The Performance of Intel's 9th Generation Core i7 Processor vs AMD's Ryzen 3000 Series Laptop Processor: A Comparison of Gaming and General Performance

In this video, we compared the gaming performance of two laptops: one with an AMD Ryzen 3700H processor and another with an Intel Core i7-9700H processor. The results show that the Intel i7 was almost 21% faster than the Ryzen 3700H in general terms, but the difference varied by game.

The testing began with the popular multiplayer first-person shooter Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO). At minimum settings, the i7 was 17% faster than the Ryzen 3700H. However, at maximum settings, the difference grew to 71%. The results are similar when playing another popular title, Dota 2, which relies heavily on CPU power. In this game, the performance gap widens as we step up through the setting levels. At minimum settings, the i7 was 17% faster than the Ryzen 3700H, but at maximum settings, it was 71% faster.

Another game tested in this comparison is Everwatch, a game that allows players to play the practice range and compare their performance exactly. The results show that the i7 outperforms the Ryzen 3700H by less than 7% even when playing at high settings. However, in CSGO, the difference at maximum settings was still significant.

To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the differences between these two processors, we also compared their performance in other games and applications. In general, the i7 offers better performance across various titles and tasks, with an average increase of 21% over the Ryzen 3700H. The results are consistent when looking at the minimum settings, with the i7 being 35% faster on average than the Ryzen 3700H. At high settings, the difference is still noticeable but less significant.

One notable behavior observed in these games and applications is that the performance gap widens as we step up through the setting levels. This suggests that the processor's ability to handle higher loads plays a crucial role in maintaining smooth performance. In CSGO, for example, the difference between minimum and maximum settings was substantial, with the i7 outperforming the Ryzen 3700H by 71% at maximum settings.

To put these results into perspective, we looked at the price differences between the two processors. The Ryzen 3700H is generally cheaper than the Intel Core i7-9700H, but prices can vary depending on the retailer and location. The i7, however, offers more cores (8) and threads per core compared to the Ryzen 3700H.

Overall, our testing shows that the Intel Core i7-9700H processor outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3700H in gaming and general performance by around 21% on average. While the difference is less significant at maximum settings, the i7 still offers better performance across various titles and tasks. This suggests that if you're looking for a high-performance laptop with improved gaming capabilities, paying more money for the i7 may be worth considering, especially if you'll be using your laptop for applications that benefit from more cores and threads.

The results of our testing demonstrate the benefits of using an Intel Core processor in laptops, particularly when it comes to gaming performance. The 9700H's superior processing power allows it to handle demanding titles with ease, making it a great option for gamers who want smooth performance without sacrificing other aspects of their laptop experience.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enthe AMD risin 730 750 h and intel core i7 97 58 share a similar naming scheme but what are the actual differences between them in this detailed comparison we'll look at pretty much everything from gaming 3d rendering video exporting power draw thermals price differences and more to help you decide which cpu you should get in your next laptop let's start off with the differences in specs before getting into the benchmarks the intel i7 9750 h has six cores and twelve threads while the AMD risin 730 750 H has 4 cores 8 threads the Intel chip has higher clock speeds and a higher TDP however the AMD chip is based on their 12 nanometers and + architecture while Intel's us using 14 nanometer + + and Intel also has more cache the memory in the Intel platform is ddr4 2666 while the 37 50 H is captured ddr4 2400 look it's not really fair to compare these as the Intel chip has a higher core count and better boost speeds it's going to win however I've decided to do this comparison as I still get asked this question a lot either because 2 laptops are available with either CPU for a similar price all because of the similar looking product names now with the 9750 H performance is going to depend entirely on the power limit of the laptop it's in where is all 37 50 H machines I've tested so far don't seem to go above their 35 watt limit although the 9750 H is listed is a 45 watt part on paper in CPU early workloads I've seen many laptops boost to this limit up to 60 watts to offer better performance including the one I'm testing here due to this I've tested the 97 50 H twice with the 45 watt stock configuration and it's 61 as more of a best-case result with that in mind let's get into those results we'll start off by looking at some applications such as rendering and video editing followed by gaming performance afterwards let's start with Cinebench aa 20 I've got the Rison 737 50 H down the bottom Intel i7 97 50 H at the stock 45 watt limit in the middle and the highest 60 what result at the top in this test the 9750 h is winning multi-core as you'd expect it's got two extra cores the 45 watt configuration was 35 percent faster than the 37 50 H and a massive 70% faster with the 60 watt limit the Intel chips are a fair improvement in the single core result to where even the 45 watt test was 10% faster than the 37 50 H I've also tested Cinebench r15 as many people still use it so these numbers can be used for comparison the stock i7 at 45 watts was 44% faster and multi-core and 20% faster in single core over the Rison chip and then at 60 watts it's got a 63% lead in multi-core with much less of a difference in single core at the higher power limit in this test I've run the BMW and classroom benchmarks with blender and this is another test which benefits from additional cos so it's no surprise that the i7 is coming out ahead here the i7 completes both tasks just over 30% faster at the stock 45 watt limit and if we allowed it to run at 60 watts then it's now 50% faster than the 37 50 H I've used Adobe Premiere to export the same 4k laptop review unfortunately I didn't test this one at 60 watt however the Rison processor gets absolutely slaughtered in this test as the Intel option benefits from quick sync in this specific workload I've also used the warp stabiliser effect in Adobe Premiere which basically uses a single core to smooth out a clip it was interesting that the highest 60 watt limit with the 9750 h resulted in it consistently taking a few seconds longer however at stock it was just 9 percent faster than the 37 50 H and brake was used to convert a 4k video file to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p this is another test that benefits greatly from CPU cores the stock 45 watt 97 50 H was completing the 4k transcode 40 percent faster than the 37 50 H then a massive 63 percent faster in the 1080p to 720p test while the 61 limit allowed for yet higher speeds the very benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene so yet another task that's typically faster than more cause you have this time the i7 was 54% faster than the Verizon 7 at 40 five watt and a massive 78% faster once boosted up to 60 watts another benchmark that renders out a scene with the processor less of a difference between the two i7 results however even the stock result was 60% faster when compared to the Rison processor a nice result considering the 50% core increase I've used 7-zip to test compression and decompression speeds the decompression speeds or modest 41% improvement with the i7 at 45 watt but a way higher 80% faster speed when it came to compression this task in particular seems much better with the Intel option veracrypt was used to test IES encryption and decryption speeds there was basically no difference to the Intel laptop between the different power limits however it was still over 55 percent faster in this task when compared to the Rison option Geekbench also produced similar results with the Intel chip regardless of Parliament however it was still 68% ahead of the AMD chip and multi-core and there was even a decent 27% improvement the single core in this test here's a summary of all the applications just tested on average over these tests the Intel i7 97 58 with 45 watt limit was 53% faster than the horizon 737 58 that overall percentage isn't too useful though as it includes both single and multi-core tests plus it's being held up by that massive adobe premiere improvement which was due to the software support of quick sync if we look at the results without that large Adobe difference the 97 50 H was nearly 43% faster on average these are the differences when comparing the i7 9750 H with the 60 watt limit again it's 53 percent faster than the 37 50 H and that's without the premier difference so quite a fair difference with some big jumps there depending on the workload again I want to note that many I 790 750 H laptops do boost the power limit well above 45 watts in CPU only workloads like these 60 watt isn't uncommon the 45 watt comparison is more of a worst case and it's still demolishing the 37 50 H when we look at the total power drawn from the wall with the core heavy blender test running the i7 with the 45 watt limit wasn't using too much more power than the Rison option just 11 percent more power for more than a thirty percent performance improvement when running the i7 with the 60 watt limit though it's a different story the power drawl completely blows out and it's easy to see why many laptops only permit this limit in CPU only workloads where the discrete graphics are idle these are the average clock speeds while running the same blender benchmark interestingly the 3750 H had the highest speed but these numbers aren't really comparable due to architecture differences likewise the temperatures are also pretty useless as both laptops have completely different cooling solutions but hey if I don't include this information people will complain all right with that stuff out of the way let's get into the gaming results for this testing I'm using a different laptop for the 9750 H compared to the numbers we just went through as well as what I had available at the time with the same gtx 1660 TI GPU for the AMD side i've continued to use the asou stuff FX 505 - year for the intel side I've used my Lenovo Wi-Fi 40 with hybrid mode enabled and in balanced mode which caps the CPU power limit to 45 watts when the GPU is active testing was done with the same windows updates and Nvidia drivers in use so these results should be about as apples to apples as possible Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using the game's built-in benchmark tool I've got the Intel i7 97 50 H in the top purple bar and the AMD Rison 737 50 H below in the red bar I've tested all setting presets available for each game which are labeled along the left in this game the Intel chip was 10% faster than the AMD one at Mac's settings however at low settings there was a larger 35% difference presumably as when more CPU bound at lowest selling levels battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode running through the same section of the game on both machines again the i7 was ahead at all setting levels with a higher 15% average FPS at the highest Ultra setting preset but this increases significantly at low settings to a 36% higher average framerate then there were less changes between 1% lower performance shadow of the term Rader was tested using the built-in benchmark again this test was following the trend of bigger differences between the two as we step down the setting levels even at max settings though the i7 was offering a 20% higher average frame rate rising to a much higher 48% boost at lowest settings apex legends was tested by running through the same section of the map in all instances there was less of a difference at lower settings in this game because both were able to hit the 144 FPS frame cap at times with all settings at maximum the i7 was 16% faster compared to the AMD option though realistically above 100 FPS maxed out is still very playable call of duty modern warfare was also tested with maximum or minimum settings and the difference in average FPS was on the lowest side out of the games tested just 6% faster at max settings on the i7 there's a larger 11% higher 1% lower at max settings with the i7 and the 1% lower was 30% higher at minimum settings assassin's creed Odyssey was tested using the game's benchmark and as a title that I've noted to be more CPU bound there's a fair 18 percent improvement to average FPS at max settings at all other setting levels the 1% lower performance is near even the average that the 3758 was able to offer control was tested running through the same area of the game on both machines at minimum settings it was a large 36 percent higher average FPS from the i7 but then at max settings the difference between the two is far lower comparatively with the i7 now just 6 percent faster in terms of average frame rate Borderlands 3 was tested with the built-in benchmark and follows the same pattern as many other titles tested in that there's a larger difference between the two at the lowest setting levels at very low settings the i7 was 35% faster than the Verizon 7 and this lowers to a 12% higher average FPS at max settings it's worth noting the huge games to 1% lower performance between very low and medium with the Intel option which aren't too far behind the averages from the 37 50h fortnight was tested using the replay feature and I've tested the exact same replay on each laptop at minimum settings there's a massive difference the i7 laptop was 56% faster in terms of average FPS and even the 1% lower result was very close to the average from the horizon chip the gap narrows in as we step up to highest setting levels there with epic settings just 12.5% faster with the Intel processor Ghost Recon breakpoint was tested using the game's benchmark tool once more than 97 50 H's winning in most tests but wait interestingly the 37 50 H was consistently ahead when it came to 1% low performance with the ultra and ultimate presets I mean it's not far behind but it was interesting that it came out ahead at all given all previous results similar interesting results was seen in The Witcher 3 the 1% allure performance between low and high settings was notably ahead with the 3758 in any case the averages are still a fair amount ahead with i7 which was 18% faster in this regard at low settings and 15% ahead at Ultra why the 1% low was now also back in front Rainbow six siege was tested using the game's benchmark tool with the latest Vulcan option like some of the other games huge gains with the i7 at lowest settings even the 1% lawyer was ahead of the average from the 3758 while the average FPS on the i7 was 45% ahead this lowers to a 13% higher average frame rate with the i7 at Ultra settings so much lower comparatively it's still a good lead csgo was tested with the Aletta cool FPS benchmark and is a game that really cares about CPU power so it was no surprise that this game saw one of the largest differences out of all titles tested on the i7 there was a massive 78% higher average FPS with both laptops and minimum settings and it was still 68 percent faster with all settings maxed out dota 2 was another game that typically relies on more CPU power than GPU interestingly the performance gap widens as we step up through the setting levels a behavior I've seen from this game before in other testing which is a bit different to the other titles tested anyway at minimum settings the i7 was 17% faster than the horizon 7 but at max settings the i7 was now 71 percent faster or ever watch was tested playing in the practice range and while this performs better than actual gameplay it allows me to more accurately perform the exact same test run which is ideal for a comparison like this that was less than a 7% higher average FPS with the i7 at the highest epic settings while minimum settings saw a big a difference with the i7 now 27% FASTA I'll also note that the 1% lawyer from the 37 50h was ahead of the i7 at epic and ultra settings so I think that's three games now where this interesting behavior was observed at higher presets these are the differences to average FPS over all 15 games tested on average with the highest setting levels in use the Intel i7 97 50 H was almost 21% faster than the horizon 730 750 H as we can see here the results really vary by game those huge csgo and dota2 results are definitely helping raise the average but for the most part there's a decent improvement to be had with the i7 processor as we saw throughout the games there was generally a larger difference with the lowest possible settings at minimum in these same titles the 9750 H was now 35% faster in terms of average FPS when compared to the 37 50 H this is simply because generally lower settings are more sensitive to CPU performance to be fair I'd add you'd need to play many if any of these games at lower settings with the 16 60 TI I've used here but both these processors are also available with lower tier graphics like the 1050 or 1650 so CPU choice will probably matter more there I really want to stress that with the gtx 660ti the horizon 730 750 H is still definitely capable of offering a great gaming experience even with higher setting levels I'm not saying it's a bad option but compared to the i7 9750 H it's clearly not as good so let's take a look at some price differences to see if it's worth paying more money for the i7 you can find some updated prices linked in the description at the time of recording though the asou stuff FX 505 d-u-i tested here go spend 900 u.s. dollars granted this one has half the memory so it's probably a bit more for 16 gig the Y 540 costs more than other options in the US so compared to they say Helios 311 hundred US dollars that's 22% more money and not to mention the Helios is under vaulted and overclocked out of the box so the difference would be even greater - what I've shown in this video that's another benefit for the Intel platform - under vaulting isn't currently an option with the Rison 3000 series anyway 22 percent more money for an on average 21 percent higher frame rate in games at max settings 34 percent higher average FPS at minimum settings and about 43 percent better performance in other applications without even can during the high-powered 60 what configuration of the 97 50 H sounds to me like it's well worth saving the extra money for the i7 or at least that's what I do unless you really can't get the extra $200 sir so to summarize the Verizon 737 50 H doesn't look good when compared to the Intel i7 97 50 H in gaming there's less of a difference compared to the applications we looked at first granted there is still a nice boost to be had that said even a last gen I 5 8300 H which also has all cores 8 threads comfortably beats it too let's hope the upcoming launch of AMD's Rison 4000 mobile processors offers better competition I've got my numbers ready to compare the 37 50 H is in general cheaper than the i7 but that's not always the case depending on the price horizon based laptop could be attractive however if you can justify a bit more for the i7 as we've seen it does have a lot more to offer especially if you're doing anything that performs better with more cores let me know which of these two CPUs you pick down in the comments and if you're new to the channel consider getting subscribe for future CPU comparisons and tech videos like this onethe AMD risin 730 750 h and intel core i7 97 58 share a similar naming scheme but what are the actual differences between them in this detailed comparison we'll look at pretty much everything from gaming 3d rendering video exporting power draw thermals price differences and more to help you decide which cpu you should get in your next laptop let's start off with the differences in specs before getting into the benchmarks the intel i7 9750 h has six cores and twelve threads while the AMD risin 730 750 H has 4 cores 8 threads the Intel chip has higher clock speeds and a higher TDP however the AMD chip is based on their 12 nanometers and + architecture while Intel's us using 14 nanometer + + and Intel also has more cache the memory in the Intel platform is ddr4 2666 while the 37 50 H is captured ddr4 2400 look it's not really fair to compare these as the Intel chip has a higher core count and better boost speeds it's going to win however I've decided to do this comparison as I still get asked this question a lot either because 2 laptops are available with either CPU for a similar price all because of the similar looking product names now with the 9750 H performance is going to depend entirely on the power limit of the laptop it's in where is all 37 50 H machines I've tested so far don't seem to go above their 35 watt limit although the 9750 H is listed is a 45 watt part on paper in CPU early workloads I've seen many laptops boost to this limit up to 60 watts to offer better performance including the one I'm testing here due to this I've tested the 97 50 H twice with the 45 watt stock configuration and it's 61 as more of a best-case result with that in mind let's get into those results we'll start off by looking at some applications such as rendering and video editing followed by gaming performance afterwards let's start with Cinebench aa 20 I've got the Rison 737 50 H down the bottom Intel i7 97 50 H at the stock 45 watt limit in the middle and the highest 60 what result at the top in this test the 9750 h is winning multi-core as you'd expect it's got two extra cores the 45 watt configuration was 35 percent faster than the 37 50 H and a massive 70% faster with the 60 watt limit the Intel chips are a fair improvement in the single core result to where even the 45 watt test was 10% faster than the 37 50 H I've also tested Cinebench r15 as many people still use it so these numbers can be used for comparison the stock i7 at 45 watts was 44% faster and multi-core and 20% faster in single core over the Rison chip and then at 60 watts it's got a 63% lead in multi-core with much less of a difference in single core at the higher power limit in this test I've run the BMW and classroom benchmarks with blender and this is another test which benefits from additional cos so it's no surprise that the i7 is coming out ahead here the i7 completes both tasks just over 30% faster at the stock 45 watt limit and if we allowed it to run at 60 watts then it's now 50% faster than the 37 50 H I've used Adobe Premiere to export the same 4k laptop review unfortunately I didn't test this one at 60 watt however the Rison processor gets absolutely slaughtered in this test as the Intel option benefits from quick sync in this specific workload I've also used the warp stabiliser effect in Adobe Premiere which basically uses a single core to smooth out a clip it was interesting that the highest 60 watt limit with the 9750 h resulted in it consistently taking a few seconds longer however at stock it was just 9 percent faster than the 37 50 H and brake was used to convert a 4k video file to 1080p and then a separate 1080p file to 720p this is another test that benefits greatly from CPU cores the stock 45 watt 97 50 H was completing the 4k transcode 40 percent faster than the 37 50 H then a massive 63 percent faster in the 1080p to 720p test while the 61 limit allowed for yet higher speeds the very benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene so yet another task that's typically faster than more cause you have this time the i7 was 54% faster than the Verizon 7 at 40 five watt and a massive 78% faster once boosted up to 60 watts another benchmark that renders out a scene with the processor less of a difference between the two i7 results however even the stock result was 60% faster when compared to the Rison processor a nice result considering the 50% core increase I've used 7-zip to test compression and decompression speeds the decompression speeds or modest 41% improvement with the i7 at 45 watt but a way higher 80% faster speed when it came to compression this task in particular seems much better with the Intel option veracrypt was used to test IES encryption and decryption speeds there was basically no difference to the Intel laptop between the different power limits however it was still over 55 percent faster in this task when compared to the Rison option Geekbench also produced similar results with the Intel chip regardless of Parliament however it was still 68% ahead of the AMD chip and multi-core and there was even a decent 27% improvement the single core in this test here's a summary of all the applications just tested on average over these tests the Intel i7 97 58 with 45 watt limit was 53% faster than the horizon 737 58 that overall percentage isn't too useful though as it includes both single and multi-core tests plus it's being held up by that massive adobe premiere improvement which was due to the software support of quick sync if we look at the results without that large Adobe difference the 97 50 H was nearly 43% faster on average these are the differences when comparing the i7 9750 H with the 60 watt limit again it's 53 percent faster than the 37 50 H and that's without the premier difference so quite a fair difference with some big jumps there depending on the workload again I want to note that many I 790 750 H laptops do boost the power limit well above 45 watts in CPU only workloads like these 60 watt isn't uncommon the 45 watt comparison is more of a worst case and it's still demolishing the 37 50 H when we look at the total power drawn from the wall with the core heavy blender test running the i7 with the 45 watt limit wasn't using too much more power than the Rison option just 11 percent more power for more than a thirty percent performance improvement when running the i7 with the 60 watt limit though it's a different story the power drawl completely blows out and it's easy to see why many laptops only permit this limit in CPU only workloads where the discrete graphics are idle these are the average clock speeds while running the same blender benchmark interestingly the 3750 H had the highest speed but these numbers aren't really comparable due to architecture differences likewise the temperatures are also pretty useless as both laptops have completely different cooling solutions but hey if I don't include this information people will complain all right with that stuff out of the way let's get into the gaming results for this testing I'm using a different laptop for the 9750 H compared to the numbers we just went through as well as what I had available at the time with the same gtx 1660 TI GPU for the AMD side i've continued to use the asou stuff FX 505 - year for the intel side I've used my Lenovo Wi-Fi 40 with hybrid mode enabled and in balanced mode which caps the CPU power limit to 45 watts when the GPU is active testing was done with the same windows updates and Nvidia drivers in use so these results should be about as apples to apples as possible Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using the game's built-in benchmark tool I've got the Intel i7 97 50 H in the top purple bar and the AMD Rison 737 50 H below in the red bar I've tested all setting presets available for each game which are labeled along the left in this game the Intel chip was 10% faster than the AMD one at Mac's settings however at low settings there was a larger 35% difference presumably as when more CPU bound at lowest selling levels battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode running through the same section of the game on both machines again the i7 was ahead at all setting levels with a higher 15% average FPS at the highest Ultra setting preset but this increases significantly at low settings to a 36% higher average framerate then there were less changes between 1% lower performance shadow of the term Rader was tested using the built-in benchmark again this test was following the trend of bigger differences between the two as we step down the setting levels even at max settings though the i7 was offering a 20% higher average frame rate rising to a much higher 48% boost at lowest settings apex legends was tested by running through the same section of the map in all instances there was less of a difference at lower settings in this game because both were able to hit the 144 FPS frame cap at times with all settings at maximum the i7 was 16% faster compared to the AMD option though realistically above 100 FPS maxed out is still very playable call of duty modern warfare was also tested with maximum or minimum settings and the difference in average FPS was on the lowest side out of the games tested just 6% faster at max settings on the i7 there's a larger 11% higher 1% lower at max settings with the i7 and the 1% lower was 30% higher at minimum settings assassin's creed Odyssey was tested using the game's benchmark and as a title that I've noted to be more CPU bound there's a fair 18 percent improvement to average FPS at max settings at all other setting levels the 1% lower performance is near even the average that the 3758 was able to offer control was tested running through the same area of the game on both machines at minimum settings it was a large 36 percent higher average FPS from the i7 but then at max settings the difference between the two is far lower comparatively with the i7 now just 6 percent faster in terms of average frame rate Borderlands 3 was tested with the built-in benchmark and follows the same pattern as many other titles tested in that there's a larger difference between the two at the lowest setting levels at very low settings the i7 was 35% faster than the Verizon 7 and this lowers to a 12% higher average FPS at max settings it's worth noting the huge games to 1% lower performance between very low and medium with the Intel option which aren't too far behind the averages from the 37 50h fortnight was tested using the replay feature and I've tested the exact same replay on each laptop at minimum settings there's a massive difference the i7 laptop was 56% faster in terms of average FPS and even the 1% lower result was very close to the average from the horizon chip the gap narrows in as we step up to highest setting levels there with epic settings just 12.5% faster with the Intel processor Ghost Recon breakpoint was tested using the game's benchmark tool once more than 97 50 H's winning in most tests but wait interestingly the 37 50 H was consistently ahead when it came to 1% low performance with the ultra and ultimate presets I mean it's not far behind but it was interesting that it came out ahead at all given all previous results similar interesting results was seen in The Witcher 3 the 1% allure performance between low and high settings was notably ahead with the 3758 in any case the averages are still a fair amount ahead with i7 which was 18% faster in this regard at low settings and 15% ahead at Ultra why the 1% low was now also back in front Rainbow six siege was tested using the game's benchmark tool with the latest Vulcan option like some of the other games huge gains with the i7 at lowest settings even the 1% lawyer was ahead of the average from the 3758 while the average FPS on the i7 was 45% ahead this lowers to a 13% higher average frame rate with the i7 at Ultra settings so much lower comparatively it's still a good lead csgo was tested with the Aletta cool FPS benchmark and is a game that really cares about CPU power so it was no surprise that this game saw one of the largest differences out of all titles tested on the i7 there was a massive 78% higher average FPS with both laptops and minimum settings and it was still 68 percent faster with all settings maxed out dota 2 was another game that typically relies on more CPU power than GPU interestingly the performance gap widens as we step up through the setting levels a behavior I've seen from this game before in other testing which is a bit different to the other titles tested anyway at minimum settings the i7 was 17% faster than the horizon 7 but at max settings the i7 was now 71 percent faster or ever watch was tested playing in the practice range and while this performs better than actual gameplay it allows me to more accurately perform the exact same test run which is ideal for a comparison like this that was less than a 7% higher average FPS with the i7 at the highest epic settings while minimum settings saw a big a difference with the i7 now 27% FASTA I'll also note that the 1% lawyer from the 37 50h was ahead of the i7 at epic and ultra settings so I think that's three games now where this interesting behavior was observed at higher presets these are the differences to average FPS over all 15 games tested on average with the highest setting levels in use the Intel i7 97 50 H was almost 21% faster than the horizon 730 750 H as we can see here the results really vary by game those huge csgo and dota2 results are definitely helping raise the average but for the most part there's a decent improvement to be had with the i7 processor as we saw throughout the games there was generally a larger difference with the lowest possible settings at minimum in these same titles the 9750 H was now 35% faster in terms of average FPS when compared to the 37 50 H this is simply because generally lower settings are more sensitive to CPU performance to be fair I'd add you'd need to play many if any of these games at lower settings with the 16 60 TI I've used here but both these processors are also available with lower tier graphics like the 1050 or 1650 so CPU choice will probably matter more there I really want to stress that with the gtx 660ti the horizon 730 750 H is still definitely capable of offering a great gaming experience even with higher setting levels I'm not saying it's a bad option but compared to the i7 9750 H it's clearly not as good so let's take a look at some price differences to see if it's worth paying more money for the i7 you can find some updated prices linked in the description at the time of recording though the asou stuff FX 505 d-u-i tested here go spend 900 u.s. dollars granted this one has half the memory so it's probably a bit more for 16 gig the Y 540 costs more than other options in the US so compared to they say Helios 311 hundred US dollars that's 22% more money and not to mention the Helios is under vaulted and overclocked out of the box so the difference would be even greater - what I've shown in this video that's another benefit for the Intel platform - under vaulting isn't currently an option with the Rison 3000 series anyway 22 percent more money for an on average 21 percent higher frame rate in games at max settings 34 percent higher average FPS at minimum settings and about 43 percent better performance in other applications without even can during the high-powered 60 what configuration of the 97 50 H sounds to me like it's well worth saving the extra money for the i7 or at least that's what I do unless you really can't get the extra $200 sir so to summarize the Verizon 737 50 H doesn't look good when compared to the Intel i7 97 50 H in gaming there's less of a difference compared to the applications we looked at first granted there is still a nice boost to be had that said even a last gen I 5 8300 H which also has all cores 8 threads comfortably beats it too let's hope the upcoming launch of AMD's Rison 4000 mobile processors offers better competition I've got my numbers ready to compare the 37 50 H is in general cheaper than the i7 but that's not always the case depending on the price horizon based laptop could be attractive however if you can justify a bit more for the i7 as we've seen it does have a lot more to offer especially if you're doing anything that performs better with more cores let me know which of these two CPUs you pick down in the comments and if you're new to the channel consider getting subscribe for future CPU comparisons and tech videos like this one\n"