>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.
PCMark did a battery life comparison using identical Dell XPS 13s[1]:
* X Elite: 1,168 minutes, performance of 204,333 in Procyon Office
* Intel Ultra 7 256V (new): 1,253 minutes, performance of 123,000 in Procyon Office
* Meteor Lake 155H: 956 minutes, performance of 129,000 in Procyon Office
Basically, Intel's new chip has 7% more battery life than X Elite but the X Elite is 66% faster while on battery. In other words, Intel's new chip throttles heavily to get that battery life.
>Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;)
Intel's new chip is using TSMC's N3B in the compute tile, same as M3 and better than X Elite's N4P.
>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.
The problem with the Nvidia replacement goal of big tech is that they don't have an ARM-like organization to design cores for them. Big tech use their own ARM CPUs because they use stock ARM core designs and its ISA. The hardwork was already done for big tech.
Big tech must design their own GPUs. From the looks of it, it's much harder to do it on your own than license cores from ARM.
What happens if the unions succeed in draining the profits, corporate has less money to invest in R&D, and a foreign efficient automaker comes in and takes all the market share away from the union-led automakers?
It's already proven that it's not just the node advantage. Just compare Apple's 7nm A series chips to Zen3 or M2 to Zen4. The power advantage for Apple is 3x - 10x.
Actually, it's way worse for Intel and AMD if you only use single core power.
If you run Geekbench 5 or 6 on an M1, the total package power ranges 0.3w - 5w, mostly staying below 3w. Intel and AMD can use 10x or more power to achieve similar or lower Geekbench scores.
With all due respect, I was a responsible user for the first year too. Good luck to you and I hope you never get addicted.
Unlike alcohol addiction, which can come on fast, weed grabs a hold of you over a longer period. It starts out as only beneficial with little to no downside. You won't notice you're addicted until much later.
Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.
Well, I wouldn't have been strongly anti recreational use if I didn't go through what I did.
Extremely high THC products coupled with professional marketing agencies? Yikes. We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.
>They usually sell crippled GPUs to the low end of the market. That's a segment of the market they no longer really serve. They also didn't do anything to hide the fact that their GPUs were really being sold to miners and not gamers, something they got fined doing.
1. Low end GPUs have extremely small profit margins. It's smart business decision to not lower prices in a declining discrete GPU market. Business 101.
2. Nvidia did not sell GPUs directly to miners. They had no control/no way of verifying what the GPUs will be used for. And who cares if they sold to miners? It's just business at the end of the day - free market.
>Their leadership is going to be transitory since they are not being competitive. Intel would never had entered the discrete GPU market if nVidia keep prices low.
Their leadership is extremely competitive.
Nvidia prices GPUs at the price the market is willing to pay. It has nothing to do with "greed" that you seem to be suggesting. Business 101.
Intel needs to enter the GPU market because AI runs on GPUs as well. It's both gaming and AI. Intel needs to be in the AI market or they're toast.
>Lack of mobile GPUs and integrated GPUs is a red flag that they're charging too much money. Discrete laptop GPUs is a niche of the market. It is not what most laptops use.
No clue what you're talking about. Cite the source for lack of mobile GPUs? You mean laptop GPUs right? Nvidia doesn't make SoCs for phones or laptops.
Discrete laptop GPUs outsell discrete desktop GPUs. While it's not what most laptops use, it's still a much bigger than desktop GPUs.
I just quit weed after getting addicted for almost 2 years.
There is a large community of people who are trying to quit: /r/leaves
The article is nothing new to me. Read a few posts from the subreddit and you'd see a pattern.
Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.
Edit: I'm not against decriminalization of weed. I'm highly against pro-recreational use. I'm against high THC %, easy access, advertisements, sponsorships, etc. I believe weed should be classified as a highly addictive drug - especially to youth. We should not have weed stores. It should be sold behind the counter. It should have a very high tax so that it's not cheap. It should have huge, bold warning labels on packaging. It should not be legalized at the federal level.
>Nvidia sold dedicated crypto mining cards. It definitely did went into crypto.
They crippled normal GPUs and sold them to miners. They did this because once the crypto bubble pops, the used GPU market won't be flooded.
>They are charging non-competitive prices for their consumer GPU market. This is opening the door to more competition.
Ok, so what? All companies do this when they're the leader.
>The desktop discrete video market is not the same thing as the consumer GPU market. You are ignoring a huge sector of integrated GPUs and mobile GPUs.
Nvidia does focus on laptop GPUs. It's much bigger than desktop discrete GPUs. Nvidia doesn't have a way to get into phone GPUs because they're tightly controlled by Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek. That's why they tried to buy ARM.
Nvidia never went into cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies went into Nvidia. Nvidia actively tried to sell GPUs to gamers instead of crypto people because crypto people will flood the used GPU market when the bubble inevitably pops every single time.
Nvidia isn't abandoning the consumer GPU market. They're still the leader by far. The consumer GPU market has actually been declining for nearly 20 years now.[0] They should not invest more into a declining market.
Yes, and city kids also eat, poop, and talk. :)
I think it's the degree that matters.
Degree matters here too.