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

Post by ac29 » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 5:15 PM UTC

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…

Post by wtallis » Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 6:33 PM UTC

senttoschool wrote: post #64

wtallis wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Post by Wytwwww » Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 1:10 PM UTC

h0l0cube wrote: post #27

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…

> (or since M1) The bigger deal about the M-series performance and efficiency is SoC, not the ISA. This is something that could take off in the x86 world though it stifles upgradeability

Post by noncoml » Fri, Sep 27, 2024, 8:52 PM UTC

tester756 wrote: post #74

noncoml wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I see your point, but isn't decoder part of implementation for ISA just like compiler, runtime/vm, stdlib and more... are for programming language?

Post by senttoschool » Tue, Oct 01, 2024, 1:30 PM UTC

nahnahno wrote: post #65

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…

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.