51–60 of 79 posts
45W hardly strikes me as "mobile". That's in the realm of laptops with fans and big batteries, right? I figured a "mobile" processor would need a maximum TDP of 15W or less.
They get used in laptops like DELL XPS 13, MBP 13 and that class of laptop as well as larger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it really matter in a 45W power range ? I have a 2018 15 MBP with an i9-8950HK that has the same power range - this thing is unusable at full load for anything but burst - and the way it taxes the thermals makes it a terrible laptop (people in the office start turning their heads). I'm not convinced any portable laptop can handle that TDP efficiently - so maybe this is interesting for gaming laptops - but to me…
It's the heatsink. And Apple isn't the only offender. All major manufacturers use terrible cooling systems, even on thick workstation class laptops. Their testing is seriously flawed, they design the heatsink for "normal workload" which means jack shit. Everyone's got different uses for their machines, so just test the heatsink at maximum load/TDP for several hours at least, make sure it doesn't overheat. Is that too…
I've thought about opening it up and reapplying paste but I don't want to risk bricking my work device - I don't have the time to deal with it. I will have a few weeks off soon so might consider it if the expected gains are significant but from what I saw back when I looked into it (this[1] mostly) it's not worth it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/96wwyf/so_i_rep...
45W hardly strikes me as "mobile". That's in the realm of laptops with fans and big batteries, right? I figured a "mobile" processor would need a maximum TDP of 15W or less.
My gaming laptop has a i7-9750H with the same rating. Considering how low the bar as placed by the M1, you're right.
(This is not to undermine the fact that the M1 is a /great/ chip, but the 10W figure is a marketing number.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the heatsink. And Apple isn't the only offender. All major manufacturers use terrible cooling systems, even on thick workstation class laptops. Their testing is seriously flawed, they design the heatsink for "normal workload" which means jack shit. Everyone's got different uses for their machines, so just test the heatsink at maximum load/TDP for several hours at least, make sure it doesn't overheat. Is that too…
You can't under-volt on latest machines (mine included). I need to limit TDP to get the machine usable. I've thought about opening it up and reapplying paste but I don't want to risk bricking my work device - I don't have the time to deal with it. I will have a few weeks off soon so might consider it if the expected gains are significant but from what I saw back when I looked into it (this[1] mostly) it's not worth i…
My M1 Macbook on the other hand, is dead quiet on top of absolutely destroying the XPS in CPU performance while having vastly superior battery life. I don't have to run anything out of spec to keep it from cooking itself.
Quote form their slide: "Optimizing 11th gen power and performance in the best enthusiast platform for gaming & content creation" Why should I be an enthusiast? Indeed I wait for a much faster laptop to replace my venerable Dell XPS15 9550 for software development. But my mom also deserves a fast laptop for web browsing and emailing. It's funny how they try to segment the market because they can't deliver the same po…
I find the word enthusiast problematic for different reasons. Enthusiast means non-professional tricked into spending way too much money. I intentionally avoid most things labelled enthusiast, it's a money pit because Intel wants your money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gaming laptop has a i7-9750H with the same rating. Considering how low the bar as placed by the M1, you're right.
The M1 peaks at about 27W at max compute load. Apple TDPs are like Intel TDPs - they’re a benchmarking number pulled out of the air for marketing reasons that have at best a tenuous relationship with reality. (This is not to undermine the fact that the M1 is a /great/ chip, but the 10W figure is a marketing number.)
Running those tests on the XPS 13 would typically cause the fan to turn on after a minute or two if I remember correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currently (and for laptop CPUs specifically) 1. AMD Ryzen 4900H 2. Apple M1, though the Intel 10875H is pretty much the same perf (though at 3x the power usage) 3. Only Intel uses this, so whatever Intel's fastest chip on this process is. That said, it varies by use cases, and M1 leans heavily on accelerators so has big wins in some and big losses in others when compared the 4900H or 10875H, which are closer to each…
> 2. Apple M1, though the Intel 10875H is pretty much the same perf (though at 3x the power usage) In single core? At least by Geekbench (clearly not the best test) it is shown to be more than 25% slower than M1.
Is geekbech single core test a single thread test or two threads pinned to one core (if the cpu supports HT)?
If someone is not tied to Windows, it's hard to justify this over a $999 MBA.
From this article: https://wccftech.com/intel-launches-tiger-lake-h-tgl-h-mobil... Intel say they have the fastest single threaded performance of any laptop processor. They show a graph of a benchmark of something called SPECRATE * 2017_int_base compiled with the Intel compiler. Does the Intel compiler still hamstring AMD? Also is this benchmark useful in real world usage?
1. Hamstring might not be fair to "Intel Compiler" , as it was designed for Intel in the first place. Unfair Comparison would be a more valid description. i.e The problem is not with "Intel's compiler", the problem is with the benchmarks and marketing. 2. Keep in mind fastest Single Threaded benchmark is still somewhat true considering Intel can turbo up to 5Ghz. 3. TDP comparison between AMD and Intel are meaningles…
Intel purposefully misidentifies AMD chips with the CPUID check so always runs the generic version of a function on AMD. It does this even if the host AMD chip supports 100% of the features as some Intel CPU that runs the optimized version.
So for any benchmark compiled with ICC any results for AMD chips are meaningless. You can only compare Intel to Intel or AMD to AMD. Compiling that same code without FMV so each CPU runs the exact same instructions will see the difference between them narrow or reverse.
Intel is free to optimize the shit out of their compiler but it's bullshit that they also actively sabotage AMD chips at the same time. It's very much a vendor lock-in tactic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The M1 peaks at about 27W at max compute load. Apple TDPs are like Intel TDPs - they’re a benchmarking number pulled out of the air for marketing reasons that have at best a tenuous relationship with reality. (This is not to undermine the fact that the M1 is a /great/ chip, but the 10W figure is a marketing number.)
A MacBook Air with M1 does not have a fan and I find it faster than my Dell XPS 13 from 2015 when running the scikit-learn test suite which is quite CPU intensive. Running those tests on the XPS 13 would typically cause the fan to turn on after a minute or two if I remember correctly.
As I said, the M1 is a /great/ CPU. But the numbers are marketing numbers & should be treated as such. The same goes for the CPU in your XPS. It was sold with an advertised TDP, was probably configured by the manufacturer to a /different/ TDP target subject to the thermal constraints of the laptop & as an end-user you can shift the set-points of thermals vs power consumption yourself if you want to. None of this is new & Apple is no exception. If Intel hadn’t completely failed to deliver their last 2 fab shrinks, you’d be sat here raving about how amazing your passively cooled Intel Mac was I imagine.