We are still a bit disappointed by the results, especially compared to the results of the ThinkPad E495 with the consumer version of the Ryzen 5 3500U. The lower score of the ThinkPad T495 has two reasons. First of all, it looks like the quality of the two chips differs. Without any additional comparison devices, we cannot say whether we have a good model of the Ryzen 5 or a bad model of the Ryzen 5 Pro. Both our samples are standard retail units though. This variation can happen to any customer, and this is also the case for Intel chips in general.

The Ryzen 5 3500U in the ThinkPad E495 runs at 4x 3.0-3.1 GHz at 25W, but the Ryzen 5 Pro 3500U in the T495 "only" at 4x ~2.8 GHz. There is also a difference in respect to the TDP configuration between the two systems. In addition to the limits for short-term and long-term power consumption, AMD uses another limit with the somewhat cryptic acronym STAPM, which stands for Skin Temperature Aware Power Management. This limit is supposed to make sure the surfaces do not get too warm. You can basically think of it as an empty glass, which slowly fills up under load. This value is set at 22W for the T495. This STAPM value is increasing until it reaches the limit of 22W (which is the case after the fourth iteration of CB R15 Multi here). Once the value reaches the 22W, it will limit the actual consumption of the CPU to 22W. The ThinkPad E495 also has the STAPM limit, but it is set to 25W and therefore identical to to the long-term TDP limit. This explains why there is no performance drop during the CB loop.

We will ask Lenovo why the limit is lower on the ThinkPad T495 compared to the less expensive ThinkPad E495, so stay tuned.

