Here are the results on Performance Power Plan - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16821908
Summarized results - https://i.imgur.com/X5vKtFn.png
Overall, with the new results - AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX is 18% slower in Single Core, 4% faster in Multi Core.
Not that bad ...
4% is probably close to noise level, so essentially you are a couple of percentage points faster on multicore with TWICE the total power envelope. Think about that.
And almost 1/5th slower in single core.
Also, you went from "It will OBLITERATE M2" to moving the goal post "not that bad" pretty quickly. I love it.
But still, pointless to me - I don't care about power efficiency, battery life or any synthetic benchmarks.
I have two concerns with a laptop:
1. Can it run the latest Visual Studio at blazing fast speed?
2. Can it run Dota 2 on Full HD @ >144 fps?
So far ... M2 doesn't fulfill fully neither point 1 nor point 2 :)
4% faster for 2.5x more power isn't a win. The fact that 95% of users care more about that 18% single-threaded performance makes this even worse.
Don't forget we are comparing last-gen AMD vs current gen M2.
M2 on Mac makes 1884/8717, but on Paralles -> 1681/7260.
So, the penalty is 11% on single, 17% on multi because of running on Windows via Paralles.
APPLE M1 average Single Core is 1706, average multi is 7421 on MAC.
If we apply the above penalty becomes -> 1706/7421 -> 1522/6180.
AMD 5900HX average Single Core is 1413, average multi is 7656.
So, AMD - 1413/7656 | Apple M1 - 1522/6180 -> Amd is 8% slower in single, 19% faster in multi.
The TDP according to AMD's website is "45+W" which they clarify to be a cTDP up to 54w TDP.
Don't get too excited about it. The old compatibility is going to be tiny in the die space compared to even basic Intel extensions. And it's not just the old code - new code may well contain a "mov al..." so you can't just drop it. All of those instructions will stay with us for decades.
Here is my result:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16820778
Given that I didn't stop anything and was playing Dota 2 while running it ...
Still, I believe at some point once newer iterations of X86-64 drop support for legacy instructions (they still have to support code running on 8080/8086 through 486) - we will have smaller, more efficient X86-64 chips.
Actually, it is darn impressive that the latest Intel/AMD chips keep up with the brand new M1/M2 chips that have zero legacy instructions and the Intel/AMD chips carry 50 years of legacy :)