3 ms·

> Lol how was a top-of-the-top end desktop release supposed to translate well into excellent laptop chips? See Zen 2. Zen 3. The desktop chips are very efficie

> Lol how was a top-of-the-top end desktop release supposed to translate well into excellent laptop chips? See Zen 2. Zen 3. The desktop chips are very efficient. When you throw 105W at them, they compete at the very top of the desktop performance market. Previous to this Alder Lake release, they were beating much more power hungry Intel chips. Now they remain competitive at half the power. Cut them down to 15W-45W chips, and they work great in laptops, with ample performance and excellent battery life. If Intel has massively more efficient chip designs that they plan to use in mobile, why aren't they making use of them? They could have competitive performance without doubling the power consumption. It's a similar story with Apple Silicon. They have chips that can do amazing things at 10W. Crank 60W through them and they are excellent performers. If you have no choice but to consume massive amounts of power to get top performance, so be it. But given the choice...

BoorishBears 5y ago
Trying to draw conclusions about mobile parts from desktop parts is what people magazine racing CPUs do. It's silly. And it's doubly silly when you're talking about heterogeneous computing. > If you have no choice but to consume massive amounts of power to get top performance, so be it. But given the choice... I mean you have the choice? Don't get the top of the line halo part meant to break records at all costs? The i5 is almost as fast as the i9, faster than the previous i5 and the 5800X, while using considerably less power than the i9. - Top performance always equals "massive power draw" A 5950X will draw over 300W if you OC, which, surprise surprise, a lot of people who are spending $800 on a CPU end up doing. I guess I just figured by now people would understand that and focus on performance for the halo SKUs
- neogodless 5y ago
  You seem to have strong opinions about this, while also missing the past decade of desktop and laptop CPU history. Intel based the entire Core line on the architecture they designed with laptop chips in mind (initially, Pentium M). They found that throwing more power at efficient chips works pretty well. So they switched gears from Netburst. And while you just ignored my comments on Zen, they still apply. AMD designed Zen for efficiency, which allowed it to be excellent in high power, high performance applications, while also being excellent in low power, medium performance applications. While the chips have differences due to being used differently, the core architecture is used from 15W chips all the way up to 125W desktop chips and even 280W workstation chips. It's not impossible that Intel designs completely different architectures for their next laptop chips than what they revealed with Alder Lake, but it's also unlikely, and the point of pairing efficiency cores with performance cores is to allow for flexibility in how they use the architecture. If Alder Lake is really just for 300W workstations, then Intel made a mistake bothering with efficiency cores. What we didn't see today was evidence that Alder Lake is ready for mobile, because these chips are much less efficient when compared to alternatives. How can we expect this architecture to be efficient when you throw less power at it, when it's already proving to be inefficient and requiring lots of power in order to perform?
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    99% of this boils down to two words: _heterogenous computing_ It means that they have exponentially more knobs to turn. - And I stand by my point of ignoring insistence on speculating about unannounced hardware for no discernible benefit? It's also weird that this is the second comment acting like outsiders know better than Intel when it comes to what mix of cores was best Especially since this has proven to be an excellent workstation CPU: > Overall, the 12th Gen Intel Core CPUs are terrific across the board, providing a large performance boost over the previous 11th Gen CPUs, and in almost every single case, handily out-performed AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Intel's lead is larger at the i5 and i7 level, but even with the Core i9 12900K, Intel consistently came out on top. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/12th-Gen-Intel-Core-CPU-Review-Roundup-2248/#Howwelldothe12thGenIntelCoreCPUsperformoverall https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/12th-Gen-Intel-Co...? It's almost like people confused 7zip and Cinebench for actual productivity results?
LegitShady 5y ago
intel is competing on 10nm (now called intel 7) against TMSC's 7nm process. >If Intel has massively more efficient chip designs that they plan to use in mobile, why aren't they making use of them? They could have competitive performance without doubling the power consumption. I'd guess they're aimed at making competitive enthusiast class desktop chips with their existing process size from foundries they already have made many many chips from so there's much less investment, and saving any smaller process capacity for laptops chips.

BoorishBears 5y ago

Trying to draw conclusions about mobile parts from desktop parts is what people magazine racing CPUs do. It's silly. And it's doubly silly when you're talking about heterogeneous computing. > If you have no choice but to consume massive amounts of power to get top performance, so be it. But given the choice... I mean you have the choice? Don't get the top of the line halo part meant to break records at all costs? The i5 is almost as fast as the i9, faster than the previous i5 and the 5800X, while using considerably less power than the i9. - Top performance always equals "massive power draw" A 5950X will draw over 300W if you OC, which, surprise surprise, a lot of people who are spending $800 on a CPU end up doing. I guess I just figured by now people would understand that and focus on performance for the halo SKUs

neogodless 5y ago
You seem to have strong opinions about this, while also missing the past decade of desktop and laptop CPU history. Intel based the entire Core line on the architecture they designed with laptop chips in mind (initially, Pentium M). They found that throwing more power at efficient chips works pretty well. So they switched gears from Netburst. And while you just ignored my comments on Zen, they still apply. AMD designed Zen for efficiency, which allowed it to be excellent in high power, high performance applications, while also being excellent in low power, medium performance applications. While the chips have differences due to being used differently, the core architecture is used from 15W chips all the way up to 125W desktop chips and even 280W workstation chips. It's not impossible that Intel designs completely different architectures for their next laptop chips than what they revealed with Alder Lake, but it's also unlikely, and the point of pairing efficiency cores with performance cores is to allow for flexibility in how they use the architecture. If Alder Lake is really just for 300W workstations, then Intel made a mistake bothering with efficiency cores. What we didn't see today was evidence that Alder Lake is ready for mobile, because these chips are much less efficient when compared to alternatives. How can we expect this architecture to be efficient when you throw less power at it, when it's already proving to be inefficient and requiring lots of power in order to perform?
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  99% of this boils down to two words: _heterogenous computing_ It means that they have exponentially more knobs to turn. - And I stand by my point of ignoring insistence on speculating about unannounced hardware for no discernible benefit? It's also weird that this is the second comment acting like outsiders know better than Intel when it comes to what mix of cores was best Especially since this has proven to be an excellent workstation CPU: > Overall, the 12th Gen Intel Core CPUs are terrific across the board, providing a large performance boost over the previous 11th Gen CPUs, and in almost every single case, handily out-performed AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Intel's lead is larger at the i5 and i7 level, but even with the Core i9 12900K, Intel consistently came out on top. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/12th-Gen-Intel-Core-CPU-Review-Roundup-2248/#Howwelldothe12thGenIntelCoreCPUsperformoverall https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/12th-Gen-Intel-Co...? It's almost like people confused 7zip and Cinebench for actual productivity results?

LegitShady 5y ago

intel is competing on 10nm (now called intel 7) against TMSC's 7nm process. >If Intel has massively more efficient chip designs that they plan to use in mobile, why aren't they making use of them? They could have competitive performance without doubling the power consumption. I'd guess they're aimed at making competitive enthusiast class desktop chips with their existing process size from foundries they already have made many many chips from so there's much less investment, and saving any smaller process capacity for laptops chips.