4 ms·

Hardware video encoding is a poor example as it is typically lower quality than software for a given bitrate

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Maybe, but you get the point on energy efficiency though , no need to go into semantics of encoder quality as that was not the point, just an example off the top of my head that resonated with my anecdotes when i upgraded from a Core 2 Duo. Even with SW only workloads, just look at the geekbench scores I posted. If a 2W smartphone SoC can offer over 2x the performance of a 95W chip, then it's bit outdated and energy inefficient and maybe time to upgrade to something better and more energy efficient, unless you're tryin to compete in the "who has the most gas-guzzling terminal/youtube machine" competition.
- vel0city 3y ago
  > a 2W smartphone SoC can offer over 2x the performance of a 95W chip 2x performance in some very specific and narrow benchmark tasks.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Exactly. If you have the latest and greatest mobile phone and 8GB (or 12GB) of LPDDR5 on a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 soc you still only have 8.5 Gbps memory bandwith (max, less in actual phones running it at slower speeds). That's 1 GB/s. An ivy bridge i5 3570k has a memory bandwidth of 25 GB/s. Even an ancient Core 2 Duo has 5GB/s memory bandwidth at stock speeds. Phones are very bad at computing tasks outside of "watching video" "buying things online" and the like.
    - kcb 3y ago
      Something is really off with your calculations. High-end Snapdragon chips are running with at least 64-bit busses, combined with the clock speed advantages LPDDR5 should put it well ahead of any 128-bit DDR3 system. At least 50GB/s. The real reason phones are bad at computing tasks is they throttle when put under any sustained load.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        I'm seeing a lot of specs for that chip listing 64Gbit/s and some showing GB/s. I'd love to see some confirmation of actual performance.
        kcb 3y ago
        Depending on clock speed of memory. For LPDDR5-6400 which is pretty common. 3200000000(clock) x 2(DDR) x 2(16-bit channel width) x 4(channels) = 51200000000 bytes/sec or 51.2 GBytes/sec
        vel0city 3y ago
        16 bits is where you added data width here, so that would be 52 gigabits a second, no? To go to bytes wouldn't we need to divide by 8? And I imagine this commenter talking about 8GB RAM, they're assuming not all 4 channels are populated. So one could imagine two channels being populated, 25.6 Gbit/sec, divide by 8 to get bytes, that's then only 3.2GB/s?
        kcb 3y ago
        I multiplied by 2 instead of 16. That's what makes it bytes.
        vel0city 3y ago
        Ah ok I see what you did there, thanks for the explanation.
- bobbob1921 3y ago
  Something people often overlook when comparing power usage of PC components, is that you often have to multiply the watt difference by 3x (or 4x) when you factor in cooling (air conditioning I mean, in regards to how to dissipate that heat generation, in your home). I.e. PC-A might consume 100 watts more than PC-B, but the real efficiency when it comes to you our monthly electric bill is more like 300 to 500 W (in my experience, in a hot area of the country). Those 100 W of heat have to be removed from your home environment to keep whatever Ambient temperature you find comfortable. Edit-it of course, works in the opposite direction in terms of your heating bill in the cold months of the year (but without the 3X multiplier)
  - minimaul 3y ago
    In most of Europe this isn't very applicable as most of Europe doesn't have any kind of active cooling in houses like A/C.
    - elzbardico 3y ago
      Northern Europe maybe. But A/C is pretty common in the Mediterranean. The only difference is that central A/C is correctly seem as something that makes sense in comercial spaces, not homes. At homes what is more common are ductless split systems, combined with an architecture where you have windows that can be opened when the weather is not that hot. It is completely idiotic to cool a whole McMansion when the 3 or 4 people inside are occupying no more than 30% of the space most of the time.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >In most of Europe this isn't very applicable You're mistaken. In most of Europe thermodynamics are still very much applicable, lack of AC doesn't mean your hot computer doesn't make your room warmer anymore, so extra heat from an old inefficient computer still ends up in your house, raising your ambient temperature and making you uncomfortable (in the summer) regardless if you have AC or not. Lack of AC doesn't make the "hot computer making my room warm" problem go away, it just makes it a better case for investing in thermally efficient electronics because you have no AC to vent it out with.

Maybe, but you get the point on energy efficiency though , no need to go into semantics of encoder quality as that was not the point, just an example off the top of my head that resonated with my anecdotes when i upgraded from a Core 2 Duo. Even with SW only workloads, just look at the geekbench scores I posted. If a 2W smartphone SoC can offer over 2x the performance of a 95W chip, then it's bit outdated and energy inefficient and maybe time to upgrade to something better and more energy efficient, unless you're tryin to compete in the "who has the most gas-guzzling terminal/youtube machine" competition.

vel0city 3y ago
> a 2W smartphone SoC can offer over 2x the performance of a 95W chip 2x performance in some very specific and narrow benchmark tasks.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Exactly. If you have the latest and greatest mobile phone and 8GB (or 12GB) of LPDDR5 on a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 soc you still only have 8.5 Gbps memory bandwith (max, less in actual phones running it at slower speeds). That's 1 GB/s. An ivy bridge i5 3570k has a memory bandwidth of 25 GB/s. Even an ancient Core 2 Duo has 5GB/s memory bandwidth at stock speeds. Phones are very bad at computing tasks outside of "watching video" "buying things online" and the like.
  - kcb 3y ago
    Something is really off with your calculations. High-end Snapdragon chips are running with at least 64-bit busses, combined with the clock speed advantages LPDDR5 should put it well ahead of any 128-bit DDR3 system. At least 50GB/s. The real reason phones are bad at computing tasks is they throttle when put under any sustained load.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I'm seeing a lot of specs for that chip listing 64Gbit/s and some showing GB/s. I'd love to see some confirmation of actual performance.
      - kcb 3y ago
        Depending on clock speed of memory. For LPDDR5-6400 which is pretty common. 3200000000(clock) x 2(DDR) x 2(16-bit channel width) x 4(channels) = 51200000000 bytes/sec or 51.2 GBytes/sec
        vel0city 3y ago
        16 bits is where you added data width here, so that would be 52 gigabits a second, no? To go to bytes wouldn't we need to divide by 8? And I imagine this commenter talking about 8GB RAM, they're assuming not all 4 channels are populated. So one could imagine two channels being populated, 25.6 Gbit/sec, divide by 8 to get bytes, that's then only 3.2GB/s?
        kcb 3y ago
        I multiplied by 2 instead of 16. That's what makes it bytes.
        vel0city 3y ago
        Ah ok I see what you did there, thanks for the explanation.
bobbob1921 3y ago
Something people often overlook when comparing power usage of PC components, is that you often have to multiply the watt difference by 3x (or 4x) when you factor in cooling (air conditioning I mean, in regards to how to dissipate that heat generation, in your home). I.e. PC-A might consume 100 watts more than PC-B, but the real efficiency when it comes to you our monthly electric bill is more like 300 to 500 W (in my experience, in a hot area of the country). Those 100 W of heat have to be removed from your home environment to keep whatever Ambient temperature you find comfortable. Edit-it of course, works in the opposite direction in terms of your heating bill in the cold months of the year (but without the 3X multiplier)
- minimaul 3y ago
  In most of Europe this isn't very applicable as most of Europe doesn't have any kind of active cooling in houses like A/C.
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    Northern Europe maybe. But A/C is pretty common in the Mediterranean. The only difference is that central A/C is correctly seem as something that makes sense in comercial spaces, not homes. At homes what is more common are ductless split systems, combined with an architecture where you have windows that can be opened when the weather is not that hot. It is completely idiotic to cool a whole McMansion when the 3 or 4 people inside are occupying no more than 30% of the space most of the time.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >In most of Europe this isn't very applicable You're mistaken. In most of Europe thermodynamics are still very much applicable, lack of AC doesn't mean your hot computer doesn't make your room warmer anymore, so extra heat from an old inefficient computer still ends up in your house, raising your ambient temperature and making you uncomfortable (in the summer) regardless if you have AC or not. Lack of AC doesn't make the "hot computer making my room warm" problem go away, it just makes it a better case for investing in thermally efficient electronics because you have no AC to vent it out with.