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

131–140 of 207 posts

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

#131

Post by mr_toad »

GeekyBear wrote: post #15
geerlingguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, the efficiency (FP64, HPL) is also beating all the M4/M3/M2/M1 systems I've tested besides the M4 Mac mini: https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark#results I think the bigger news is Intel's made a chip that isn't just pushing clocks to hit some performance number, they've actually tuned clocks for efficiency... which also leads to much better battery life. And the fan on the system in the orig…

Efficiency is one thing. Efficiency and performance is another. We've long known that pushing clock speeds results in diminishing efficiency, so it's about time we see Intel stop pushing the clocks (and power) so hard that the chip melts down and the battery drains quickly.

“But they can’t match Intels performance” used to be the rejoinder of the Intel crowd. Now we’ve come full circle.

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

#132

Post by aurareturn »

geerlingguy wrote: post #130
Eufrat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to launder responsibility for a clickbait title to a computer program. Then you try to shift the topic to the public good you are providing. I don’t think it’s wrong to use clickbait, but come on, own up to it. You consciously chose to “let [YouTube] pick it.”

I never said it wasn't clickbait. If you don't like it, either install DeArrow or subscribe to my blog, where I tone it down for the more technical audience. (Or block/ignore my content, no skin off my back!)

That's why you're not a serious reviewer. If you're serious, you wouldn't mislead people.

Even your blog post does not tell the truth nor does it have highlights of benchmarks that represent how people will actually use a $600 laptop.

The people who are buying these laptops are likely not very technical and it's your job to guide them. They wouldn't know that an FP64 test on the $600 laptop is near useless - yet you base the entire conclusion on it.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124
MBCook wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has been working ruthlessly on battery efficiency for a long time because of the phones and their tendency to minimize battery sizes on Macs for thinness. The exact design of the cores, how they’re scheduled, the way background stuff is handled on MacOS. All of it. The chips are made on a fantastic process too, but that alone isn’t it. For example they’ve been putting the ability to drop refresh rate really low…

> their tendency to minimize battery sizes on Macs for thinness. Is this actually a thing? Macbook Pro goes up to 100 Wh and almost nobody goes above that because it's the highest capacity battery you don't need special permission to have in a carry on at the airport. > But add in other motherboard components, the screen, the OS, the software and system libraries, all are optimized together to hit those numbers. I al…

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by AnthonyMouse »

geerlingguy wrote: post #19
oofbey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Top500 benchmark is biased here. It’s a supercomputing benchmark which means it’s going to heavily weight SIMD and float64 performance, which are things that rarely matter for everyday computing. SIMD has uses in the real world - image or video editing, data crunching, graphics. But consumers basically never use fp64 any more, and so many modern chips have next to zero performance on them. That could easi…

I run a number of other benchmarks for a better comparison (linked from my blog post: https://github.com/geerlingguy/sbc-reviews/issues/111 ). The Intel chip holds its own for multicore in less bursty workloads, where the fans help.

An interesting thing there is how much better the Geekbench scores are on Linux than Windows. Makes you think how the Intel/AMD chips would compare to Apple when both running the same OS. Or even just when both not being held back by Windows.

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

#135

Post by ActorNightly »

bhouston wrote: post #4

The improved efficiency is great! The Apple Neo was still 2x faster for graphics and around 1.4x faster for single core cpu. And remember the Apple Neo is running an iPhone CPU that is much slower than the M series. It is strange that this chip is so crazy efficient though. I would love to know the details of exactly why it is? It seems like some new tech or process? I do want 1.5x battery life for free out of my nex…

>It is strange that this chip is so crazy efficient though.

Its only strange if you believe Apples lies.

The truth is, architecture doesn't matter. Single core performance, Apple was always on par with the best chips. Compute is compute, under the hood moving data costs energy, an you can't get away from that.

The reason for "efficiency" of Apple silicon it is because they spent a long time basically optimizing their chips for their specific hardware while running specific programs. Its like building an ASIC to specifically watch youtube vides. When it came to things that are not pipelinable (i.e a lot of branching), the efficieny/battery life statistics flew out the window.

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

#136

Post by AnthonyMouse »

GeekyBear wrote: post #15
geerlingguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, the efficiency (FP64, HPL) is also beating all the M4/M3/M2/M1 systems I've tested besides the M4 Mac mini: https://github.com/geerlingguy/top500-benchmark#results I think the bigger news is Intel's made a chip that isn't just pushing clocks to hit some performance number, they've actually tuned clocks for efficiency... which also leads to much better battery life. And the fan on the system in the orig…

Efficiency is one thing. Efficiency and performance is another. We've long known that pushing clock speeds results in diminishing efficiency, so it's about time we see Intel stop pushing the clocks (and power) so hard that the chip melts down and the battery drains quickly.

Intel's actual problem was that their process fell behind TSMC's. That meant competing on performance per watt was out of the question and the best they could do was turn up the clock speed and try to stay on top for performance.

If they've managed to fix their process then they don't have to do that anymore.

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

#137

Post by aurareturn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
aurareturn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they both have the same and Intel cores are known to be bigger than AMD and Apple cores but poor in area/performance. So I'm not sure what your original post about smaller cores is all about considering that the A18 Pro CPU is almost certainly smaller in actual die size.

It's not about die area at all. It's about the SSD and chipset and WiFi etc. each using power on top of what the CPU uses, and ending up as a much larger percentage of system power draw for a 15W CPU than for the same system with a 60W CPU that has around four times the multi-thread performance by having four times as many of the exact same cores.

You lost me.

Maybe you can articulate what you're arguing from the start?

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

#138

Post by ithadhumor »

aurareturn wrote: post #132
geerlingguy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it wasn't clickbait. If you don't like it, either install DeArrow or subscribe to my blog, where I tone it down for the more technical audience. (Or block/ignore my content, no skin off my back!)

That's why you're not a serious reviewer. If you're serious, you wouldn't mislead people. Even your blog post does not tell the truth nor does it have highlights of benchmarks that represent how people will actually use a $600 laptop. The people who are buying these laptops are likely not very technical and it's your job to guide them. They wouldn't know that an FP64 test on the $600 laptop is near useless - yet you…

Jeff has a day job. He is not a professional reviewer. He shows cool products and showcases what he’s passionate about. YouTube as a medium requires clickbait - that’s the belly of the beast.

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

#139

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aurareturn wrote: post #137
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about die area at all. It's about the SSD and chipset and WiFi etc. each using power on top of what the CPU uses, and ending up as a much larger percentage of system power draw for a 15W CPU than for the same system with a 60W CPU that has around four times the multi-thread performance by having four times as many of the exact same cores.

You lost me. Maybe you can articulate what you're arguing from the start?

Suppose you have a system that under some workload will draw 10W to run the chipset, WiFi, SSD and so on and another 15W to run the CPU, so that it's 25W in total. The 15W CPU has X number of cores and gets a score of 1000 on some benchmark. Performance per watt is 40 points per watt.

If you put 4X of the same cores in the same system then the CPU uses 60W, the WiFi etc. still use 10W, so the whole system uses 70W. It scores 4000 points and the performance per watt is 57 points per watt. You got four times the multi-thread performance and performance per watt went up.

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

#140

Post by TheRealPomax »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #33

> no headphone jack I am fully old man screaming at the clouds here, but what does this cost for Dell to include? I insist on a wired headset - telecommunications already barely works, I don't want to add wireless+battery problems into the mix.

When the laptop is literally the thickness of a headphone jack? Because a USB-C port is less than 2mm, but a 3.5mm headphone jack port is more like 6mm. That becomes a problem when the actual shell it need to go in is 7.5mm.

Did it need to be that thin? Heck no. But it is, and yeah there is absolutely no room for one because of that decision.

Post reply on HN