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

Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 204 posts

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#81

Post by throwaway173738 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #36
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #33

> no headphone jack I am fully old man screaming at the clouds here, but what does this cost for Dell to include? I insist on a wired headset - telecommunications already barely works, I don't want to add wireless+battery problems into the mix.

Many headphones can do audio over usb-c if you want a wired connection. If you want to use a fully analog set of cans, you can also just get a usb-c to 3.5mm adapter for a few bucks. No need for wireless and battery, just not the plug you were expecting.

If it’s anything like the lightning to 3.5mm adapters I’ll be buying one of those once a month for the rest of my life.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#82

Post by Sleaker »

noir_lord wrote: post #49
truncate wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like a good old headphone jack, but then the USB DACs these days are also super small and portable that I just keep connected to my wired sets. I have couple nice IEMs, and because my phone doesn't have jack, I've to carry around USB DAC anyway.

My (Razer Blackshark) gaming headset does that - the actual headset has a 3.5mm jack on it but the "guts" is a USB DAC with some THX stuff supposedly built in (questionable utility but most of the games I play don't support it anyway) - I figure they reuse the same headset components down the market and just don't ship the DAC, it works flawlessly under Windows/Linux so no real issues with it and I can use it with an…

The dolby/thx stuff for headphone s is done at the software level. It's just preset filters provided by synapse. There is no hardware dolby unless you get into the PCI audio card stuff, or audiophile dedicated sound board setups. Different USB DAC might impact noise levels. If you don't have noticeable audio artifacts then there's not really any reason to use another one.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#83

Post by jojobas »

15155 wrote: post #44
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #33

> no headphone jack I am fully old man screaming at the clouds here, but what does this cost for Dell to include? I insist on a wired headset - telecommunications already barely works, I don't want to add wireless+battery problems into the mix.

3.5mm TRS jacks might cost 10 cents to include and then hundreds of dollars to service when they break. The issue is not the BOM cost.

Since when is damage covered by warranty?

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#84

Post by jojobas »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #80
gertrunde wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are USB headsets, that usually provides a few extra handy features, like volume/mute and call answer/hangup buttons. Does it have to be wired via headphones jack?

It does if it’s a pair of big studio monitors like what I wear for calls.

These would have a 3.5 port themselves, ready for a usb-c-3.5 cable of questionable DAC quality.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#85

Post by intrasight »

throw-the-towel wrote: post #77
varispeed wrote: post #2

Why people are excited about Intel barely matching already outdated CPUs of the competition? Shouldn't we be concerned that the company instead of aiming for the leap is producing legacy hardware destined for landfill? Wake me up when Intel produces something groundbreaking.

If Intel is competitive with Apple again, this should be good for the customer.

"competing" is not the same thing as "competitive". Apple is 1-2 years ahead. If they remain so indefinitely into the future then Intel is not competitive.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#86

Post by Danox »

bhouston wrote: post #4

The improved efficiency is great! The Apple Neo was still 2x faster for graphics and around 1.4x faster for single core cpu. And remember the Apple Neo is running an iPhone CPU that is much slower than the M series. It is strange that this chip is so crazy efficient though. I would love to know the details of exactly why it is? It seems like some new tech or process? I do want 1.5x battery life for free out of my nex…

They have control over the OS and the design of the chip, Intel does not…

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#87

Post by pclmulqdq »

oofbey wrote: post #13
MBCook wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has been working ruthlessly on battery efficiency for a long time because of the phones and their tendency to minimize battery sizes on Macs for thinness. The exact design of the cores, how they’re scheduled, the way background stuff is handled on MacOS. All of it. The chips are made on a fantastic process too, but that alone isn’t it. For example they’ve been putting the ability to drop refresh rate really low…

I think the Top500 benchmark is biased here. It’s a supercomputing benchmark which means it’s going to heavily weight SIMD and float64 performance, which are things that rarely matter for everyday computing. SIMD has uses in the real world - image or video editing, data crunching, graphics. But consumers basically never use fp64 any more, and so many modern chips have next to zero performance on them. That could easi…

What? Pretty much every general-purpose calculation on your computer that isn’t an integer is done with FP64. AI may not use it and games may prefer FP32 for many things, but your CPU certainly does a ton of FP64 work.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#88

Post by bobmcnamara »

Archit3ch wrote: post #69
oofbey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Top500 benchmark is biased here. It’s a supercomputing benchmark which means it’s going to heavily weight SIMD and float64 performance, which are things that rarely matter for everyday computing. SIMD has uses in the real world - image or video editing, data crunching, graphics. But consumers basically never use fp64 any more, and so many modern chips have next to zero performance on them. That could easi…

> consumers basically never use fp64 any more They do in audio processing. ;)

I usually use fp32 for the sole reason I can fit twice as many ~24 bit samples per register.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#89

Post by bobmcnamara »

galangalalgol wrote: post #75
LexGray wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say I’ve broken every headphone jack I ever had. Yanking on them, debris getting in the switch, debris triggering the optical if it had one. 3.5 was never a great design. Too many physical ways for it to break, from static from a loose connection, debris stuck inside like pebbles getting jammed, debris stuck under the switch preventing recognition. False positive or accidental triggers that take a while to…

I have aeen usb-c bent but I have never seen 3.5 break in decades of use. Walkmans then discmans falling. Shooting back out of my chair and snagging it such that the whole tower spins unplugging ps/2 mouse. But the headphones are fine. What do you do to those poor things? The only time I have seen one fail it was on a custom pcb and the solder joint broke. A couple minutes with an iron and it was back.

Some terrible jacks are held on by the contacts.

Re: Can Intel finally beat ARM on performance per Watt?

#90

Post by geerlingguy »

dimask wrote: post #79

Nice and organised work! My only reservation wrt the core of it is that it tests the cpus on a matrix operations task, and power efficiency in this case refers specifically to doing matrix operations. This is fine if that's the kind of task one wants to optimise for, but it does not necessarily translate to general energy efficiency for a broader spectrum of tasks that most people may do most of the time. And thus, i…

Can you please post an issue on the repo? Long on my todo list has been trying to get the Mac tests more repeatable/consistent and optimized (always easier on Linux).
Post reply on HN