Ah... can't wait to see the next generation of "macbook killers".
Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
11–20 of 80 posts
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#12Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
x86 is certainly not dead, and I don't think it will anytime soon, but they are still behind Apple M3 in terms of performance per watt. And M4 is about to arrive. I'm a bit disappointed because I really want more competition for Apple, but they're just not there yet, nor x86 nor Qualcomm.
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#13Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
I am going to observe that competition is good for consumers. However, using video playback for battery life / efficiency is sketchy as all modern chips have specialized hardware for video decoding. Interestingly Apple also uses video playback as a proxy for battery life... probably for the same make number go bigger reason.
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#14Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
Actually, Apple's M3 and even Qualcomm's X Elite are significantly ahead of the new Intel chip in raw performance and especially perf/watt.
Cinebench R24 ST[0]:
* M3: 12.7 points/watt, 141 score
* X Elite: 9.3 points/watt, 123 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 5.36 points/watt, 120 score
* AMD HX 370: 3.74 points/watt, 116 score
* AMD 8845HS: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
* Intel 155H: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
Cinebench R24 MT[0]:
* M3: 28.3 points/watt, 598 score
* X Elite: 22.6 points/watt, 1033 score
* AMD HX 370: 19.7 points/watt, 1213 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 17.7 points/watt, 602 score
* AMD 8845HS: 14.8 points/watt, 912 score
* Intel 155H: 14.5 points/watt, 752 score
PCMark did a battery life comparison using identical Dell XPS 13s[1]:
* X Elite: 1,168 minutes, performance of 204,333 in Procyon Office
* Intel Ultra 7 256V (new): 1,253 minutes, performance of 123,000 in Procyon Office
* Meteor Lake 155H: 956 minutes, performance of 129,000 in Procyon Office
Basically, Intel's new chip has 7% more battery life than X Elite but the X Elite is 66% faster while on battery. In other words, Intel's new chip throttles heavily to get that battery life.
>Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;)
>Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA.
------
[0]Data for M3, X Elite, AMD, Meteor Lake taken from the best scores available here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
[0]Data for Core Ultra 7 taken from here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-14-UX5406-lapto...
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#15Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
I'm curious how this new chip actually compares in power consumption to the apple cpus. Certainly at the time, when I went from an x86 macbook to an M1, the ability to really work all day on fairly compute intensive stuff, e.g. on an airplane or park bench with no AC was revolutionary.
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#16I mean, any laptop could have 7 days worth of battery life with a big enough battery
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#17Take it with a grain of salt. Other reviewers such as Hardware Canucks [1] have mentioned that they have not been able to get such long hours. Their numbers are closer to 15 hours. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxAMD6i5dVc
[deleted]
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#18... and Microsoft (probably Linux too) will throw it all away with some tiny coding mistake.
Probably not, Intel does a pretty decent job regulating power consumption as long as you don't modify the power profiles or fuck with ACPI. Distributions or third-party nagware might ruin the battery, but that goes for any laptop that's required to install Teams or McAfee. Loading up powertop on my i7 6600u reports an idle draw of 5.5w with my browser open playing music. I think that's pretty damn good, for an old-is…
My understanding is that ACPI handling code is more complex than any OS pre-1990...
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#19Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
Actually, Apple's M3 and even Qualcomm's X Elite are significantly ahead of the new Intel chip in raw performance and especially perf/watt. Cinebench R24 ST[0]: * M3: 12.7 points/watt, 141 score * X Elite: 9.3 points/watt, 123 score * Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 5.36 points/watt, 120 score * AMD HX 370: 3.74 points/watt, 116 score * AMD 8845HS: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score * Intel 155H: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score Cineben…
Am I interpreting this correctly- the M3 still uses only roughly half the power of this new Intel cpu discussed here?
Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake
#20Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA. Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;) Meanwhile industry veterans were claiming something different and turns out they were right https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-... Asking which - x86 or…
> is like asking which syntax (letters) is faster - syntax of Rust, Java or C++?
This is actually a bad example because C style decls are provably, objectively, bad. They make parsing harder and once the types are non-trivial, they are absurdly hard to read and write. The case in point being non-trivial function pointers in C. The syntax for declaring a function pointer of a type that returns a function pointer is hidious.
Meanwhile here is how you define a function in that returns a function that returns a string in a modern language (Typescript):
type NumberToStringFunction = (num: number) => () => string;
typedef char* (*(*NumberToStringFunction)(int))(void);
It is very easy to add CPU features that place a hard limit on performance. That is why Arm64 dropped all the conditional stuff! (Any instruction that limits the potential branch prediction is going to severely impact potential CPU performance.) History is littered with failed CPU architectures that just couldn't scale up, Intel's famous folly being Itanium.
That said, x86 is mature and it dropped some of its less pleasant aspects with x64.
Also IMHO drivers matter more for laptops than the CPU does. A bad driver keeping the GPU on w/o need or just not being able to enter the lower sleep states in general, will kill battery faster than anything else.