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

151–160 of 204 posts

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

#151

Post by rstuart4133 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #113
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…

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, it's not easily available yet.

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

#152

Post by amelius »

aurareturn wrote: post #107
amelius wrote: post #37

Whoever used the most recent TSMC node will have the best specs. My guess is that even the designs of the transistors and perhaps logic gates are IP blocks owned by TSMC and not whoever wants to get their chip fabricated.

This isn't true because Apple's N5 CPUs are faster and more efficient than Intel's TSMC N3 CPUs (Lunar Lake).

I suppose in that case Intel tried to make its own transistors.

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

#153

Post by wjnc »

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!)

I think the lite tip of: “take your credibility seriously” stands, however you are getting attacked by pretty much one (ab-)user. (Those type of users are normally not even in your market.)

I think it’s pretty normal that you are incentivized by YT. Too bad the internet favors screaming and yelling. Pretty clear line you draw between writing and video.

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

#154

Post by podocarp »

aurareturn wrote: post #143
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

That's why any CPU reviewer worth their salt will isolate CPU power.

Which reviewer does that? How do you isolate CPU power? Measuring the pins? Software reporting is half bullshit. Also nobody even reports idle power. Don't tell me idle is hard to define bla bla we all know what's idle. Even an inaccurate figure is better than no figure. And there are community compiled lists that are very helpful when building systems.

So where is the reviewer worth their salt you're talking about?

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

#155

Post by aurareturn »

podocarp wrote: post #154
aurareturn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why any CPU reviewer worth their salt will isolate CPU power.

Which reviewer does that? How do you isolate CPU power? Measuring the pins? Software reporting is half bullshit. Also nobody even reports idle power. Don't tell me idle is hard to define bla bla we all know what's idle. Even an inaccurate figure is better than no figure. And there are community compiled lists that are very helpful when building systems. So where is the reviewer worth their salt you're talking about?

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 didn’t know who this Jeff guy was but now he’s on my list as one. There are still some who do proper reviews.

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

#156

Post by shuwix »

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…

If the result isn't what you want it to be ... it's undisclosed sponsor review.

If it's utter Apple shill bullcrap like Geekbench, caught 100x rewriting results in favor of Apple (for what rea$on it'$ not hard to figure out), it's perfectly OK because it supports what you believe in.

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

#157

Post by lostmsu »

whyagaindavid wrote: post #148
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!)

Overall you can always say - if you don't like it then ignore my content. Then... people doing scam or misinformation can also say that - ignore it. No. We like your content. While you may get more clicks etc at the moment - eventually you will lose subscribers. You could have made the title at least like - Intel tries hard to win against apple silicon - Almost there but not yet...

> We like your content.

I feel like this is the first time I noticed his content, and the only reason for being notable is that it is a lying piece of crap.

Maybe you should review your former trust in the guy.

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

#158

Post by lostmsu »

dimask wrote: post #79

Nice and organised work! My only reservation wrt the core of it is that it tests the cpus on a matrix operations task, and power efficiency in this case refers specifically to doing matrix operations. This is fine if that's the kind of task one wants to optimise for, but it does not necessarily translate to general energy efficiency for a broader spectrum of tasks that most people may do most of the time. And thus, i…

When you test matmul these days you want bf16 max. FP64 is a niche workload 100% unused by 95%+ users.

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

#159

Post by fyredge »

geerlingguy wrote: post #113
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…

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…

Don't worry too much about it. For what it's worth, you made the sponsorship disclaimer abundantly clear up front and the comparison was fair.

I went through the whole thread of this conversion, and as the old adage goes, don't feed the trolls.

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

#160

Post by redat00 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #115
therealmarv wrote: post #105

In Germany the Dell XPS 13 2026 is 56% more expensive (over 1000 Euros) than the MacBook Neo (below 700). So the claim does not hold World wide, maybe only in US on local prices.

Yeah, not sure why Dell has such a spread on US vs rest-of-world pricing here. I know some have mentioned the $699/$599 price could also change a bit in the US come November. The internal assembly and parts seem like they'd cost Dell a little more than Apple's cost building the Neo, so maybe in the US they're selling them closer to at cost, and subsidizing it with the Windows exclusivity and price elsewhere? Not sure…

Seems like it's targeted at students. They're probably expecting to sell a bunch of them at the time of "back to school" and they'll increase the price after.

At least for Europe, and more specifically France, laptop use in classrooms in high school, is still not a thing. So that would explain why they don't do it everywhere the same and the huge price difference.

Post reply on HN