Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#201

Post by aurareturn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #193
aurareturn wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notebookcheck always isolates CPU power by measuring idle and draw from the wall. Many top quality CPU reviewers also do this. Chinese reviewer Geekerwan is probably the best at it. In the past, written reviews like Anandtech will always do it. Today, anyone with video editing software thinks they can review CPU performance. Ever since Youtube, there have been plenty of low quality reviewers that mislead people. I di…

> Notebookcheck always isolates CPU power by measuring idle and draw from the wall. That's not actually isolating CPU power. To begin with, the CPU itself has idle power draw. Measuring that way would favor a CPU that has worse power management because it would be excluding the draw the CPU itself fails to shed at idle. It also gets it wrong the other way. The SSD etc. is using however much at idle but that isn't the…

You can never fully isolate CPU power. Even software reading of CPU power is not always accurate.

The most accurate is reading from the wall. Thats what Notebookcheck does.

For all intents and purposes, it is good enough to get a read on CPU efficiency. Furthermore, if you are comparing equivalent systems, it is good enough to compare the two.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#202

Post by testing22321 »

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #184
testing22321 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you’re trying to justify kicking dogs because everyone in the industry goes around kicking dogs. Say it ain’t so. Just because lots of people are doing something that sucks does not make it OK.

It's a hook . That's been a standard part of writing for like at least a hundred years. It's not kicking dogs. Or, if it is kicking dogs, society has been doing it for at least as long as publishable media has been a thing, probably longer with the likes of bards. This is ridiculous

I’m a writer, I write for a few magazines and have published three books. I write hooks all the time.

A good hook does not have to be clickbait.

In my experience, when a person struggles to come up with a good hook, they write clickbait.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#203

Post by wasfgwp »

aurareturn wrote: post #108
anticorporate wrote: post #6

Rather than the Hackaday article, which doesn't add anything to the original, here's Jeff's actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B7oI0FYqo and post: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/excited-for-intel-eff...

Did Jeff Geerling get paid to post misleading headlines and reviews on Intel vs Apple? He's basing this on his own "super computing benchmark" measuring only FP64 performance. Meanwhile, any normal person using these $600 laptops will never run FP64 supercomputing tasks on the CPU. He also only showed perf/watt in this one benchmark but skipped the fact that Apple Silicon is significantly faster. Obviously, all this…

> faster M3 and M4 Macs are pushing through up to 1.2 Teraflops.

That Intel chip is competing against the A series in the Neo. To get to M you need to spend at least 50% more (and there are considerably better Intel chip in laptops at that price range as well)

Also benchmark performance hardly matters for people buying laptops like this. It just has to be fast enough and not lag when running a handful of apps and have decent battery life (which presumably is the case here)

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#205

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aurareturn wrote: post #201
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notebookcheck always isolates CPU power by measuring idle and draw from the wall. That's not actually isolating CPU power. To begin with, the CPU itself has idle power draw. Measuring that way would favor a CPU that has worse power management because it would be excluding the draw the CPU itself fails to shed at idle. It also gets it wrong the other way. The SSD etc. is using however much at idle but that isn't the…

You can never fully isolate CPU power. Even software reading of CPU power is not always accurate. The most accurate is reading from the wall. Thats what Notebookcheck does. For all intents and purposes, it is good enough to get a read on CPU efficiency. Furthermore, if you are comparing equivalent systems, it is good enough to compare the two.

> You can never fully isolate CPU power. Even software reading of CPU power is not always accurate.

And what results from this when you compare system with a 15W CPU to one with a 60W CPU on performance per watt when both systems have an additional 10W draw from non-CPU components?

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#206

Post by aurareturn »

wasfgwp wrote: post #203
aurareturn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Jeff Geerling get paid to post misleading headlines and reviews on Intel vs Apple? He's basing this on his own "super computing benchmark" measuring only FP64 performance. Meanwhile, any normal person using these $600 laptops will never run FP64 supercomputing tasks on the CPU. He also only showed perf/watt in this one benchmark but skipped the fact that Apple Silicon is significantly faster. Obviously, all this…

> faster M3 and M4 Macs are pushing through up to 1.2 Teraflops. That Intel chip is competing against the A series in the Neo. To get to M you need to spend at least 50% more (and there are considerably better Intel chip in laptops at that price range as well) Also benchmark performance hardly matters for people buying laptops like this. It just has to be fast enough and not lag when running a handful of apps and hav…

  Also benchmark performance hardly matters for people buying laptops like this. It just has to be fast enough and not lag when running a handful of apps and have decent battery life (which presumably is the case here)
Even you're fooled.

The A18 Pro is 50% faster in ST and maintains the ST while being fanless. The Intel chip will throttle almost immediately. The difference in efficiency is 3-4x.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#207

Post by geerlingguy »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #151
geerlingguy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this laptop was loaned to me for a couple weeks (it's boxed up and ready to ship back now), and I fully disclose any and all sponsorship (this was not sponsored in any way); see my policies here: https://github.com/geerlingguy/youtube#sponsorships Further, I'm basing my opinion on a number of benchmarks and power measurements besides just HPL. I just favor that because it's one of the few that push a CPU hard, fi…

You mentioned in your you were interested in seeing the 18A replacement for the N100 series. My understanding is the Wildcat lake 304 is that replacement, and it's been "released" for a while. It can be configured down to 10W vs 6W for the N100. Both draw about 7W from the wall when idle. The 304 is about 80% faster for the same power draw, has a better GPU in includes a 15 TOPS NPU. Despite the 304 being released, i…

Fingers crossed some of the usual mini PC suspects pick it up as it rolls out. Though I think 4 or 8 GB is back on the menu, annoyingly. Maybe it'll get some of the mini PC vendors to stop shipping Windows 11 by default!

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#208

Post by wasfgwp »

testing22321 wrote: post #173
geerlingguy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had three YouTube titles, this one got about 2x the watch time as the other two, so I let YT pick it. For technical readers, I write my blog posts. I don't have to (I lose money hosting that thing and all it's mostly just free training data for Anthropic, OpenAI, et all), but I enjoy writing, so I do it anyway. If you don't like the YT game, please subscribe to the blog's RSS feed. I much prefer text over video.

> I had three YouTube titles, this one got about 2x the watch time as the other two, so I let YT pick it. I think you’re being mid leading here Jeff. You almost make it sound like YT actually came up with the title. For anyone that is not a YouTuber, Jeff wrote three different titles himself, then YouTube ran an A/B test and just kept the one that resulted in the most watch time. Jeff consciously chose to write a cli…

He also consciously chose to post it on Youtube, he could have chosen not to.
Post reply on HN