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

61–70 of 80 posts

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

#61

Post by Sakos »

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…

Cinebench is really a terrible benchmark and not indicative of real-world numbers for performance or efficiency (particularly not for any of my use cases). I'll wait for better reviews and benchmarks before deciding who's "won".

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

#62

Post by noncoml »

tester756 wrote: post #57
noncoml wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I got that, but it's not a good analogy. It's the parser that is to the language what the CPU is to the instruction set

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

#63

Post by senttoschool »

Sakos wrote: post #61
senttoschool wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cinebench is really a terrible benchmark and not indicative of real-world numbers for performance or efficiency (particularly not for any of my use cases). I'll wait for better reviews and benchmarks before deciding who's "won".

Geekbench shows the same gap in performance. Cinebench has historically favored Intel chips more than Arm.

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

#64

Post by senttoschool »

wtallis wrote: post #44
_yb2s wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't those roughly equivalent in a cpu which dynamically varies its clock speed and power consumption in response to compute demand?

Performance vs power across a CPUs operating range is not a linear relationship. Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency. You need to at the very least normalize to either the same power or same performance, but preferably reviewers should be measuring and reporting a full perf/power curve for each chip instead of ju…

  >Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency.
It isn't worthless. It clearly gives a good enough picture on efficiency to draw conclusions. It's not like Apple and Qualcomm drastically slow their chips down in order to get better perf/watt. No. They have better raw performance than Intel's chips regardless of perf/watt.

You can't even get perf/watt curves on Apple's A series and M series of chips because it's impossible to manually control the wattage given to the SoC. On PCs, you can do that. But not on iPhones and Macs. Therefore, Geekerwan's curves are not real curves for Apple chips - just projections.

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

#65

Post by nahnahno »

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…

The efficiency tests are garbage. Notebookcheck are comparing whole system power draw and equating it with SOC power draw, when in reality the SOC may draw a fraction of total system power, especially under single core workloads. Take those numbers with a full truck of salt.

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

#66

Post by chipdart »

baq wrote: post #43
chipdart wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually a bad example because C style decls are provably, objectively, bad. 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…

Millions of flies can’t be wrong. Or, more politely, a primer on how to confuse first-mover advantage with being any good. C is abysmal by today’s standards, it being the first popular language for weak computers is literally what’s keeping it popular. Popularity is very valuable but please don’t confuse it with being good.

> Millions of flies can’t be wrong.

You're talking about experts in programming language design. They decided that C's syntax was the best for their needs.

Then the whole software development world adopted these languages, based in no small part due to their readability and user-friendlyness.

If you think the whole world is wrong and you are the only one who is right then sure why not?

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

#67

Post by Sakos »

senttoschool wrote: post #63
Sakos wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cinebench is really a terrible benchmark and not indicative of real-world numbers for performance or efficiency (particularly not for any of my use cases). I'll wait for better reviews and benchmarks before deciding who's "won".

Geekbench shows the same gap in performance. Cinebench has historically favored Intel chips more than Arm.

Geekbench is also terrible though? I'm not an Intel fanboy that's upset about Intel not winning, I've owned AMD chips for most of my life. These are just terrible benchmarks that don't tell us anything. I'm more interested in seeing what Phoronix or gaming benchmarks (particularly Factorio and MSFS) have to show. Real-world benchmarks are infinitely more useful to guaging the real-world benefit of buying one or the other hardware.

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

#68

Post by baq »

chipdart wrote: post #66
baq wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of flies can’t be wrong. Or, more politely, a primer on how to confuse first-mover advantage with being any good. C is abysmal by today’s standards, it being the first popular language for weak computers is literally what’s keeping it popular. Popularity is very valuable but please don’t confuse it with being good.

> Millions of flies can’t be wrong. You're talking about experts in programming language design. They decided that C's syntax was the best for their needs. Then the whole software development world adopted these languages, based in no small part due to their readability and user-friendlyness. If you think the whole world is wrong and you are the only one who is right then sure why not?

If I was the only one, you wouldn't have all the other languages around, a lot of which have nothing in common with C.

C is good enough for some tasks. It doesn't mean it's good. I don't see many of those programming language experts saying that C is good. I see many people who don't think they need anything more than C in their work.

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

#69

Post by rfoo »

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…

The funny part of your example is, decoding AArch64 instructions (argubly, "parsing") is also easier than decoding x86_64.

Yet GP's point still holds.

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

#70

Post by ac29 »

cogman10 wrote: post #48
xena wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the video decoder unit located though?

CPU to be sure. However, low power video decoders are really nothing new for Intel or AMD. Also, the codec being decoded matters a lot. H.264 is trivial to decode at this point while something like AV1 will require a bit more power to decode.

Video decode is part of the GPU, not CPU. They are on the same tile in Lunar Lake though.
Post reply on HN