71–80 of 187 posts
“With Series 3, we are laser focused on improving power efficiency, adding more CPU performance, a bigger GPU in a class of its own, more AI compute and app compatibility you can count on with x86.” – Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Client Computing Group, Intel A laser focus on five things is either business nonsense or optics nonsense. Who was this written for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is very consistent. You have the MacBook Air (lighter, more portable variant) and the MacBook Pro (more expensive and powerful variant). They don’t mess around with model numbers.
> Apple is very consistent. You have the MacBook Air (lighter, more portable variant) and the MacBook Pro (more expensive and powerful variant). What about the iBook? That wasn’t tidy. Ebooks or laptops? Or the iPhone 9? That didn’t exist. Or MacOS? Versioning got a bit weird after 10.9, due the X thing. They do mess around with model numbers and have just done it again with the change to year numbers. I don’t partic…
Back then, there were iBooks (entry-level) and PowerBooks (professional, high performance and expensive). There had been PowerBooks since way back in 1991, well before any ebook reader. I am not sure what your gripe is.
> Or the iPhone 9? That didn’t exist.
There’s a hole in the series. In what way is it a problem, and how on earth is it similar to the situation described in the parent?
> Or MacOS? Versioning got a bit weird after 10.9, due the X thing.
It never got weird. After 10.9.5 came 10.10.0. Version numbers are not decimals.
Seriously, do you have a point apart from "Apple bad"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is very consistent. You have the MacBook Air (lighter, more portable variant) and the MacBook Pro (more expensive and powerful variant). They don’t mess around with model numbers.
I got a MacBook. No, not an air or pro, just MacBook.
If you really want to complain, you can go back to the first unibody MacBook, which did not fit that pattern, or the interim period when high-DPI displays were being rolled out progressively, but let’s be serious. The fact is that even at the worst of times their range could be described in 2 sentences. Now, try to do that for any other computer brand. To my knowledge, he only other with an understandable lineup was Microsoft, before they lost interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i cant believe we're still putting NPUs into new designs. silicon taken up that couldve been used for a few more compute units on the GPU, which is often faster at inference anyway and way more useful/flexible/programmable/documented.
You can thank Microsoft for that. Intel architects in fact did not want to waste area on an NPU. That caused Microsoft to launch their AI-whatever branded PCs with Qualcomm who were happy to throw in whatever Microsoft wanted to get to be the launch partner. After than Intel had to follow suit to make Microsoft happy.
The thing is, when you get an Apple product and you take a picture, those devices are performing ML tasks while sipping battery life.
Microsoft maybe shouldn’t be chasing Apple especially since they don’t actually have any marketshare in tablets or phones, but I see where they’re getting at: they are probably tired of their OS living on devices that get half the battery life of their main competition.
And here’s the thing, Qualcomm’s solution blows Intel out of the water. The only reason not to use it is because Microsoft can’t provide the level of architecture transition that Apple does. Apple can get 100% of their users to switch architecture in about 7 years whenever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i cant believe we're still putting NPUs into new designs. silicon taken up that couldve been used for a few more compute units on the GPU, which is often faster at inference anyway and way more useful/flexible/programmable/documented.
Guess they're following Apple here whose NPUs get all the support possible, as far as I can tell.
When you use an Apple device, it’s performing ML tasks while barely using any battery life. That’s the whole point of the NPU. It’s not there to outperform the GPU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel marketing isn’t the best but I am struggling to understand what issue you’re taking with this. It’s an AI PC platform. It can do AI. It has an NPU and integrated GPU. That’s pretty straightforward. Competitors include Apple silicon and AMD Ryzen AI. They’re predicting it’ll sell well, and they have a huge distribution network with a large number of partner products launching. Basically they’re saying every lapt…
i cant believe we're still putting NPUs into new designs. silicon taken up that couldve been used for a few more compute units on the GPU, which is often faster at inference anyway and way more useful/flexible/programmable/documented.
The Core Ultra lineup is supposed to be low-power, low-heat, right? If you want more compute power, pick something from a different product series.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These processors have NPU (Neural Processing Unit) which is supposed to accelerate some small local neural networks. Nvidia RTX GPUs have much more powerful NPUs, so it's more about laptops without discrete GPU.
But like.....what for example. As a normal windows PC user, what kind of software can I run that will benefit from that NPU at all?
“With Series 3, we are laser focused on improving power efficiency, adding more CPU performance, a bigger GPU in a class of its own, more AI compute and app compatibility you can count on with x86.” – Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Client Computing Group, Intel A laser focus on five things is either business nonsense or optics nonsense. Who was this written for?
Intel called it a “one-off mistake”, it’s the best mistake Intel ever made.
“With Series 3, we are laser focused on improving power efficiency, adding more CPU performance, a bigger GPU in a class of its own, more AI compute and app compatibility you can count on with x86.” – Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Client Computing Group, Intel A laser focus on five things is either business nonsense or optics nonsense. Who was this written for?
Meanwhile they are NOT laser-focusing on doing more of Lunar Lake, with its on-package memory and glorious battery life. Intel called it a “one-off mistake”, it’s the best mistake Intel ever made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile they are NOT laser-focusing on doing more of Lunar Lake, with its on-package memory and glorious battery life. Intel called it a “one-off mistake”, it’s the best mistake Intel ever made.
Intel is claiming that Panther lake has 30% better battery life than Lunar Lake.
On package memory is claimed to be a 40% reduction in power consumption. To beat actual LL by 30%, it means the PL chip must actually be ~58% more efficient in an apples-to-apples non-SoC configuration.
Possible if they doped PL’s silicon with magic pixie dust.