are about 8% faster than the predecessors. Please share our article, every link counts! Intel Core i7-10700K vs. Ryzen 7 3700X vs. Ryzen 9 3900X 9900K Performance for Less ... 32GB of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory and a Corsair Hydro H150i Pro 360mm all-in-one liquid cooler. Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11), AMD Picasso (Ryzen 3000 APU) R7 PRO 3700U, Dual-Channel DDR4 Memory Controller, HyperThreading, AVX, AVX2, Quick Sync, Virtualization, AES-NI. You can select more than one device. The processor clocks at between 2.6 and 4.6 GHz (4 GHz with 6 cores) and can execute up to twelve threads simultaneously thanks to Hyper-Threading. The integrated dual-channel memory controller supports up to DDR4-2400 memory. Compared to the predecessor, the Core i7-8850H, the 9850H offers only improved clock rates. Compared to the similar consumer variant Ryzen 7 3700U, the PRO model features additional management and security features (e.g., full memory encryption) and longer warranty / availability. The Picasso SoCs use the Zen+ microarchitecture with slight improvements that should lead to a 3% IPS (performance per clock) improvements.

As the features of the Picasso APUs are the same compared to the Raven Ridge predecessors, we point to our Raven Ridge launch article. For example, the ThinkPad E595 offers a miles better short and long-term CPU performance compared to the HP Envy x360 (see Cinebench R15 loop below). Intel specifies the TDP with 45 watts and therefore the i7 is only suited for big laptops with good cooling solutions.

Furthermore, the 12nm process allows higher clock rates at similar power consumptions.

Due to the two additional cores, performance has increased by almost 50% compared to a similar clocked Kaby Lake processor like the Core i7-7920HQ (3.1 - 4.1 GHz). Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 on one side and the Intel Core i7-10700K on the other side. The Coffee Lake architecture is similar to Kaby Lake and differs only in the amount of cores (now six cores for the high end versions) and the improved 14nm process (14nm++ according to Intel). Compared to the similar consumer variant Ryzen 7 3700U, the PRO model features additional management and security features (e.g., full memory encryption) and longer warranty / availability. Compared to the i7-8850H, the performance improved only slightly. The integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 iGPU is supposed to offer a slightly higher performance as its clock rate has been increased by 50 MHz (rumored). However, even the slow examples offer enough performance for demanding multi tasking. Single-core performance has not improved since its Kaby Lake predecessor.

Compared with Intel CPUs, the Ryzen 7 is on par with a Core i5-8250U on average, but e.g.

Created at Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:52:55 +0200 +0.003s ... 0.003s, #6 got avg benchmarks for devices +0.082s ... 0.417s, #7 skipping 671/2015 for average % as not all devices got results +0.672s ... 1.089s, #8 skipping 671/2014 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #9 skipping 62/250 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #10 skipping 62/491 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #11 skipping 22/36 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #12 skipping 22/37 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #13 skipping 22/238 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #14 skipping 22/239 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #15 skipping 50/204 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #16 skipping 50/203 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #17 skipping 91/360 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #18 skipping 92/362 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #19 skipping 92/361 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #20 skipping 93/365 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #21 skipping 93/364 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #22 skipping 93/363 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #23 skipping 5/2245 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #24 skipping 6/2242 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #25 skipping 7/2243 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #26 skipping 8/2244 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #27 skipping 37/155 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #28 skipping 201/602 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #29 skipping 393/1073 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #30 skipping 393/1072 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 1.089s, #31 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 1.089s. AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K . It combines four Zen+ cores (8 threads) clocked at 2.3 - … in the E595 it can be matched with higher end Intel counter parts. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X We compared two 8-core desktop CPUs: the 3 GHz Intel Core i7 9700 against the 3.6 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. Created at Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:52:55 +0200 +0.006s ... 0.006s, #6 got avg benchmarks for devices +0.147s ... 0.273s, #7 skipping 671/2015 for average % as not all devices got results +11.378s ... 11.651s, #8 skipping 671/2014 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #9 skipping 62/250 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #10 skipping 62/491 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #11 skipping 22/36 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #12 skipping 22/37 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #13 skipping 22/238 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #14 skipping 22/239 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #15 skipping 50/204 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #16 skipping 50/203 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #17 skipping 91/360 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #18 skipping 92/362 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #19 skipping 92/361 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #20 skipping 93/365 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #21 skipping 93/364 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #22 skipping 93/363 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #23 skipping 5/2245 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #24 skipping 6/2242 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #25 skipping 7/2243 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #26 skipping 8/2244 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #27 skipping 201/602 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #28 skipping 201/648 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #29 skipping 201/715 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #30 skipping 136/457 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #31 skipping 136/456 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #32 skipping 136/455 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #33 skipping 136/454 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #34 skipping 136/453 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #35 skipping 235/683 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #36 skipping 235/682 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #37 skipping 235/852 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #38 skipping 235/851 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #39 skipping 393/1073 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #40 skipping 393/1072 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #41 skipping 693/2089 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #42 skipping 693/2090 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #43 skipping 124/649 for average % as not all devices got results +0s ... 11.651s, #44 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 11.651s.