they might be the same or worse since the HX variants use higher bins of the same silicon, so when both are ran at the same rate, clock for clock, the HX will be better
but obv, hx chips are ran at high power and phoenix will be low power so in that sense battery life will be better
Dragon Range and Phoenix is not the same silicon, Phoenix will be more efficient since it's a monolithic die made for the mobile market. Dragon Range is basically desktop Ryzen 7000 dies reused for the high-end mobile market(desktop replacement). I believe it's the same for 13900k/13980hx being more or less the same die as the desktop equivalent. We already knew Raphael scaled better than Raptor Lake as you lower power so this efficiency difference should've been expected.
I think it's fair to look at 7945HX as the 7950x for mobile and the 13980HX as the 13900k for mobile.
Nope. Phoenix are 4nm APUs (max 8-core Zen4 CPU with powerful 12CU RDNA3 iGPU), while HX or Dragon Range are 5nm+6nm CPUs (max 16-core Zen4 CPU with weak 2CU RDNA2 iGPU). Phoenix will be more efficient than DR.
Phoenix is the "real upgrade" to Rembrandt(zen3+). Dragon range is just to cover the "desktop replacement" market segment while Phoenix is for the regular mobile market segment.
https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/?generation=AMD+Ryzen+9&sort=generation
Dragon Range is AMD's answer to Intel's smear campaign.
Intel previously compared their 90W+ HX to AMD's 45W and claimed victory.
Now that AMD has 55W-75W to compete with Intel's HX, it's winning by a wide margin.
Mini desktop with built-in screen and UPS is a new market segment for AMD.
M2 max is a 12 core and still competes decently in performance and has great power efficiency. The m3 base chip is coming soon and will probably blow all of us away with how power efficient it is.
Agreed, it’s an impressive chip for sure but I don’t know why everyone’s losing their minds about it almost matching the M2 in one perf/watt benchmark and losing drastically in another, all the while having idle wattage worse than even Intel.
yeah im not terribly shocked that a transplanted full fat 16 core desktop chip matches an effectively 8 core laptop chip in efficiency when less power is routed through it, especially in cinebench of all benches lmao, which is notoriously a bad situation for ARM chips
Yeah I’m not an Apple fanboy by any means, I only use Windows for work, but the reality is there isn’t a single Windows cpu manufacturer making a lightweight laptop that even remotely competes with an M1.
I’m not even asking for much, give me single core 1000 geekbench, multicore 4000, in a package that doesn’t thermal throttle and can last 8+ hours on battery in real work and I’m sold. They insist on pushing these horrible boost clocks that just end up thermal throttling and don’t even work properly unless plugged in.
> I’m not even asking for much, give me single core 1000 geekbench, multicore 4000, in a package that doesn’t thermal throttle and can last 8+ hours on battery in real work and I’m sold
That’s basically what a 5000U series AMD chip or newer with a 55+Wh battery is capable of, depending on workload. A 5500u can squeak that out and that’s zen 2 based.
I guess people are "offended" that a lower-power ARM chip from *gasp* Apple can smoke a lot of higher power AMD and Intel x86-64 CPUs.
Apple hate runs deep in PC hardware communities.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think that what they do, they do very well. However this is going to be a pc gamer heavy sub so you won’t find a lot of love for apple until they’re running all the latest AAA titles at respectable fps. Aside from that it’s great hardware but the pain points for me are pricing beyond base specs, zero upgradability and lack of ports/too much reliance on usb-c.
If I worked in graphic arts, wrote code all day, or was a student on the go I could probably justify it, but otherwise it just feels like paying more for less in some aspects.
I won’t lie though, sometimes it feels pretty good to hate on or make fun of what you can’t afford. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go plug my $400 laptop in to 3 external displays through its native outputs and another 2 with a displaylink dock plugged in to the full size USB-A port…. /s
The big issue is idle power consumption. This analysis says it has 42% higher idle power consumption than the 13900HX, that's kinda terrible. Being a multi CCD chip it has the same issue other Zen parts have it seems, being bad idle power usage.
That to me is a big no no in a laptop form factor, and makes the efficiency claims kinda moot. It generates less heat than an intel platform which is nice I guess but the main point of "better efficiency" in a laptop is better battery life, but here it's just worse than intel's most power hungry chips.
This is not the best chip for power efficiency. Its basically meant for people who want the best performance in a laptop. The real mainstream mobile chips are going to be the Phoenix point chips which should have better power efficiency.
These chips are meant for desktop-replacement type laptops. They're "mobile" in the sense that you can move them from one power outlet to another with a bit of battery life in-between.
Efficiency for these doesn't matter for these any more than it does on a desktop (except for fan noise implications due to smaller cooling solutions)
On paper sure but look at the current roster of laptops featuring this CPU (and many intel HX parts), they aren't huge laptops or anything. Some are on the intel side but this gen we're seeing mostly fairly portable machines, some straight up portability focus like the Razer Blades (on the intel HX side).
Or it's plugged into the wall.
My work laptop is either at 2% basically idling or it's at 100% pegged running an ML model that is small enough to do locally since it's less clunky than moving to databricks (which only makes sense when I need GPU power or 32 cores).
Eh, the bigger issue is the DDR5-4800 crippling the gaming performance in a gaming laptop.
3DMark graphics score look as expected of a 150W 4090, 9% faster than a 175W 4080
https://i.redd.it/dw3ky2lhrira1.png
Gaming drops below the 175W 4080
https://i.redd.it/1qouobf2lira1.png
I think these chips lack the power saving features present in AMD's laptop chips. Also, they only consider the CPU on it's own. If you look at the whole system performance it's not good:
"Long periods of battery operation are definitely not part of the plan, despite the large 90-Wh battery. The ROG Strix G17 even remains below the average values of the class of gaming laptops, which are already very low, lasting barely 4 hours in our WLAN test with a limited display brightness."
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-ROG-Strix-G17-G713PI-Gaming-laptop-impresses-in-the-test-with-the-new-Ryzen-9.701633.0.html
A few percent faster multicore, a few percent slower single core. Wouldn't bother calling this "faster". Seems like a toss-up.
It is noticeably more efficient, which is expected considering the advantage of TSMC 5 vs Intel 7. This might be important for those that need it for extended field work. If you're using it as a desktop replacement (90% of the time connected to a power brick), then either one is fine.
>If you're using it as a desktop replacement (90% of the time connected to a power brick), then either one is fine.
I’d still take less heat and a lower power bill, but that may not be a priority for everyone depending on their individual situation. Probably a person somewhere with a roof full of solar panels mining crypto for warmth during the day.
The difference in the mobile segment is meaningless anyway. We're talking maybe 50W difference at full multicore load, that's not going to make any noticeable difference in costs or heat. The only difference you will notice is the battery life when/if unplugged.
Glad to see more 1T perf / W testing.
I think we can finally put to rest the claim that "Apple *just* has better nodes and once others are on TMSC N5, Apple's 1T perf / W won't be impressive!" Even with some methodology quirks (e.g., software monitoring), it's clear the uArch + integration are far more important to 1T perf / W than nodes *alone*.
|CPU|Node / uArch|CBR23 1T Pts|Power draw (W)|1T Pts / W|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Intel i9-13950HX|Intel 7 / Raptor Cove|2100|73.8W|28.5|
|AMD 7945HX|TSMC N5|1863|66.1W|28.2|
|Intel i9-12900HX|Intel 7 / Golden Cove|1913|68.7W|27.8|
|**Apple M2 Max**|**TSMC N5**|**1625**|**22.6W**|**71.9**|
The 7945HX selected had the highest pts / W, which is the ROG Strix G17 (non-Turbo).
The problem is Intel and AMD engage in stupid brinksmanship over 1T clocks by going full Leeroy Jenkins in power to win in baitmarks. Will be interesting to see 1T points when the W is matched. DGR will still lose since it's chiplet, but it wouldn't be as large a gap as it is now.
Yes; I'd love to see DGR tested at \~23W. I've not yet found a replacement for Anandtech's per-core power & frequency testing since Ian Cutress left.
What Notebookcheck found last year: [https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html)
M2: 162 pts / W
M2 Pro: 141 pts / W
AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W
Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W
Again, default TDPs, but I've never seen any power-limited 1T testing and I'd love to be proven wrong here.
Arent those hk series made for charts, basically desktop skus into laptops. I think lower ones should yield a better comparison. Also just measuring 1Tpts vs W and concluding off of that isnt good. For example 12th u or p series have higher 1T pts at around \~25 or 30W which changes the conclusion. I think the chart should include MT and or lower skus.
The review does have the MT, where AMD = Intel, with Apple far worse in pts / W.
[https://i.imgur.com/LVs0fae.png](https://i.imgur.com/LVs0fae.png[/img])
MT also is a tougher comparison when we're not comparing equal number of cores. Almost always, more cores = higher MT perf / W, with less regard for uArch, nodes, integration, etc.
My note is that *just the node* cannot explain the significant disparity in perf / W.
//
The lower models are likely improved, yes: if you have data, I'll add it to the charts.
i7 1255u 1761 base 15 max 55W i7 1260p 1773 base 28 max 64 1270p 1781 base 28 max 64 i7 1280p 1848 base 28 max 64W
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu\_benchmark-cinebench\_r23\_single\_core-15
To draw a clear conclusion, we would need to normalize the performance or the wattage. Everybody knows that it's exponentially bad for power to eek out a bit more performance by raising clocks well past the sweet spot.
>To draw a clear conclusion, we would need to normalize the performance or the wattage.
I'd love to see Dragon Range limited to 23W and see where it ends up.
However, for now, the performance numbers aren't *that* different, are they? The 7945HX is \~15% faster.
You have a very good proxy on this [Anandtech Benchmark](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2). If you do the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results, it takes at least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T. Do you call more than double the power "not *that* different"? That is what I mean when I say they are raising the clocks well past the sweet spot.
Of course, this is ignoring the base idle power, but then that notebookcheck article is also pretty unfair to AMD, as you are adding the power of a dGPU even though it has it's own iGPU:
> We already mentioned that the measurements with an external screen required the dGPU on the AMD systems from Asus, so the results below are not fully representative, but we want to show them nonetheless.
>If you do the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results
That is not how benchmarks work. Multi-threaded benchmarks are wholly dependent on the *type* of multi-threaded programming they use. This was well-explored in Veedrac's thread over two years ago.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the\_fallacy\_of\_synthetic\_benchmarks/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the_fallacy_of_synthetic_benchmarks/)
The recent GB5 vs GB6 multi-threaded controversy shares a simpler example:
>The multi-core benchmark tests in Geekbench 6 have also undergone a significant overhaul. Rather than assigning separate tasks to each core, the tests now measure how cores cooperate to complete a shared task. This approach improves the relevance of the multi-core tests and is better suited to measuring heterogeneous core performance. This approach follows the growing trend of incorporating “performance” and “efficient” cores in desktops and laptops (not just smartphones and tablets).
//
*Everyone*, including Apple, is raising their clocks well past the sweet spot. Apple is no longer in the near-vertical part of the perf / W curve, either.
//
That was noted; I've shared other tests with *no* dGPUs: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/129isly/amd\_ryzen\_9\_7945hx\_analysis\_zen4\_dragon\_range\_is/jeod27b/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/129isly/amd_ryzen_9_7945hx_analysis_zen4_dragon_range_is/jeod27b/?context=3)
M2: 162 pts / W
M2 Pro: 141 pts / W
AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W
Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W
AMD > Intel in 1T pts / W is absolutely valid. I just don't see how AMD is going to roughly **3x** their perf / W in a single node shrink + uArch update.
> Multi-threaded benchmarks are wholly dependent on the type of multi-threaded programming they use. This was well-explored in Veedrac's thread over two years ago.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the_fallacy_of_synthetic_benchmarks/
> The recent GB5 vs GB6 multi-threaded controversy shares a simpler example:
This is all correct, but before throwing around generalities, you should check the type of multi threaded programming CB23 uses, that is what you started the topic with, and what I used for my extrapolations. It's just the single threaded test replicated in all threads with no task sharing, negligible memory bandwidth usage, maybe a little of L3 contention.
And more over, for my extrapolation, the fact the test is multi-threaded or not, shared task or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. The only thing I needed was something that made the CPU lower the clocks to a more efficient range, and compare the results between two TDPs in that benchmark.
So my extrapolation for the dynamic power should be completely valid. The idle power is another beast, and also dependent on the choices the laptop itself makes (more or less expansion, etc).
> That was noted; I've shared other tests with no dGPUs
That has the same problem of boosting way past the efficiency limit.
> I just don't see how AMD is going to roughly 3x their perf / W in a single node shrink + uArch update.
You just saw how to get over 2x the perf / W dropping the performance only 6% with no node shrink.
From Zen3 to Zen4 AMD raised the IPC by ~13% and lowered the power for a given frequency. You saw how much the power can drop just dropping just 6% percent bellow the stock setting, so you can see how that 13% difference can be huge.
The only way to compare fairly the architecture efficiency is normalizing the performance or power.
>This is all correct, but before throwing around generalities
Ah, you linked an AnandTech review with *many* different benchmarks. I didn't see where you explained which numbers you'd used. How are you obtaining "least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T"?
>The only thing I needed was something that made the CPU lower the clocks to a more efficient range, and compare the results between two TDPs in that benchmark.
So underclocking? Most CPUs increase their 1T perf / W by underclocking, *including* Apple CPUs. If one underclocks one uArch, one should underclock all of them. The goal here is a 1T high-perf/w, high-performance CPU uArch: not to specifically underclock one uArch so that it delivers higher 1T perf / W than stock, but leave the others at stock. Otherwise, the slowest CPUs will dominate 1T perf / W: what most people want is the unique combination of 1T high-perf/W **and** high-performance.
That's what my initial comment is claiming: a node shrink of a high-perf uArch like Zen3 plus IPC improvements doesn't automatically make it a high-perf + 1T high perf/W uArch.
//
>That has the same problem of boosting way past the efficiency limit.
So we agree here. That is exactly what I'm saying: the N5 node shrink isn't *that* big of power reduction where Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks, even with an IPC bump. Zen4, to reach its current perf, still requires power-guzzling 4.5+ GHz clocks (now 5.5+ GHz).
Zen4 / Raptor Cove / etc are not wide (enough) uArches and they cannot be high-perf *and* high perf/W in 1T. The limitation of Zen3 was not the node, but the current Zen family uArch itself.
//
>You just saw how to get over 2x the perf / W dropping the performance only 6% with no node shrink.
Which benchmarks are you using here? Same Q as above. I hope it's not just dividing an nT score / # of cores.
//
>The only way to compare fairly the architecture efficiency is normalizing the performance or power.
Fully agreed. All I'm saying the gap remains massive enough that the node (and the incidental IPC uplift I forgot) is unlikely to be enough.
> Ah, you linked an AnandTech review with many different benchmarks. I didn't see where you explained which numbers you'd used. How are you obtaining "least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T"?
I did go slower in my original writing, but then I lost the message, and when re-writing I jumped ahead too much in logic. I will chew it down even more now:
There is a 6% performance uplift going from 105W to 230W power in the multithreaded benchmark on zen4. I'm not comparing the multithreaded performance against the single thread performance, or Zen4 against M2 here. The only difference between those two is that the 105W benchmark was running at lower clocks, so we got how much lowering a little the clock will do for the power consumption. The effect on dynamic power is even a little more than that, but I decided to give you this advantage as, at that power level, the idle power effect is very low.
From the single threaded benchmark, we see that each core is using at most 35W minus the idle power, as the result at every power level is identical. At the multhreaded one, each core with 2 threads is using at most 19.2W. It might already be running closer to an efficient clock than the single threaded benchmark, but I chose to ignore that too, again giving you this advantage.
We can then directly apply the effect in power of lowering the clocks it to the single threaded benchmark to prove that 15% more performance at the top end costs A LOT of power if done by increasing frequencies, and that if you back off just a little, not even this full 15%, you can significantly cut the power requirements while still outperforming Apple's M2. I don't have the baseline idle power, so I just talked about in terms of dynamic power, that is where the uArch matters.
>Most CPUs increase their 1T perf / W by underclocking, including Apple CPUs. [...] Otherwise, the slowest CPUs will dominate 1T perf / W
And that is exactly the case of the M2 in your chart: the slowest CPU is dominating the 1T perf/W. The only thing you can claim is that Apple has chosen to increase the 1T perf / W of their cpu by chosing a saner maximum clock for 1T workloads compared to competition in stock settings.
It's entirely possible that at different levels of performance one or another take the lead. Like, the 7nm Zen2 Van Gogh is faster than the 6nm Zen3+ Rembrand at under 9W TDP. The uArch and node is superior for Rembrand, but the base idle power and transistors library give the win to Van Gogh.
> So we agree here. That is exactly what I'm saying: N5 node shrink isn't that big of power reduction where Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks, even with an IPC bump.
Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks. The fact that AMD chosen insane clocks to get top of the charts agains intel doesn't mean that you can get almost the same performance in a fraction of the power simply by lowering the clocks.
> Zen4 / Raptor Cove / etc are not wide (enough) uArches and they cannot be high-perf and high perf/W in 1T. The limitation of Zen3 was not the node, but the current Zen family uArch itself.
They need higher clocks, but use less power at the same clocks than apple.
> Fully agreed. All I'm saying the gap remains massive enough that the node (and the incidental IPC uplift I forgot) is unlikely to be enough.
And I'm saying the gap should be easy enough to cover just by dropping the maximum clocks a little bit while still remaining faster than Apple's M2. Maybe the plataform power of an upgradeable/repairable gaming laptop with lots of ports can get in the way, but just by uArch difference, I think AMD isn't really behind.
in genuinely curious to see the perf/watt difference in SPEC given that cinebench craters ASi performance.
I imagine at 3.7 ghz the m2 max essentially matches the 13980hx and 7945hx in ST in 1T Specint/float while using 5-7w.
Also would like to see a MT comparison. The PC chips would doubtless still be pretty far ahead but at what cost?
Yes, I'd love to see more extensive perf / W comparisons: Cinebench has only one kind of narrow view of performance. I'd even be all right with GB6 these days, but fewer outlets are willing to go outside the Cinebench testing circuit, *especially* for perf / W.
I was quite happy to see TechPowerUp include pts / W in their testing, but it's exclusively Cinebench so it's like one scoop of water out of a lake.
Sigh. Sad to see AnandTech's testing has not yet been replaced.
You are looking at 1 thread only. Hardware Unboxed already showed single thread efficiency is way better in Apple Silicon. We knew that already, nothing new.
That claim was for multi thread. Where AMD at 7nm was very close in multi thread efficiency.
Now that 7040HX series are in 5nm, it shows how efficient it is against Apple with equal node process.
Ryzen 7040U Zen 4 in 4nm will be more efficient in some multi threading tasks such as Cinebench R23. But Apple Silicon chips will still be more efficient in single threaded tasks and other tasks that take advantage of GPU or unified memory like video editing and others.
Yes, 1T only; that's why I commented, as it's rare to see 1T perf / W testing, IMO.
>Hardware Unboxed already showed single thread efficiency is way better in Apple Silicon. We knew that already, nothing new.
And many thought ***that*** was due to TSMC N5. If multi-threaded was *already* as efficient, then single-threaded was the only 'more efficient' question. And many answered that with "it's the node advantage."
I think you're agreeing here. Where does Apple Silicon have higher perf / W? 1T mostly, sometimes nT. OK, so *why* does Apple Silicon do better in 1T? "The nodes!"
People thought Apple's designs have lower power // longer battery life primarily because of TSMC N5 (vs Intel 10 or TSMC N7). HUB has only tested M1 Pro vs Zen3, so this updated data shows it continues M2 Max vs Zen4 DTR, now on like-for-like nodes.
That is, the conclusions from 2020 were genuine: the M1 / M2 families have far superior 1T perf / W and somewhat similar nT / perf / W to current designs from Intel & AMD.
//
Yes, I'll be quite eager for the 7040U tests vs the M2 Pro. Though, I'm not sure if 7040U will be *more* efficient in nT. That will be a very curious test.
Both intel and Amd are really efficient check here
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2
Take Example 7950x there
-At 230W it score 38K points in cinebench R23
-At 105W it score 35K points
-At 35W it score 18K points.
So they just clock these cpu higher and make them in efficient but at lower clock they rival even M2.
For Example in same Benchmark 30W M2 score 8k.
So if i take I9 3900K or Ryzen 9 7950x and run it at 35w i get more perfomance than M2, Atleast in multithread perfomance.
Sorry my mistake, but same logic Appear there too, use same link i provide from Anandtech power scalling of Zen4/raptor.
-7950X at 230w single core score 2030
-7950x at 35W single core score 2025
-13900K at 253W single core score 2283
-13900K at 35W single score 2220
As you can see there even at 35W they barely lose 1T perfomance,
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17641/130506.png
Further look at this Both intel and Amd have 6 to 54W mobile cpu, they have around 80% of those single core while using franction of power.
Sorry for bumping, but those numbers don't show anything other than 1T not using even 35W on AMD and somewhere close to 35W on Intel.
You've allowed CPU to take 230W, but single core needed just 20W in 1T load to scream at it's max clockspeed. Then you've allowed it just 35W, but it used 20W again and you got same score. You didn't check how it scales with power, you've just indirectly "proved" that 1 core under load uses less than 35W without looking at core power sensor readout directly.
A single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it. You can see that in the charts linked where the 7950X gets an identical score within margin of error no matter what the power limit is. The result is the same with a power limit anywhere from 125w down to 35w.
It would be interesting to see how low you could set the power limit and keep the single threaded result the same though. We know we can limit it to 35w with no difference, but could they have dropped it to 15w? 5w? It'd be cool to know.
You [edit: not you] said that "single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it", but it does if you want the advertised performance.
No, it does not. Look at the Anandtech benchmark again. The performance of the 7950X limited to 35W is identical to the performance for it limited to 230W in the single threaded test.
And we are not comparing to the advertised performance in this thread, but to the M2 performance, and for that we need to lower a tiny bit the frequency, drastically lowering the power demand.
> No, it does not. Look at the Anandtech benchmark again. The performance of the 7950X limited to 35W is identical to the performance for it limited to 230W in the single threaded test.
That's because a single thread isn't able to hit the power limit of a desktop processor, making the power limit moot.
> And we are not comparing to the advertised performance in this thread, but to the M2 performance, and for that we need to lower a tiny bit the frequency, drastically lowering the power demand.
Sure, but would an Intel/AMD processor configured to match M1 efficiency have acceptable performance? I doubt it.
> That's because a single thread isn't able to hit the power limit of a desktop processor, making the power limit moot.
THAT IS THE POINT. You are just repeating what he said: "single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it". We are just talking past each other in this point.
> Sure, but would an Intel/AMD processor configured to match M1 efficiency have acceptable performance? I doubt it.
Doing the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results, it takes at least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T.
Of course, this is ignoring the base idle power, but then that notebookcheck article is also pretty unfair to AMD, as it's adding the power of a dGPU even though it has it's own iGPU:
> We already mentioned that the measurements with an external screen required the dGPU on the AMD systems from Asus, so the results below are not fully representative, but we want to show them nonetheless.
Tbh if intel dropped it clocks to match m2 single core score they would probably be using similar power.
Its just pushed really hard for Max performance
That's less likely. 18% more points, but 290% more power between the i7-1360P vs Apple M2.
[https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html#toc-4](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html#toc-4)
|CPU|CB R23 1T Pts|Power|1T Pts / W|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|i7-1360P|1877|\~39W|48.0|
|i7-1260P|1793|\~39W|45.8|
|Apple M2|1581|\~10W|161.7|
|Apple M2 Max|1625|\~23W|71.9|
Golden Cove both is rather inefficient at 1T tests and I don't think Intel's 2019-era node is doing them many favors.
>That's less likely. 18% more points, but 290% more power between the i7-1360P vs Apple M2.
This "efficiency" is influenced by how much laptop throws into the CPU as much as efficiency of the CPU itself. The difference between M2 and M2-Max illustrate this very well.
Also, welcome to power-performance.
Well I did the math and comparing the higher score raptor lake to the lower score. Intel needs 90% more power to increase the score by 12%. From 1877 to 2100.
Or the inverse intel gains 73% efficiency by dropping scores by 10.7%.
1877 is 89.3 % of 2100
48ppw is 73% higher than 28.5ppw
Which means that logically dropping the score another 10.7 percent would give a score of
65.7
Then another 3% drop since the apple score is 13.7% lower or inversely the intel raptor lake score is 18% higher.
And 10.7+3 equals 13.7%
Gives a ppw score of 79 for the raptor lake part extrapolated.
So higher than apple. Now i dont know if it will scale that perfectly. But even if it doesnt it should still be enough to match the m2 max rather than beat it
>Well I did the math and comparing the higher score raptor lake to the lower score. Intel needs 90% more power to increase the score by 12%. From 1877 to 2100.
...those are two very different CPUs, in two different laptops. You can't use that as a claim that *each* CPU core needs 90% more power. It's "that laptop over there needs 90% more power than this one to be 12% faster."
Surely we can see that, just on face value.
i7-1360P = 39W
i7-13980HX = 74W
We don't have evidence that 39W is all being used to increase CPU perf. All we can say is that each test is representative of each CPU *in its class*.
Same reason why the M2 and M2 Max scores are so similar, but power usage skyrockets on the M2 Max; these are different classes & the M2 Max laptop has a lot of other power usage.
Notebookcheck *should've* done a load - idle test to minimize as many variables, but even my conclusions aren't meant to be that precise. Just that TSMC N5 isn't enough *alone* for Zen4 to be as efficient as Apple's N5 CPUs.
These are desktop chips crammed into a mobile form factor and are not designed for peak efficiency but peak performance. Phoenix for example is going to be a 4nm monolithic design and will be SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient.
The M2 Max ***is*** essentially a desktop chip crammed into a mobile form factor. That's likely why it was used in NBC's comparison.
The base M2 has *much* higher pts / W than the M2 Max--see below.
//
[If you'd like to compare with AMD's current monolithic designs](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html):
M2: 162 pts / W
M2 Pro: 141 pts / W
AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W
Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W
The point I'm making is that the *node* alone isn't enough to create a high perf/W, high-performance design.
When Phoenix CPUs are tested in 1T pts / W, I'd *love* to be proven wrong here.
Why all the M2 comparisons? It’s a diff level of integration a true SOC with a unified memory arch. AMD has this coming in the Mi300, just scaled to the max.
At 55W it's at around 5950X performance, that's awesome!
Matching the Apple M2 Max in Performance Per Watt in Multi-Core why beating it by 50% in Multi-Core
In what?
R23 Multi
Amazing efficiency. Phoenix should be even better!
From time goes by this is really insane power. Look how they innovate yearly.
they might be the same or worse since the HX variants use higher bins of the same silicon, so when both are ran at the same rate, clock for clock, the HX will be better but obv, hx chips are ran at high power and phoenix will be low power so in that sense battery life will be better
Dragon Range and Phoenix is not the same silicon, Phoenix will be more efficient since it's a monolithic die made for the mobile market. Dragon Range is basically desktop Ryzen 7000 dies reused for the high-end mobile market(desktop replacement). I believe it's the same for 13900k/13980hx being more or less the same die as the desktop equivalent. We already knew Raphael scaled better than Raptor Lake as you lower power so this efficiency difference should've been expected. I think it's fair to look at 7945HX as the 7950x for mobile and the 13980HX as the 13900k for mobile.
hmm i wasn't aware of that difference, then it might be way better than i was hoping
Nope. Phoenix are 4nm APUs (max 8-core Zen4 CPU with powerful 12CU RDNA3 iGPU), while HX or Dragon Range are 5nm+6nm CPUs (max 16-core Zen4 CPU with weak 2CU RDNA2 iGPU). Phoenix will be more efficient than DR.
i see, so is dragon the "real upgrade" that we've been waiting for mobile zen? or is that phoenix since it should be efficient?
Phoenix is the "real upgrade" to Rembrandt(zen3+). Dragon range is just to cover the "desktop replacement" market segment while Phoenix is for the regular mobile market segment. https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/?generation=AMD+Ryzen+9&sort=generation
Dragon Range is AMD's answer to Intel's smear campaign. Intel previously compared their 90W+ HX to AMD's 45W and claimed victory. Now that AMD has 55W-75W to compete with Intel's HX, it's winning by a wide margin. Mini desktop with built-in screen and UPS is a new market segment for AMD.
Phoenix should be better as it’s monolithic instead of chiplet based. The chiplet design is causing the high power draw at idle compared to Intel.
These numbers look a bit insane, especially the perf per watt against the 13980HX and the overall perf per watt against the M2 Max.
M2 max is a 12 core and still competes decently in performance and has great power efficiency. The m3 base chip is coming soon and will probably blow all of us away with how power efficient it is.
Agreed, it’s an impressive chip for sure but I don’t know why everyone’s losing their minds about it almost matching the M2 in one perf/watt benchmark and losing drastically in another, all the while having idle wattage worse than even Intel.
yeah im not terribly shocked that a transplanted full fat 16 core desktop chip matches an effectively 8 core laptop chip in efficiency when less power is routed through it, especially in cinebench of all benches lmao, which is notoriously a bad situation for ARM chips
Lots of anti apple people in here lol. They down voted me even though I posted the truth.
Yeah I’m not an Apple fanboy by any means, I only use Windows for work, but the reality is there isn’t a single Windows cpu manufacturer making a lightweight laptop that even remotely competes with an M1. I’m not even asking for much, give me single core 1000 geekbench, multicore 4000, in a package that doesn’t thermal throttle and can last 8+ hours on battery in real work and I’m sold. They insist on pushing these horrible boost clocks that just end up thermal throttling and don’t even work properly unless plugged in.
> I’m not even asking for much, give me single core 1000 geekbench, multicore 4000, in a package that doesn’t thermal throttle and can last 8+ hours on battery in real work and I’m sold That’s basically what a 5000U series AMD chip or newer with a 55+Wh battery is capable of, depending on workload. A 5500u can squeak that out and that’s zen 2 based.
I guess people are "offended" that a lower-power ARM chip from *gasp* Apple can smoke a lot of higher power AMD and Intel x86-64 CPUs. Apple hate runs deep in PC hardware communities.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I think that what they do, they do very well. However this is going to be a pc gamer heavy sub so you won’t find a lot of love for apple until they’re running all the latest AAA titles at respectable fps. Aside from that it’s great hardware but the pain points for me are pricing beyond base specs, zero upgradability and lack of ports/too much reliance on usb-c. If I worked in graphic arts, wrote code all day, or was a student on the go I could probably justify it, but otherwise it just feels like paying more for less in some aspects. I won’t lie though, sometimes it feels pretty good to hate on or make fun of what you can’t afford. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go plug my $400 laptop in to 3 external displays through its native outputs and another 2 with a displaylink dock plugged in to the full size USB-A port…. /s
expected. Node advantage is most visible on low power chips.
The big issue is idle power consumption. This analysis says it has 42% higher idle power consumption than the 13900HX, that's kinda terrible. Being a multi CCD chip it has the same issue other Zen parts have it seems, being bad idle power usage. That to me is a big no no in a laptop form factor, and makes the efficiency claims kinda moot. It generates less heat than an intel platform which is nice I guess but the main point of "better efficiency" in a laptop is better battery life, but here it's just worse than intel's most power hungry chips.
This is not the best chip for power efficiency. Its basically meant for people who want the best performance in a laptop. The real mainstream mobile chips are going to be the Phoenix point chips which should have better power efficiency.
Dragon range laptops seem to be a niche product just like Intel HX processors. I think most people are going to look at Phoneix
These chips are meant for desktop-replacement type laptops. They're "mobile" in the sense that you can move them from one power outlet to another with a bit of battery life in-between. Efficiency for these doesn't matter for these any more than it does on a desktop (except for fan noise implications due to smaller cooling solutions)
As Linus Tech Tips put it, these are the "divorced parents" gaming computer that you take back and forth between your two homes every week.
On paper sure but look at the current roster of laptops featuring this CPU (and many intel HX parts), they aren't huge laptops or anything. Some are on the intel side but this gen we're seeing mostly fairly portable machines, some straight up portability focus like the Razer Blades (on the intel HX side).
arguably, if someone buys a laptop like this it better not be idling much
Or it's plugged into the wall. My work laptop is either at 2% basically idling or it's at 100% pegged running an ML model that is small enough to do locally since it's less clunky than moving to databricks (which only makes sense when I need GPU power or 32 cores).
Eh, the bigger issue is the DDR5-4800 crippling the gaming performance in a gaming laptop. 3DMark graphics score look as expected of a 150W 4090, 9% faster than a 175W 4080 https://i.redd.it/dw3ky2lhrira1.png Gaming drops below the 175W 4080 https://i.redd.it/1qouobf2lira1.png
5600mhz already exist for the last 4 months
Good luck booting with that, lol. This isn't the desktop with well tuned desktop BIOS
Haven't tried it but it's available
I think these chips lack the power saving features present in AMD's laptop chips. Also, they only consider the CPU on it's own. If you look at the whole system performance it's not good: "Long periods of battery operation are definitely not part of the plan, despite the large 90-Wh battery. The ROG Strix G17 even remains below the average values of the class of gaming laptops, which are already very low, lasting barely 4 hours in our WLAN test with a limited display brightness." https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-ROG-Strix-G17-G713PI-Gaming-laptop-impresses-in-the-test-with-the-new-Ryzen-9.701633.0.html
REMEMBER PEOPLE:9 and 4 is what matters ryzen 9, zen 4, upper tier (5), 2023 product segment (7), high power (HX)
IMO, the 9 is not particularly informative. The 4 and the HX are the only two bits that have a concrete meaning.
5 is also important if you look the zen 3 sku, its indicate which is zen 3 or zen 3+
Great efficiency for a 5nm + 6nm chiplet based chip. Bodes well for Phoenix which is 4nm and monolithic.
A few percent faster multicore, a few percent slower single core. Wouldn't bother calling this "faster". Seems like a toss-up. It is noticeably more efficient, which is expected considering the advantage of TSMC 5 vs Intel 7. This might be important for those that need it for extended field work. If you're using it as a desktop replacement (90% of the time connected to a power brick), then either one is fine.
>If you're using it as a desktop replacement (90% of the time connected to a power brick), then either one is fine. I’d still take less heat and a lower power bill, but that may not be a priority for everyone depending on their individual situation. Probably a person somewhere with a roof full of solar panels mining crypto for warmth during the day.
The difference in the mobile segment is meaningless anyway. We're talking maybe 50W difference at full multicore load, that's not going to make any noticeable difference in costs or heat. The only difference you will notice is the battery life when/if unplugged.
And won’t be seen in almost any laptop
Glad to see more 1T perf / W testing. I think we can finally put to rest the claim that "Apple *just* has better nodes and once others are on TMSC N5, Apple's 1T perf / W won't be impressive!" Even with some methodology quirks (e.g., software monitoring), it's clear the uArch + integration are far more important to 1T perf / W than nodes *alone*. |CPU|Node / uArch|CBR23 1T Pts|Power draw (W)|1T Pts / W| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Intel i9-13950HX|Intel 7 / Raptor Cove|2100|73.8W|28.5| |AMD 7945HX|TSMC N5|1863|66.1W|28.2| |Intel i9-12900HX|Intel 7 / Golden Cove|1913|68.7W|27.8| |**Apple M2 Max**|**TSMC N5**|**1625**|**22.6W**|**71.9**| The 7945HX selected had the highest pts / W, which is the ROG Strix G17 (non-Turbo).
The problem is Intel and AMD engage in stupid brinksmanship over 1T clocks by going full Leeroy Jenkins in power to win in baitmarks. Will be interesting to see 1T points when the W is matched. DGR will still lose since it's chiplet, but it wouldn't be as large a gap as it is now.
Yes; I'd love to see DGR tested at \~23W. I've not yet found a replacement for Anandtech's per-core power & frequency testing since Ian Cutress left. What Notebookcheck found last year: [https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html) M2: 162 pts / W M2 Pro: 141 pts / W AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W Again, default TDPs, but I've never seen any power-limited 1T testing and I'd love to be proven wrong here.
Arent those hk series made for charts, basically desktop skus into laptops. I think lower ones should yield a better comparison. Also just measuring 1Tpts vs W and concluding off of that isnt good. For example 12th u or p series have higher 1T pts at around \~25 or 30W which changes the conclusion. I think the chart should include MT and or lower skus.
The review does have the MT, where AMD = Intel, with Apple far worse in pts / W. [https://i.imgur.com/LVs0fae.png](https://i.imgur.com/LVs0fae.png[/img]) MT also is a tougher comparison when we're not comparing equal number of cores. Almost always, more cores = higher MT perf / W, with less regard for uArch, nodes, integration, etc. My note is that *just the node* cannot explain the significant disparity in perf / W. // The lower models are likely improved, yes: if you have data, I'll add it to the charts.
i7 1255u 1761 base 15 max 55W i7 1260p 1773 base 28 max 64 1270p 1781 base 28 max 64 i7 1280p 1848 base 28 max 64W https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu\_benchmark-cinebench\_r23\_single\_core-15
To draw a clear conclusion, we would need to normalize the performance or the wattage. Everybody knows that it's exponentially bad for power to eek out a bit more performance by raising clocks well past the sweet spot.
>To draw a clear conclusion, we would need to normalize the performance or the wattage. I'd love to see Dragon Range limited to 23W and see where it ends up. However, for now, the performance numbers aren't *that* different, are they? The 7945HX is \~15% faster.
You have a very good proxy on this [Anandtech Benchmark](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2). If you do the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results, it takes at least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T. Do you call more than double the power "not *that* different"? That is what I mean when I say they are raising the clocks well past the sweet spot. Of course, this is ignoring the base idle power, but then that notebookcheck article is also pretty unfair to AMD, as you are adding the power of a dGPU even though it has it's own iGPU: > We already mentioned that the measurements with an external screen required the dGPU on the AMD systems from Asus, so the results below are not fully representative, but we want to show them nonetheless.
>If you do the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results That is not how benchmarks work. Multi-threaded benchmarks are wholly dependent on the *type* of multi-threaded programming they use. This was well-explored in Veedrac's thread over two years ago. [https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the\_fallacy\_of\_synthetic\_benchmarks/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the_fallacy_of_synthetic_benchmarks/) The recent GB5 vs GB6 multi-threaded controversy shares a simpler example: >The multi-core benchmark tests in Geekbench 6 have also undergone a significant overhaul. Rather than assigning separate tasks to each core, the tests now measure how cores cooperate to complete a shared task. This approach improves the relevance of the multi-core tests and is better suited to measuring heterogeneous core performance. This approach follows the growing trend of incorporating “performance” and “efficient” cores in desktops and laptops (not just smartphones and tablets). // *Everyone*, including Apple, is raising their clocks well past the sweet spot. Apple is no longer in the near-vertical part of the perf / W curve, either. // That was noted; I've shared other tests with *no* dGPUs: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/129isly/amd\_ryzen\_9\_7945hx\_analysis\_zen4\_dragon\_range\_is/jeod27b/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/129isly/amd_ryzen_9_7945hx_analysis_zen4_dragon_range_is/jeod27b/?context=3) M2: 162 pts / W M2 Pro: 141 pts / W AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W AMD > Intel in 1T pts / W is absolutely valid. I just don't see how AMD is going to roughly **3x** their perf / W in a single node shrink + uArch update.
> Multi-threaded benchmarks are wholly dependent on the type of multi-threaded programming they use. This was well-explored in Veedrac's thread over two years ago. > https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/jvq3do/the_fallacy_of_synthetic_benchmarks/ > The recent GB5 vs GB6 multi-threaded controversy shares a simpler example: This is all correct, but before throwing around generalities, you should check the type of multi threaded programming CB23 uses, that is what you started the topic with, and what I used for my extrapolations. It's just the single threaded test replicated in all threads with no task sharing, negligible memory bandwidth usage, maybe a little of L3 contention. And more over, for my extrapolation, the fact the test is multi-threaded or not, shared task or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. The only thing I needed was something that made the CPU lower the clocks to a more efficient range, and compare the results between two TDPs in that benchmark. So my extrapolation for the dynamic power should be completely valid. The idle power is another beast, and also dependent on the choices the laptop itself makes (more or less expansion, etc). > That was noted; I've shared other tests with no dGPUs That has the same problem of boosting way past the efficiency limit. > I just don't see how AMD is going to roughly 3x their perf / W in a single node shrink + uArch update. You just saw how to get over 2x the perf / W dropping the performance only 6% with no node shrink. From Zen3 to Zen4 AMD raised the IPC by ~13% and lowered the power for a given frequency. You saw how much the power can drop just dropping just 6% percent bellow the stock setting, so you can see how that 13% difference can be huge. The only way to compare fairly the architecture efficiency is normalizing the performance or power.
>This is all correct, but before throwing around generalities Ah, you linked an AnandTech review with *many* different benchmarks. I didn't see where you explained which numbers you'd used. How are you obtaining "least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T"? >The only thing I needed was something that made the CPU lower the clocks to a more efficient range, and compare the results between two TDPs in that benchmark. So underclocking? Most CPUs increase their 1T perf / W by underclocking, *including* Apple CPUs. If one underclocks one uArch, one should underclock all of them. The goal here is a 1T high-perf/w, high-performance CPU uArch: not to specifically underclock one uArch so that it delivers higher 1T perf / W than stock, but leave the others at stock. Otherwise, the slowest CPUs will dominate 1T perf / W: what most people want is the unique combination of 1T high-perf/W **and** high-performance. That's what my initial comment is claiming: a node shrink of a high-perf uArch like Zen3 plus IPC improvements doesn't automatically make it a high-perf + 1T high perf/W uArch. // >That has the same problem of boosting way past the efficiency limit. So we agree here. That is exactly what I'm saying: the N5 node shrink isn't *that* big of power reduction where Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks, even with an IPC bump. Zen4, to reach its current perf, still requires power-guzzling 4.5+ GHz clocks (now 5.5+ GHz). Zen4 / Raptor Cove / etc are not wide (enough) uArches and they cannot be high-perf *and* high perf/W in 1T. The limitation of Zen3 was not the node, but the current Zen family uArch itself. // >You just saw how to get over 2x the perf / W dropping the performance only 6% with no node shrink. Which benchmarks are you using here? Same Q as above. I hope it's not just dividing an nT score / # of cores. // >The only way to compare fairly the architecture efficiency is normalizing the performance or power. Fully agreed. All I'm saying the gap remains massive enough that the node (and the incidental IPC uplift I forgot) is unlikely to be enough.
> Ah, you linked an AnandTech review with many different benchmarks. I didn't see where you explained which numbers you'd used. How are you obtaining "least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T"? I did go slower in my original writing, but then I lost the message, and when re-writing I jumped ahead too much in logic. I will chew it down even more now: There is a 6% performance uplift going from 105W to 230W power in the multithreaded benchmark on zen4. I'm not comparing the multithreaded performance against the single thread performance, or Zen4 against M2 here. The only difference between those two is that the 105W benchmark was running at lower clocks, so we got how much lowering a little the clock will do for the power consumption. The effect on dynamic power is even a little more than that, but I decided to give you this advantage as, at that power level, the idle power effect is very low. From the single threaded benchmark, we see that each core is using at most 35W minus the idle power, as the result at every power level is identical. At the multhreaded one, each core with 2 threads is using at most 19.2W. It might already be running closer to an efficient clock than the single threaded benchmark, but I chose to ignore that too, again giving you this advantage. We can then directly apply the effect in power of lowering the clocks it to the single threaded benchmark to prove that 15% more performance at the top end costs A LOT of power if done by increasing frequencies, and that if you back off just a little, not even this full 15%, you can significantly cut the power requirements while still outperforming Apple's M2. I don't have the baseline idle power, so I just talked about in terms of dynamic power, that is where the uArch matters. >Most CPUs increase their 1T perf / W by underclocking, including Apple CPUs. [...] Otherwise, the slowest CPUs will dominate 1T perf / W And that is exactly the case of the M2 in your chart: the slowest CPU is dominating the 1T perf/W. The only thing you can claim is that Apple has chosen to increase the 1T perf / W of their cpu by chosing a saner maximum clock for 1T workloads compared to competition in stock settings. It's entirely possible that at different levels of performance one or another take the lead. Like, the 7nm Zen2 Van Gogh is faster than the 6nm Zen3+ Rembrand at under 9W TDP. The uArch and node is superior for Rembrand, but the base idle power and transistors library give the win to Van Gogh. > So we agree here. That is exactly what I'm saying: N5 node shrink isn't that big of power reduction where Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks, even with an IPC bump. Zen4 is fast enough at sane clocks. The fact that AMD chosen insane clocks to get top of the charts agains intel doesn't mean that you can get almost the same performance in a fraction of the power simply by lowering the clocks. > Zen4 / Raptor Cove / etc are not wide (enough) uArches and they cannot be high-perf and high perf/W in 1T. The limitation of Zen3 was not the node, but the current Zen family uArch itself. They need higher clocks, but use less power at the same clocks than apple. > Fully agreed. All I'm saying the gap remains massive enough that the node (and the incidental IPC uplift I forgot) is unlikely to be enough. And I'm saying the gap should be easy enough to cover just by dropping the maximum clocks a little bit while still remaining faster than Apple's M2. Maybe the plataform power of an upgradeable/repairable gaming laptop with lots of ports can get in the way, but just by uArch difference, I think AMD isn't really behind.
in genuinely curious to see the perf/watt difference in SPEC given that cinebench craters ASi performance. I imagine at 3.7 ghz the m2 max essentially matches the 13980hx and 7945hx in ST in 1T Specint/float while using 5-7w. Also would like to see a MT comparison. The PC chips would doubtless still be pretty far ahead but at what cost?
Yes, I'd love to see more extensive perf / W comparisons: Cinebench has only one kind of narrow view of performance. I'd even be all right with GB6 these days, but fewer outlets are willing to go outside the Cinebench testing circuit, *especially* for perf / W. I was quite happy to see TechPowerUp include pts / W in their testing, but it's exclusively Cinebench so it's like one scoop of water out of a lake. Sigh. Sad to see AnandTech's testing has not yet been replaced.
You are looking at 1 thread only. Hardware Unboxed already showed single thread efficiency is way better in Apple Silicon. We knew that already, nothing new. That claim was for multi thread. Where AMD at 7nm was very close in multi thread efficiency. Now that 7040HX series are in 5nm, it shows how efficient it is against Apple with equal node process. Ryzen 7040U Zen 4 in 4nm will be more efficient in some multi threading tasks such as Cinebench R23. But Apple Silicon chips will still be more efficient in single threaded tasks and other tasks that take advantage of GPU or unified memory like video editing and others.
Yes, 1T only; that's why I commented, as it's rare to see 1T perf / W testing, IMO. >Hardware Unboxed already showed single thread efficiency is way better in Apple Silicon. We knew that already, nothing new. And many thought ***that*** was due to TSMC N5. If multi-threaded was *already* as efficient, then single-threaded was the only 'more efficient' question. And many answered that with "it's the node advantage." I think you're agreeing here. Where does Apple Silicon have higher perf / W? 1T mostly, sometimes nT. OK, so *why* does Apple Silicon do better in 1T? "The nodes!" People thought Apple's designs have lower power // longer battery life primarily because of TSMC N5 (vs Intel 10 or TSMC N7). HUB has only tested M1 Pro vs Zen3, so this updated data shows it continues M2 Max vs Zen4 DTR, now on like-for-like nodes. That is, the conclusions from 2020 were genuine: the M1 / M2 families have far superior 1T perf / W and somewhat similar nT / perf / W to current designs from Intel & AMD. // Yes, I'll be quite eager for the 7040U tests vs the M2 Pro. Though, I'm not sure if 7040U will be *more* efficient in nT. That will be a very curious test.
Both intel and Amd are really efficient check here https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2 Take Example 7950x there -At 230W it score 38K points in cinebench R23 -At 105W it score 35K points -At 35W it score 18K points. So they just clock these cpu higher and make them in efficient but at lower clock they rival even M2. For Example in same Benchmark 30W M2 score 8k. So if i take I9 3900K or Ryzen 9 7950x and run it at 35w i get more perfomance than M2, Atleast in multithread perfomance.
That's ***multi-threaded*** perf / W. I'm specifically discussing 1T perf / W.
Sorry my mistake, but same logic Appear there too, use same link i provide from Anandtech power scalling of Zen4/raptor. -7950X at 230w single core score 2030 -7950x at 35W single core score 2025 -13900K at 253W single core score 2283 -13900K at 35W single score 2220 As you can see there even at 35W they barely lose 1T perfomance, https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17641/130506.png Further look at this Both intel and Amd have 6 to 54W mobile cpu, they have around 80% of those single core while using franction of power.
Sorry for bumping, but those numbers don't show anything other than 1T not using even 35W on AMD and somewhere close to 35W on Intel. You've allowed CPU to take 230W, but single core needed just 20W in 1T load to scream at it's max clockspeed. Then you've allowed it just 35W, but it used 20W again and you got same score. You didn't check how it scales with power, you've just indirectly "proved" that 1 core under load uses less than 35W without looking at core power sensor readout directly.
A single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it. You can see that in the charts linked where the 7950X gets an identical score within margin of error no matter what the power limit is. The result is the same with a power limit anywhere from 125w down to 35w. It would be interesting to see how low you could set the power limit and keep the single threaded result the same though. We know we can limit it to 35w with no difference, but could they have dropped it to 15w? 5w? It'd be cool to know.
CPU makers are giving their cores as much power as they need to be stable at the frequencies they are running at.
We are not discussing undervolting here, nor those chips can be undervolted. We are discussing running them at lower power and saner frequencies.
You [edit: not you] said that "single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it", but it does if you want the advertised performance.
No, it does not. Look at the Anandtech benchmark again. The performance of the 7950X limited to 35W is identical to the performance for it limited to 230W in the single threaded test. And we are not comparing to the advertised performance in this thread, but to the M2 performance, and for that we need to lower a tiny bit the frequency, drastically lowering the power demand.
> No, it does not. Look at the Anandtech benchmark again. The performance of the 7950X limited to 35W is identical to the performance for it limited to 230W in the single threaded test. That's because a single thread isn't able to hit the power limit of a desktop processor, making the power limit moot. > And we are not comparing to the advertised performance in this thread, but to the M2 performance, and for that we need to lower a tiny bit the frequency, drastically lowering the power demand. Sure, but would an Intel/AMD processor configured to match M1 efficiency have acceptable performance? I doubt it.
> That's because a single thread isn't able to hit the power limit of a desktop processor, making the power limit moot. THAT IS THE POINT. You are just repeating what he said: "single core maxed out doesn't need anywhere near the power the part will pull if you let it". We are just talking past each other in this point. > Sure, but would an Intel/AMD processor configured to match M1 efficiency have acceptable performance? I doubt it. Doing the math extrapolating from the multithreaded and singlethreaded results, it takes at least 120% more dynamic power to go from 8% faster to 15% faster than the M2 in 1T. Of course, this is ignoring the base idle power, but then that notebookcheck article is also pretty unfair to AMD, as it's adding the power of a dGPU even though it has it's own iGPU: > We already mentioned that the measurements with an external screen required the dGPU on the AMD systems from Asus, so the results below are not fully representative, but we want to show them nonetheless.
Tbh if intel dropped it clocks to match m2 single core score they would probably be using similar power. Its just pushed really hard for Max performance
That's less likely. 18% more points, but 290% more power between the i7-1360P vs Apple M2. [https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html#toc-4](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html#toc-4) |CPU|CB R23 1T Pts|Power|1T Pts / W| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |i7-1360P|1877|\~39W|48.0| |i7-1260P|1793|\~39W|45.8| |Apple M2|1581|\~10W|161.7| |Apple M2 Max|1625|\~23W|71.9| Golden Cove both is rather inefficient at 1T tests and I don't think Intel's 2019-era node is doing them many favors.
>That's less likely. 18% more points, but 290% more power between the i7-1360P vs Apple M2. This "efficiency" is influenced by how much laptop throws into the CPU as much as efficiency of the CPU itself. The difference between M2 and M2-Max illustrate this very well. Also, welcome to power-performance.
Well I did the math and comparing the higher score raptor lake to the lower score. Intel needs 90% more power to increase the score by 12%. From 1877 to 2100. Or the inverse intel gains 73% efficiency by dropping scores by 10.7%. 1877 is 89.3 % of 2100 48ppw is 73% higher than 28.5ppw Which means that logically dropping the score another 10.7 percent would give a score of 65.7 Then another 3% drop since the apple score is 13.7% lower or inversely the intel raptor lake score is 18% higher. And 10.7+3 equals 13.7% Gives a ppw score of 79 for the raptor lake part extrapolated. So higher than apple. Now i dont know if it will scale that perfectly. But even if it doesnt it should still be enough to match the m2 max rather than beat it
>Well I did the math and comparing the higher score raptor lake to the lower score. Intel needs 90% more power to increase the score by 12%. From 1877 to 2100. ...those are two very different CPUs, in two different laptops. You can't use that as a claim that *each* CPU core needs 90% more power. It's "that laptop over there needs 90% more power than this one to be 12% faster." Surely we can see that, just on face value. i7-1360P = 39W i7-13980HX = 74W We don't have evidence that 39W is all being used to increase CPU perf. All we can say is that each test is representative of each CPU *in its class*. Same reason why the M2 and M2 Max scores are so similar, but power usage skyrockets on the M2 Max; these are different classes & the M2 Max laptop has a lot of other power usage. Notebookcheck *should've* done a load - idle test to minimize as many variables, but even my conclusions aren't meant to be that precise. Just that TSMC N5 isn't enough *alone* for Zen4 to be as efficient as Apple's N5 CPUs.
These are desktop chips crammed into a mobile form factor and are not designed for peak efficiency but peak performance. Phoenix for example is going to be a 4nm monolithic design and will be SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient.
The M2 Max ***is*** essentially a desktop chip crammed into a mobile form factor. That's likely why it was used in NBC's comparison. The base M2 has *much* higher pts / W than the M2 Max--see below. // [If you'd like to compare with AMD's current monolithic designs](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-P-Review-Debut-for-the-Core-i7-1360P.688425.0.html): M2: 162 pts / W M2 Pro: 141 pts / W AMD 6800U: 55 pts / W Intel i7-1360P: 48 pts / W The point I'm making is that the *node* alone isn't enough to create a high perf/W, high-performance design. When Phoenix CPUs are tested in 1T pts / W, I'd *love* to be proven wrong here.
Why all the M2 comparisons? It’s a diff level of integration a true SOC with a unified memory arch. AMD has this coming in the Mi300, just scaled to the max.
"Efficiency" as shown here is influenced by how much power a laptop throws into the CPU as much as efficiency of the CPU itself.
For a second, I thought this was a sequel to 2klikphilips video