3 ms·

> Feels like a lot less I think quite a bit more. Meteor Lake seems to have faster ~100% multicore and ~25% single core performance and better battery life.

by qwytw 2y ago

TylerE 2y ago
Still have double the power draw of my entire desktop mac. For a supposed mobile chip. Intel power consumption/heat is terrible
- qwytw 2y ago
  That wasn't the question, they did improve tremendously over the last 4 because the were basically not doing anything 4 years prior to that... To be fair desktop Macs these days are just laptops without a screen so it's not that surprising. Of course they are significantly more power efficient but also much slower than high end AMD/Intel chips (if you don't care about heat/power usage that much like a lot of desktop users). Also even on mobile 165H seems to be not that far from M3 e.g. 10-20% worse battery life, slightly slower single core but faster multi-core. Not ideal but considering where Intel was when M1 came out not that bad either.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    You’re the one that brought battery life into it, which certainly does put power consumption in play.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      Well yeah... I was saying that they improved power consumption massively compared to Apple since 2020. Which is true. 10th gen was horrible and now they have almost caught up with the M series.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        According to Wikipedia the lastest meteor lakes have a peak draw of 57w. My entire Mac Studio draws 38w.
        zamadatix 2y ago
        Apple gives 115 W as the peak draw of the lowest power Mac Studio model (10 core M1 Max) https://support.apple.com/en-us/10202 https://support.apple.com/en-us/10202) and 295 W for the highest power (M2 Ultra 24 Core). I believe 38 W is what you see under your personal "full utilization workload" but it's just that's not comparable to "peak workload" numbers. To be honest the peak numbers are relatively useless anyways, you'll never hit them unless you go do something akin to running purpose written CPU and a GPU benchmark at the same time, specifically designed to utilize all of the hardware capabilities at once rather than do something useful with them. The idle and typical wattage numbers are much more useful and much lower. Also keep in mind some CPU models (even of the same family) are pushed to e.g. double the wattage for a 25% multicore gain or the like. It doesn't mean the CPU family is complete shit for power efficiency it just means there was a market for a SKU which wasn't very concerned with power consumption. All that said the M* line is definitely still better efficiency/Watt but I concur with qwytw the difference between Intel and Apple now vs 4 years ago is massively improved and the gap isn't as anywhere near as big as you've been listing.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

> Feels like a lot less I think quite a bit more. Meteor Lake seems to have faster ~100% multicore and ~25% single core performance and better battery life.

by qwytw 2y ago

> Feels like a lot less I think quite a bit more. Meteor Lake seems to have faster ~100% multicore and ~25% single core performance and better battery life.

TylerE 2y ago

Still have double the power draw of my entire desktop mac. For a supposed mobile chip. Intel power consumption/heat is terrible

qwytw 2y ago
That wasn't the question, they did improve tremendously over the last 4 because the were basically not doing anything 4 years prior to that... To be fair desktop Macs these days are just laptops without a screen so it's not that surprising. Of course they are significantly more power efficient but also much slower than high end AMD/Intel chips (if you don't care about heat/power usage that much like a lot of desktop users). Also even on mobile 165H seems to be not that far from M3 e.g. 10-20% worse battery life, slightly slower single core but faster multi-core. Not ideal but considering where Intel was when M1 came out not that bad either.
- TylerE 2y ago
  You’re the one that brought battery life into it, which certainly does put power consumption in play.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    Well yeah... I was saying that they improved power consumption massively compared to Apple since 2020. Which is true. 10th gen was horrible and now they have almost caught up with the M series.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      According to Wikipedia the lastest meteor lakes have a peak draw of 57w. My entire Mac Studio draws 38w.
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        Apple gives 115 W as the peak draw of the lowest power Mac Studio model (10 core M1 Max) https://support.apple.com/en-us/10202 https://support.apple.com/en-us/10202) and 295 W for the highest power (M2 Ultra 24 Core). I believe 38 W is what you see under your personal "full utilization workload" but it's just that's not comparable to "peak workload" numbers. To be honest the peak numbers are relatively useless anyways, you'll never hit them unless you go do something akin to running purpose written CPU and a GPU benchmark at the same time, specifically designed to utilize all of the hardware capabilities at once rather than do something useful with them. The idle and typical wattage numbers are much more useful and much lower. Also keep in mind some CPU models (even of the same family) are pushed to e.g. double the wattage for a 25% multicore gain or the like. It doesn't mean the CPU family is complete shit for power efficiency it just means there was a market for a SKU which wasn't very concerned with power consumption. All that said the M* line is definitely still better efficiency/Watt but I concur with qwytw the difference between Intel and Apple now vs 4 years ago is massively improved and the gap isn't as anywhere near as big as you've been listing.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]