The Ryzen 5 4600H is AMD's new mainstream processor in the H series, which is designed for high productivity and gaming notebooks. There is no Ryzen 3 option in the series, so the Ryzen 5 4600H is the lowest tier APU offered here.
This is the chip that AMD sells for entry-level systems, and yet it is a compelling piece of silicon to use inexpensive devices: you get 6 Zen 2 CPU cores and 12 threads, a base frequency of 3.0 GHz with a boost of up to 4.0 GHz, along with 8 MB L3 cache and a standard 45 W TDP.
With AMD, which offers 8 cores in more expensive parts like the Ryzen 7 4800H (see review), six cores can be easily integrated into mainstream laptops while maintaining good product segmentation.
You also get all the benefits of AMD's 7nm Zen-2 architecture. This means a significant increase in efficiency compared to parts of the previous generation, an improved IPC and an updated GPU design. The Ryzen 5 4600H has an integrated Vega GPU with 6 processing units that are clocked at up to 1,500 MHz. In practice, however, the vast majority of systems using this APU also have a discrete GPU.
The direct competition comes from the latest 10th generation from Intel as well as older parts that are still available. Intel offers Core i5 options for the entry-level market. However, these are just quad-core designs with average clock speeds. The Core i5-10300H, for example, clocks up to 4.5 GHz and packs 8 MB L3 cache in its 45 W TDP.
This newer part of the 10th generation is not that different from the quad cores that were before. We get a small clock speed gain compared to the Core i5-9300H, which is itself a small clock speed gain on the Core i5-8300H. If we trace it back a few generations, you will find a similar design for the Core i7-6700HQ 2015. Since Intel is stuck at 14 nm all the time, AMD takes the opportunity to stir up the laptop market.
The laptop used for today's tests is the Asus TUF Gaming A15, which contains the Ryzen 5 4600H in conjunction with a GTX 1650 Ti GPU. This is a new entry-level GPU that, unfortunately, we can't currently use much comparison data for GPU-heavy benchmarks, but we'll work through it over time.
This laptop looks very similar to the TUF Gaming A15 that we used in our Ryzen 7 4800H review, but there are some subtle design differences, both inside and out. Cooling components are smaller units that have no exhaust air on the right side. The GPU is also a variant with lower power consumption compared to Ryzen 7 models. Asus also ships this laptop with 8 GB single-channel memory, so that a free DIMM slot is available for future upgrades. However, this significantly affects out-of-the-box performance.
In other words, this laptop is an average, affordable entry. However, to ensure a comparison of apples to apples with other systems, we replaced the memory with a full 16 GB two-channel DDR4-3200. Many entry-level systems use only a single DIMM, which is somewhat frustrating, but is still a standard way of saving money.
As usual, when we run laptop benchmarks, the numbers you see from other system specifications are an average of the results on multiple laptops with the same hardware configuration. We try to test apples as much as possible while eliminating bottlenecks. Unless otherwise stated, all configurations are tested with the default performance settings. For AMD and Intel CPUs, this usually means a long-term power limitation of 45 W.
Let's start with a look at Cinebench R20 and … wait, that can't be right. The Ryzen 5 4600H is at the top of the charts and not at the bottom, as you would expect from an entry-level APU. With a score of over 3200 points, the mainstream APU from AMD surpasses significantly higher processors from Intel in the multi-core test, such as the Core i7-10875H and the Core i9-9880H. This is impressive when you consider that AMDs parts only contain 6 cores, while Intel offers 8. The superior efficiency of Zen 2 enables AMD to make a double-digit profit over the 10875H, while having a major disadvantage.
The situation is even more impressive when the 4600H battles the new Core i7-10750H in a core-for-core battle. AMD's share of multithreaded performance is 27% faster and the same for single threads. This is pretty good as these chips don't really compete from a price point of view.
It's not as good as Ryzen Mobile can achieve in terms of efficiency. The Ryzen 7 4800H is a further 30 percent faster with the same power consumption. The usual situation of clocking more cores with a lower frequency is just as good for Zen 2 as it is for Intel CPUs.
The big kicker comes when we actually put the Ryzen 5 4600H against the chip it competes with, the Core i5-9300H. I haven't tested the new Core i5-10300H yet, but on paper it should be very similar to the 9300H, maybe a little faster. And in Cinebench R20, the Ryzen 5 4600H absolutely wipes out the 9300H. It is twice as fast for multithreads and around 8 percent faster for single threads.
We see similar outstanding results when we look at Cinebench R15, with almost twice the performance of the Core i5-9300H that we just talked about. The margins over the other processors from Intel also continue: 29% advantage over the Core i7-10750H and 21% advantage over the older Intel Core i7-9750H.
AMD doesn't mess with video encoding performance either. In the handbrake, the Ryzen 5 4600H delivers a crushing blow to the Core i5-9300H that is 65 percent faster. To put this scope into perspective: What the Core i5-9300H could encode in 68 minutes, the Ryzen 5 4600H does in just 41 minutes.
The 4600H is next to the Intel Core i7-10875H in terms of handbrake performance, which is very impressive in view of the enormous price differences between 4600H laptops and 10875H laptops.
AMD continues to produce massive numbers in all multithreaded areas, as was the case with Blender. The 4600H is more than twice as fast as the Intel Core i5-9300H and more than 30% faster than Intel's current six-core offering.
Ryzen is also good for code compilation. When compiling GCC, the Ryzen 5 4600H is more than 50% faster than the Core i5-9300H and has significant leads over Intel's six-core products. This GCC compilation contains components with several and one thread. However, if AMD isn't fully threaded, AMD appears to be achieving double-digit performance gains.
The Ryzen 5 4600H is also well suited for Chromium compilation with the settings recommended by Google. It's ~ 57% faster than Intel's quad-core competitor, though margins are slightly lower than six-core parts. The Ryzen 5 4600H is still 8% faster than the Core i7-10750H and around 20% faster than the Core i7-9750H.
For short-term workloads, Microsoft Excel gets a first glimpse of AMD's performance against Intel with the same L3 cache size. Both the Ryzen 5 4600H and the Core i5-9300H have 8MB of L3 cache, and AMD offers margins similar to other tests with a 45% performance advantage. However, as soon as you upgrade to an Intel CPU with a 16 MB cache, this high Excel workload fluctuates in favor of Intel, even if it is only marginal. AMD is almost able to compensate for the cache disadvantage by making the CPU core more efficient.
While this is representative of high Excel performance, AMD has a head start on lower productivity, as seen in the PCMark productivity test, thanks to the higher single-thread performance. We see a margin of 10% over the Core i5-9300H and a margin of around 7% over the Core i7-10750H and 9750H.
For general PC use for surfing the Internet and loading apps, AMD also holds a small lead here with its six-core processor of the H series. In the worst case, we get the same performance as a Core i7-10750H, which is a great place.
7-Zip is another workload that usually works well with AMD CPUs. The Ryzen 5 4600H is significantly faster than the Core i5-9300H in this test, and we also see a decompression lead of 20 to 25 percent over the six-core CPUs from Intel. Compression is another story, AMD flips the Core i5. but can't keep up with these Core i7 offers.
MATLAB R2020a is a widely used tool by engineers. The Ryzen 5 4600H is not only 28% faster than Intel's quad core, but also 7% faster than the Core i7-10750H.
The weakest result for Ryzen is the export of Adobe Acrobat PDF. In this single-thread test, the 4600H is slightly slower than the Core i5-9300H, and this latitude grows with the higher clocked parts from Intel like the Core i7-10750H.
AMD remains the faster CPU option for AES cryptography. This is a hardware accelerated feature on modern processors, and it seems that AMD has the better engine for it and is 30 percent ahead of Intel's competing laptop processors.
The following benchmarks are all computing workloads. This means that in addition to CPU usage, they also include some form of GPU usage. Given the system with a GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, we don't have solid comparison data for this test run, but we thought we would still include it for reference only. This way you can estimate how this type of system compares to some of the more expensive laptop options on the market.
Adobe Photoshop is not a very GPU-heavy application and is mainly dominated by CPU performance. The Ryzen 5 4600H performs well and matches the performance of the Core i7-9750H, although it has a slower GPU. This configuration significantly exceeds the Core i5-9300H in combination with a GTX 1660 TI. This is a good sign for developers who do a lot of Photoshop on their laptop.
Next up is Adobe Premiere. We are currently using beta version 14.2.0 for testing because it introduces hardware acceleration for Nvidia and AMD GPUs and should be representative of future performance. In the Puget export test, the Ryzen 5 4600H again performed well considering that it had a slower GPU.
And if you want to use software coding, e.g. For example, 2-pass coding, the Ryzen 5 system is well above its weight and lies between Core i7-10875H and Core i7-10750H systems, although it only offers an entry-level GPU for the effect of acceleration.
The editing experience on Ryzen is solid and works well in Puget's Live Playback workload, matching Core i7 processors. And for effects like Warp Stabilizer, the Ryzen APUs are a class above the Intel offerings.
Our final productivity burden is DaVinci Resolve Studio. Here the GPU plays an important role in coding performance. Since the GTX 1650 Ti is not the most powerful GPU there is, it falls at the bottom of the charts. It should be interesting to see how the 4600H performs in combination with something stronger like a GTX 1660 Ti or RTX 2060. This is currently the only laptop we could find with the 4600H.
We also wanted to show at least one form of gaming benchmark, but the GTX 1650 Ti is easily surpassed by other GPUs in our database. Even in a game like CS: GO with low settings, the benchmark pass had some sections that were limited to the GPU with this discrete 50 W card. We only have to wait for a correct comparison for gaming performance, since this GPU-restricted environment is not suitable. For gaming purposes, we expect most GTX 1650 Ti systems to perform similarly due to the GPU bottleneck. The CPU doesn't matter much.
Breakdown of benefits
Let's go through some performance comparisons before we finish. The Ryzen 5 4600H is significantly faster than the Core i5-9300H in most workloads, which we also suspect with the Core i5-10300. Multi-thread performance is up to twice as fast with AMD's core count and efficiency advantage, but even with single-thread performance, we were able to perform better in most cases. For frequent use cases such as decompression, cryptography, loading apps, surfing the internet and low productivity, the 4600H was the faster CPU.
The Ryzen 5 4600H is also generally faster than the Core i7-10750H, a higher tier CPU from Intel with the same six-core layout. In multi-thread workloads, the 4600H was 20 to 30 percent faster and did better in some tests with fewer threads. With the 10750H clock in the high 4 GHz range for burst applications as well as excellent single-thread performance and a higher cache, the Core i7 CPU can conquer the performance crown in some tests.
The same applies to the Core i7-9750H, although in areas where the Intel part wins, the margins are closer than we just saw. We can safely say that with this generation of laptop CPUs, AMD offers better performance with the same number of cores.
The Ryzen 5 4600H can hold its own against the 8-core i7-10875H in multi-core tests. In fact, the Ryzen 5 4600H can be up to 10 percent faster. With superior single-thread performance and higher clock speeds, however, there are also many workloads where the Ryzen 5 4600H is not faster.
We mentioned in the past that the Ryzen 7 3750H was not a very good laptop processor, and this is clearly shown by the performance gains that AMD was able to achieve when switching to Zen 2. The Ryzen 5 4600H decimates AMD's flagship from the previous one. sometimes a 100% increase in performance that sounds almost ridiculous.
With the Ryzen 5 4600H stacking up to the Ryzen 7 4800H, it's no surprise that the Ryzen 5 option is falling behind. In general, the 4600H is ~ 20 percent slower for multithreaded tasks and 4 to 8 percent slower for single-thread tasks. What is impressive here is that AMD can add 33% more cores in the same 45 W power case with the same boost properties, which corresponds to a performance increase of around 30% from 4600H to 4800H.
Parts with a higher number of cores are usually more efficient in mobile form factors because they are in a more favorable position on the voltage-frequency curve, but AMD goes beyond what is normally possible. This is probably a result of binning and the simple use of higher quality silicon for the 8 core chips. And while the 4600H is in a lower compartment, it still offers much better performance than other CPUs in its class.
It's hard not to be impressed with what AMD delivers with Ryzen Mobile APUs of this generation. The Ryzen 7 4800H achieves a 30 to 40 percent advantage in multi-core performance over the current high-end 8-core processors from Intel. While this sets the right tone for Zen 2 on laptops, we believe the Ryzen 5 4600H is the most impressive bundle.
This six-core CPU offers a performance advantage over the Intel Core i5 quad cores that is simply unknown in the mobile field. You don't see 2x performance leads very often within the same price range, let alone with performance-constrained laptop form factors.
Simply put, the Ryzen 5 4600H clearly outperforms and often beats or beats Intel's Core i7 processors, especially the Core i7-10750H.
Simply put, the Ryzen 5 4600H clearly outperforms and often beats or beats Intel's Core i7 processors, especially the Core i7-10750H. Intel may have been a bit blind because it only offered a quad-core CPU in the Core i5-10300H. Admittedly, the Core i5 series is not very popular with OEMs. Regardless of whether the Ryzen 5 4600H competes against the Core i5 series or a Core i7, AMD is still ahead of most productivity workloads.
How well the Ryzen 5 4600H performs in practice depends heavily on the system in which it is integrated. In budget systems that use it, the CPU is not a problem, but performance limitations can be caused by the memory or GPU configurations, as is the case with this Asus TUF system, which we estimate is based on the Targets price from 900 to 950 USD.
The Ryzen 5 4600H is powerful enough to ask interesting questions about laptop configurations. In most cases, OEMs offer Core i7 upgrades for all models above the base models because Intel's quad core isn't as good. But is a Core i7 or even Ryzen 7 required to get started with the mid-range system? Could OEMs, for example, offer a GTX 1660 Ti in conjunction with a Ryzen 5 4600H for less money than an equivalent laptop with a higher-level CPU? This could lead to a fantastic balance between budget, CPU and GPU performance in the budget.