Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#51

Post by Dylan16807 »

com2kid wrote: post #49
Dylan16807 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your unbelievable claim Please quote the specific claim you think is unbelievable. (I assume you don't mean the declarations claim because you didn't even disagree with it.)

I'm presuming the poster either never took a compilers course, never had to write a parser, slept through their entire CS curriculum, or doesn't have a background in CS. (Which to be clear, doesn't have to involve a degree! The people who invented Computer Science sure as heck didn't have CS degrees!) People forget that Computer Scientists has actual foundations built upon objective, scientifically backed, work in mu…

I don't think a lot of theory went into most of C's syntax. History is important but it doesn't make designs good.

And if we really want to get into how much C was copied, that's more because of familiarity than correctness. Look how many languages copied C's goofy precedence for bitwise operations, which was only there because they made a syntax change and didn't want to disrupt a few existing programs.

But all this aside, you didn't answer the question at all. What was their unbelievable claim?

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#52

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

VincentEvans wrote: post #35
barbegal wrote: post #8

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.

Spot on. Why not use any more or less standard cpu benchmark? The publication is either being strangely incompetent at this, or deliberately misleading.

Success despite incompetence isn't that strange.

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#53

Post by tester756 »

senttoschool wrote: post #14
tester756 wrote: post #4

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…

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…

How does that Qualcom X Elite compares with LL when it comes to gaming/iGPU?

How many FPS in e.g Black Myth: Wukong on battery like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ1xXh2lj2A

or Cyberpunk as benched here?

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2463714/tested-intels-lunar-...

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#54

Post by com2kid »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #51
com2kid wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm presuming the poster either never took a compilers course, never had to write a parser, slept through their entire CS curriculum, or doesn't have a background in CS. (Which to be clear, doesn't have to involve a degree! The people who invented Computer Science sure as heck didn't have CS degrees!) People forget that Computer Scientists has actual foundations built upon objective, scientifically backed, work in mu…

I don't think a lot of theory went into most of C's syntax. History is important but it doesn't make designs good. And if we really want to get into how much C was copied, that's more because of familiarity than correctness. Look how many languages copied C's goofy precedence for bitwise operations, which was only there because they made a syntax change and didn't want to disrupt a few existing programs. But all this…

> I don't think a lot of theory went into most of C's syntax. History is important but it doesn't make designs good.

Agreed. C is just what sort of worked at the time. 50 years on, we can do better. Theory is what lets us do so in a scientific way, instead of just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what works.

Although, there is something to be said for testing out new syntax and seeing how it feels in the real world!

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#55

Post by tester756 »

com2kid wrote: post #20
tester756 wrote: post #4

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…

>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.

The example is good, I just dont understand why you focused on compiler performance or developer experience. It doesnt imply program's performance.

We were talking purely about performance/energy eff of generated binary, not other RELEVANT things like developer experience/low compilation times because it is outside the scope of this discussion.

Yes, C++ is poorly designed language, but point that syntax (letters) don't imply language's performance stands. The result is up to the implementation: compiler, runtime/vm, std libs, etc.

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#56

Post by StillBored »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
talldayo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That assumes the motherboard vendor implemented ACPI properly, and most don't , you're often lucky to have something that is able to keep Windows alive enough to pass certifications. Linux, xBSD or macOS compatibility? Forget it unless you're talking servers with support contra…

Sure, there are ACPI bugs, they hit windows too. But to claim there are "works on windows but not linux" bugs everywhere is bogus. If it works in windows, it should work in linux too, that is the point of a platform power interface like ACPI. When one actually tries to look at why the battery life is worse in linux, or the machine doesn't resume properly, overwhelmingly what one finds are linux bugs. Bugs, like the distro won't ship accelerated video codec's, or hibernate is broken due to the kernel refusing to support it with secure boot on, or the wifi or GPU drivers have bugs in their suspend/resume paths, or even simpler things like there isn't a clear project/owner responsible for detecting seat activity and making power related decisions. Sure the freedesktop/dbus/systemd interfaces are there, but often a WM of distro will replace one of those components and create another set of bugs. Never mind desktop Linux still doesn't have the concept of a foreground/background application split so even if it wants to do scheduling hints indicating that a minimized chat application shouldn't be consuming 100% of a cpu when in the background no such standardized component exists unless one is running android. Systemd rightly gets a lot of shit, but it has standardized parts of this functionality, like for example how an application requests a screen inhibit. Nevermind it takes 2-3 years from the point a machine gets released before all the driver tweaks/etc land upstream, and trickle down to your average users machine.

Bottom line, linux on laptops only really works because of ACPI, if you were wondering what the laptop space looks like without it, I might suggest grabbing a couple random arm laptops/chromebooks and giving them a spin.

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#57

Post by tester756 »

noncoml wrote: post #26
tester756 wrote: post #4

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++" Language syntax does affect the speed of the parser

Correct, but I meant the performance of generated program.

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#58

Post by talldayo »

PaulHoule wrote: post #18
talldayo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They don't call it "advanced" for nothin'.

FWIW the alternative these days is probably running a 32-bit RTOS on your battery hardware which isn't much simpler.

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#59

Post by com2kid »

tester756 wrote: post #55
com2kid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. The example is good, I just dont understand why you focused on compiler p…

ah I didn't understand that your "syntax (faster)" referred to the compiler speed, I thought you were referring to the speed of development/engineering!

Re: Intel's Core Ultra 2 Chip Posts Nearly 24-Hour Battery Life in Lunar Lake

#60

Post by Sakos »

The most interesting part to me is the Cyberpunk 2077 performance compared to Snapdragon and AMD. It's surprisingly good and considering Strix Point pricing, Intel might be the next sure bet for the Steam Deck 2. If not with this, then maybe with Panther Lake (Intel 18A).
Post reply on HN