31–40 of 80 posts
Take 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apple will also run into the diminishing returns, but they will retain the real killer advantage over general purpose CPU vendors that the have in other hardware areas: being able to retire or rework old or misconceived parts of the architecture entirely in future versions unilaterally. If they want to drop M1 support in some future MacOS version, all it will take will be a WWDC announcement that the next version won…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't necessarily use half the power. But it does have greater than 2x in perf/watt and it has noticeably faster ST performance.
Aren't those roughly equivalent in a cpu which dynamically varies its clock speed and power consumption in response to compute demand?
They go over it in detail here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-Test-Criteria.15394.0.html
Take 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
The type of test definitely matters but 15 hours ain't too shabby either
Battery life is based on playing a 720p video file so most of the expended power will be in the video decoder and screen not the actual CPU. It's also dependent on the battery size in the laptop being tested so pretty much impossible to compare on any like for like basis.
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. 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 hi…
I found your comment extremely funny. You singled out the language which is not only one of the most popular languages ever designed but also the one whose syntax inspired or was straight out cloned by the bulk of the world's most popular programming languages.
Yes, the programming language defined in the 70s isn't perfect and has a couple of kinks that could be improved. As does every single programming language.
But when you see a curly-bracket language you see programming language designers yelling to the world that C got way more things right than any other language not derived from C, which is the exact opposite of your unbelievable claim.
Battery life is based on playing a 720p video file so most of the expended power will be in the video decoder and screen not the actual CPU. It's also dependent on the battery size in the laptop being tested so pretty much impossible to compare on any like for like basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't necessarily use half the power. But it does have greater than 2x in perf/watt and it has noticeably faster ST performance.
Aren't those roughly equivalent in a cpu which dynamically varies its clock speed and power consumption in response to compute demand?
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. 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.