Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarAMD Ryzen 7 5700U vs. Ryzen 5 5500U: Lenovo Yoga 6 13 convertible review
When we reviewed the Lenovo Yoga 6 13 a couple of months ago, we found it to offer better-than-average performance and a great 1080p touchscreen for its mid-range category. Our test unit was the lowest-end configuration, however, with "only" the Ryzen 5 5500U CPU, 8 GB of RAM, and 256 GB NVMe SSD for about $800 USD. This time, we wanted to check out the highest-end $1000 configuration with the Ryzen 7 5700U CPU, 16 GB of RAM, and 1 TB NVMe SSD to see what users can expect if they decide to pay a little extra.
We recommend checking out our existing review on the Ryzen 5 Yoga 6 13 as all our comments on the keyboard, chassis, and other physical features of the model still apply here on the Ryzen 7 Yoga 6 13. The midrange Yoga 6 series sits in between the cheaper budget IdeaPad Flex 3 series and more expensive flagship Yoga 9 series.
More Lenovo reviews:
potential competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85 % | 10/2021 | Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 R7 5700U, Vega 8 | 1.3 kg | 18.2 mm | 13.30" | 1920x1080 | |
| 84.7 % | 07/2021 | Lenovo Yoga 6 13 82ND0009US R5 5500U, Vega 7 | 1.3 kg | 18.2 mm | 13.30" | 1920x1080 | |
| 86.7 % | 10/2021 | Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 i7-1165G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.3 kg | 14.35 mm | 13.40" | 1920x1200 | |
| 85.7 % | 06/2021 | Acer Spin 3 SP313-51N-56YV i5-1135G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs | 1.4 kg | 16 mm | 13.30" | 2560x1600 | |
| 83.7 % | 05/2021 | Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 CB 13IML05 82B80010GE i5-10210U, UHD Graphics 620 | 1.4 kg | 17.95 mm | 13.30" | 1920x1080 | |
| 85.5 % | 06/2020 | HP Envy x360 13-ay0010nr R5 4500U, Vega 6 | 1.3 kg | 16.4 mm | 13.30" | 1920x1080 |
Case
Communication
Webcam
Maintenance
Display — Sharp with Full sRGB Coverage
Lenovo uses the same AU Optronics B133HAN05.F 1080p IPS touchscreen for all of its current Yoga 6 13 SKUs. Both color coverage (>99 percent sRGB) and contrast (~1500:1) are excellent and better than expected for a mid-range convertible, but response times are relatively slow for noticeable ghosting especially if gaming. The maximum brightness of around 300 nits is decent for the price while more expensive alternatives like the XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 or HP Envy x360 13 are noticeably brighter for more comfortable outdoor viewing.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 319.6 cd/m²
Contrast: 1598:1 (Black: 0.2 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.2 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.1, calibrated: 0.3
ΔE Greyscale 6.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
72% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
69.9% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.13
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 AU Optronics B133HAN05.F, IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | Lenovo Yoga 6 13 82ND0009US AU Optronics B133HAN05.F, IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 Sharp LQ134N1, IPS, 13.40, 1920x1200 | Acer Spin 3 SP313-51N-56YV AU Optronics AUOB493, IPS, 13.30, 2560x1600 | Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 CB 13IML05 82B80010GE IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | HP Envy x360 13-ay0010nr IPS, 13.30, 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -0% | 0% | 7% | -5% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 69.9 | 69.7 0% | 69.7 0% | 78.8 13% | 65.9 -6% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 99.1 | 99.2 0% | 99 0% | 99.8 1% | 97.4 -2% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 72 | 71.4 -1% | 71.7 0% | 77.6 8% | 67.8 -6% | |
| Response Times | 21% | -2% | 7% | 19% | 15% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 52 ? | 46.8 ? 10% | 55.6 ? -7% | 52 ? -0% | 47 ? 10% | 47.6 ? 8% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 41.6 ? | 28.8 ? 31% | 40.4 ? 3% | 36 ? 13% | 30 ? 28% | 32.4 ? 22% |
| PWM Frequency | 2500 ? | 25000 ? | ||||
| Screen | -28% | -10% | -60% | 10% | -18% | |
| Brightness middle | 319.6 | 291.5 -9% | 555.7 74% | 338 6% | 242 -24% | 452.6 42% |
| Brightness | 316 | 294 -7% | 528 67% | 307 -3% | 232 -27% | 438 39% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 93 -2% | 90 -5% | 83 -13% | 85 -11% | 93 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.2 | 0.19 5% | 0.35 -75% | 0.27 -35% | 0.235 -18% | 0.29 -45% |
| Contrast | 1598 | 1534 -4% | 1588 -1% | 1252 -22% | 1030 -36% | 1561 -2% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 3.83 9% | 4.83 -15% | 4.63 -10% | 1.99 53% | 2.67 36% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.34 | 8.43 10% | 8.46 9% | 9.99 -7% | 2.77 70% | 4.11 56% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 0.3 | 1.07 -257% | 0.76 -153% | 1.64 -447% | 1.36 -353% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.4 | 6.2 3% | 6.1 5% | 6.76 -6% | 1.78 72% | 2.1 67% |
| Gamma | 2.13 103% | 2.2 100% | 1.98 111% | 2.37 93% | 2.31 95% | 2.01 109% |
| CCT | 6520 100% | 6469 100% | 6686 97% | 5934 110% | 6567 99% | 6505 100% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 68 | 62.2 | ||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 98 | 97.6 | ||||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -2% /
-15% | -4% /
-7% | -15% /
-36% | 15% /
12% | -3% /
-10% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 41.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 98 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.2 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 52 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26.8 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 86 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.1 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19025 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance — Octa-Core for Less
| Specification | Ryzen 5 5500U Zen 2 | Ryzen 7 5700U Zen 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 6 (12 threads) | 8 (16 threads) |
| Clock Rate (GHz) | 2.1 - 4.0 | 1.8 - 4.3 |
| L1/L2/L3 Cache | 0.384/3/8 MB | 0.512/4/8 MB |
| Integrated GPU | Radeon Vega 7 4000 Raven Ridge | Radeon Vega 8 4000 Raven Ridge |
| Pipelines | 448 Unified | 512 Unified |
| GPU Clock Rate (MHz) | Up to 1600 | Up to 1750 |
Processor
Raw multi-thread performance is about 15 to 20 percent faster than the Ryzen 5 5500U according to CineBench benchmarks due in part to our Ryzen 7 5700U having two additional cores. Single-thread performance is also slightly faster by a few percentage points. Either option will be faster than the competing Intel Core i7-1165G7 in multi-threaded workloads.
Performance sustainability is excellent especially for a convertible where Turbo Boost clock rates tend to be short-lived. Running CineBench R15 xT in a loop shows consistent scores from start to finish whereas the Core i7-1165G7 in the XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 would cycle heavily.
Cinebench R15 Multi Loop
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.4: Single-Core | Multi-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
| Geekbench 5.4 / Single-Core | |
| Dell Inspiron 13 5301-0D0XN | |
| Asus ZenBook 13 UX325JA | |
| Average AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (1105 - 1204, n=14) | |
| Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TM420IA | |
| Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE | |
| Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE | |
| Asus VivoBook S13 S333JA-DS51 | |
| Geekbench 5.4 / Multi-Core | |
| Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE | |
| Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE | |
| Average AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (4254 - 7326, n=14) | |
| Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TM420IA | |
| Dell Inspiron 13 5301-0D0XN | |
| Asus ZenBook 13 UX325JA | |
| Asus VivoBook S13 S333JA-DS51 | |
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.4: Single-Core | Multi-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
PCMark 10 benchmarks are consistently higher than what we recorded on the Ryzen 5 SKU albeit by only single-digit percentage margins. Overall scores are comparable to the more expensive Intel-powered Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1.
| PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 | |
| Average AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) (4583 - 5964, n=10) | |
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13 82ND0009US | |
| Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 | |
| Acer Spin 3 SP313-51N-56YV | |
| HP Envy x360 13-ay0010nr | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5518 points | |
Help | ||
DPC Latency
LatencyMon shows no DPC latency issues when opening mulitiple browser tabs on our homepage or when playing back 4K video at 60 FPS. However, latency would jump abruptly when running Prime95 stress which is very similar to what we observed on our Ryzen 5 SKU.
| DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 | |
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13 82ND0009US | |
| HP Envy x360 13-ay0010nr | |
| Acer Spin 3 SP313-51N-56YV | |
| Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 | |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Devices
Our Ryzen 7 unit comes configured with a higher-end 1 TB Western Digital SN730 instead of the 256 GB SN530 on our original Ryzen 5 unit. Transfer rates are significantly faster especially when writing data with speeds approaching 3100 MB/s.
| Lenovo Yoga 6 13ALC6 WDC PC SN730 SDBPNTY-1T00 | Lenovo Yoga 6 13 82ND0009US WDC PC SN530 SDBPMPZ-265G | Dell XPS 13 9310 2-in-1 Toshiba BG4 KBG40ZPZ512G | Acer Spin 3 SP313-51N-56YV Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB | HP Envy x360 13-ay0010nr Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -51% | -46% | -33% | -79% | |
| Seq Read | 2605 | 1860 -29% | 2031 -22% | 1748 -33% | 1135 -56% |
| Seq Write | 1480 | 500 -66% | 776 -48% | 941 -36% | 628 -58% |
| 4K Read | 36.38 | 36.26 0% | 49.55 36% | 44.06 21% | 42.49 17% |
| 4K Write | 117.5 | 118.6 1% | 112.2 -5% | 77.7 -34% | 96.9 -18% |
| 4K-64 Read | 879 | 419 -52% | 1058 20% | 451.1 -49% | 614 -30% |
| 4K-64 Write | 2264 | 219 -90% | 328.9 -85% | 926 -59% | 256.4 -89% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.056 | 0.102 -82% | 0.072 -29% | 0.188 -236% | 0.162 -189% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.094 | 0.17 -81% | 0.518 -451% | 0.043 54% | 0.592 -530% |
| Score Read | 1176 | 641 -45% | 1311 11% | 670 -43% | 770 -35% |
| Score Write | 2530 | 388 -85% | 519 -79% | 1098 -57% | 416 -84% |
| Score Total | 4256 | 1300 -69% | 2447 -43% | 2084 -51% | 1567 -63% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1210 | 880 -27% | 1103 -9% | 969 -20% | 843 -30% |
| Copy Program MB/s | 238.4 | 185.3 -22% | 331.7 39% | 609 155% | 367.9 54% |
| Copy Game MB/s | 715 | 212.7 -70% | 828 16% | 232.4 -67% | 727 2% |
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -28% | -9% | 3% | -36% | |
| Write 4K | 113.8 | 89.2 -22% | 129.6 14% | 286.1 151% | 94.8 -17% |
| Read 4K | 39.64 | 33.09 -17% | 52.2 32% | 48.89 23% | 45.5 15% |
| Write Seq | 1921 | 988 -49% | 1310 -32% | 982 -49% | 732 -62% |
| Read Seq | 2025 | 1322 -35% | 1726 -15% | 1301 -36% | 959 -53% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 339.3 | 332.6 -2% | 334.7 -1% | 625 84% | 224.6 -34% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 407.6 | 389.3 -4% | 447.6 10% | 301 -26% | 365.2 -10% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 3089 | 984 -68% | 1410 -54% | 981 -68% | 864 -72% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3386 | 2461 -27% | 2390 -29% | 1631 -52% | 1580 -53% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -40% /
-43% | -28% /
-33% | -15% /
-19% | -58% /
-63% |
* ... smaller is better
Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
GPU Performance — Close, But Not Quite Iris Xe
3DMark benchmarks show our integrated Radeon RX Vega 8 in the Ryzen 7 5700U to be around 10 to 15 percent faster than the Radeon RX Vega 7 in the Ryzen 5 5500U. In actual games, however, our Vega 8 would only be about 5 to 10 percent faster despite the fact that our Ryzen 8 test unit comes with double the RAM and additional cores. It's clear that the bottleneck involves the graphics chip in most gaming scenarios.
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 5772 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 21275 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3259 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 1263 points | |
Help | ||