3 ms·
As I understand it, OP is annoyed by the graph because they are comparing different things at different scale. I will use another John Deere metaphor: a Prius
by peoplefromibiza 5y ago
As I understand it, OP is annoyed by the graph because they are comparing different things at different scale.
I will use another John Deere metaphor: a Prius can cover a much longer distance on the same amount of fuel, but if I need a John Deere it's because the Prius can't do the same job and I am willing to sacrifice fuel efficiency for raw power.
In other words: how much more does the i9 consumes to produce the same FPS of an M1?
We don't know, but we know power consumption increase on these CPUs is non linear, meaning that the 60-65% of the frame rate could potentially lead to 5-6 times less energy used.
- skavi 5y agothese are both general purpose CPUs. They do the same job. Maybe if you were comparing a server chip.
- peoplefromibiza 5y agoProbabky I should have re-quoted what OP posted to make my point clearer From anandtech: «Should users be interested, in our testing at 4C/4T and 3.0 GHz, the Core i9-9900K only hit 23W power. Doubling the cores and adding another 50%+ to the frequency causes an almost 7x increase in power consumption» The i9 4C/4T 3Ghz consumes 23 watt how many FPS can that produce? the one benchmarked consumes more than 7 times that (it's a 5 GHz 8C/16T), and it's sure it's not 7 times faster (not even close) They are actually not doing the same job, they ate trying to go as fast as they can. But what if they measured how much energy each one uses to produce the same score?