3 ms·
That's disappointing, I thought they were closer to Apple Silicon's performance/watt ratio. The deceptive nature of such benchmarks is also troubling.
by htk 4y ago
That's disappointing, I thought they were closer to Apple Silicon's performance/watt ratio.
The deceptive nature of such benchmarks is also troubling.
- runnerup 4y agoThe benchmarks themselves aren't really deceptive, but wccftech's reporting on them is misleading. These aren't claims being made by Intel, but just random user benchmarks that appeared online. For all benchmarks, context matters. These days, most in-depth reviewers understand how to work with transient power and thermal limits with respect to time. For example, measuring the MacBook Air M1's peak speed/time vs. its lower sustained speed after it hits thermal throttling around the 5-7 minute mark.
- toast0 4y agoIt's kind of hard to compare performance/watt meaningfully when the wattages aren't at all similar. If you limit power on current generation Intel/AMD processors, the perf/watt is pretty good; depending on the specific load, sometimes better, sometimes worse than M2. When you allow more watts, perf goes up, but perf/watt goes down as you see diminishing returns. (With some loads, you may also have a point where more watts reduces performance, whoops) Geekbench isn't great as it doesn't even attempt to capture power usage, but that may not be available or accurate on all systems anyway.