5 ms·

I meant the rest of the industry. They said “wow” and then went back to business as usual. They had talking points about how they’ll improve and performance (as

by MBCook 4y ago

I meant the rest of the industry. They said “wow” and then went back to business as usual. They had talking points about how they’ll improve and performance (as always) and efficiency got talked up more. But when will any of that show up? Hardware takes time but I just don’t see reviewers demanding it. They’ll be happy if it shows up but they’re not calling out “this isn’t good enough” and I just don’t get it. How can they use an M1 and go back to a hot low battery life Intel laptop in the same price class and say “this is fine?”

karmelapple 4y ago
Thanks for clarifying, now I get it! And fully agreed - once you use an M1 that's cold to the touch even while doing some heavy lifting, it's hard to imagine using an Intel machine that gets warm just running Zoom and a few browser tabs.
jborean93 4y ago
What can you do about it. Outside of Apple hardware running macOS you just can't get the same. We can demand all we want but no one can offer what is available from Apple yet. I'm certainly not surprised Qualcomm/Intel/AMD want to add more fire to their feet by talking up their competition.
- MBCook 4y ago
  But you have to demand it. People have to make clear to the vendors that this matters. As long people don’t do that everything will continue as normal. It needs to be very clear you’re not doing good enough. As long as reviewers keep ignoring the elephant in the room in their text and scores, how are you ever going to get what I’m guessing just about everyone wants? They may not know it (us Mac users were getting annoyed at heat and noise but didn’t know how much). But I’m convinced if someone built it, users would come out of the woodwork. So many people doing “office” work that doesn’t require high power machines would benefit. Qualcomm just doesn’t seem to be trying very hard in the computer segment.
  - rodgerd 4y ago
    > Qualcomm just doesn’t seem to be trying very hard in the computer segment. They're functionally a monopoly. They don't have to.
    - MBCook 4y ago
      They’re a monopoly in phones. They’re no-one of consequence in computers. That’s where I want them to try.
geerlingguy 4y ago
It's surprising that efficiency is barely mentioned still, in all the latest AMD / Intel reviews, maybe it's even a point that early reviewers have to avoid or something? To me, the performance per watt is increasingly important not only as we start approaching branch circuit limits (1200-1500W max in the US), but also as (in many places) energy prices continue to rise. Both idle power consumption (e-state, core sleeping, etc.) and max power consumption (with a few measures of work per watt) should be highlighted in any serious review, probably on par with whatever other benchmarks (like Cinebench, Blender, etc.).
- girvo 4y ago
  Hardware Unboxed is the only reviewer that I see that discusses efficiency consistently when reviewing parts (be they CPUs or GPUs)

by MBCook 4y ago

karmelapple 4y ago

Thanks for clarifying, now I get it! And fully agreed - once you use an M1 that's cold to the touch even while doing some heavy lifting, it's hard to imagine using an Intel machine that gets warm just running Zoom and a few browser tabs.

jborean93 4y ago

What can you do about it. Outside of Apple hardware running macOS you just can't get the same. We can demand all we want but no one can offer what is available from Apple yet. I'm certainly not surprised Qualcomm/Intel/AMD want to add more fire to their feet by talking up their competition.

MBCook 4y ago
But you have to demand it. People have to make clear to the vendors that this matters. As long people don’t do that everything will continue as normal. It needs to be very clear you’re not doing good enough. As long as reviewers keep ignoring the elephant in the room in their text and scores, how are you ever going to get what I’m guessing just about everyone wants? They may not know it (us Mac users were getting annoyed at heat and noise but didn’t know how much). But I’m convinced if someone built it, users would come out of the woodwork. So many people doing “office” work that doesn’t require high power machines would benefit. Qualcomm just doesn’t seem to be trying very hard in the computer segment.
- rodgerd 4y ago
  > Qualcomm just doesn’t seem to be trying very hard in the computer segment. They're functionally a monopoly. They don't have to.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    They’re a monopoly in phones. They’re no-one of consequence in computers. That’s where I want them to try.

geerlingguy 4y ago

It's surprising that efficiency is barely mentioned still, in all the latest AMD / Intel reviews, maybe it's even a point that early reviewers have to avoid or something? To me, the performance per watt is increasingly important not only as we start approaching branch circuit limits (1200-1500W max in the US), but also as (in many places) energy prices continue to rise. Both idle power consumption (e-state, core sleeping, etc.) and max power consumption (with a few measures of work per watt) should be highlighted in any serious review, probably on par with whatever other benchmarks (like Cinebench, Blender, etc.).

girvo 4y ago
Hardware Unboxed is the only reviewer that I see that discusses efficiency consistently when reviewing parts (be they CPUs or GPUs)