3 ms·
I think the article gives a good read on AMD's ambitions, they are absolutely looking at performance per watt and they are working to make these more efficient.
by s3p 2y ago
I think the article gives a good read on AMD's ambitions, they are absolutely looking at performance per watt and they are working to make these more efficient. So they didn't just give a cpu a shit ton of power, they actually focused on efficiency. Or at least that's what they said in the article. No battery life stats out yet.
- MBCook 2y agoThat’s what they said, yeah. But it’s all talk without the numbers. I know they’re focusing on efficiency, and good for them. I hope their claims are accurate or at least close. But I’ve been on this ride way too many times. Some company claiming their thing is better than the other one and then it turns out it just flat out isn’t, or only is with some giant compromise. It’s the combination of speed, battery life, AND heat that have been magical for the Mac compared to the last Intel chips they shipped. I’m just expecting another case of faster but hotter or worse battery life. Pretty much all the quotes are about being faster. Then there’s this: > During the event, AMD would only say that battery life would last “all day,” which the company defines as “eight hours or more. I don’t know how that compares in the PC space but if the best you can do is 8 hours you’re WAY WAY off. An Air is rated at 18 hours, a 16” MBP at 22. That’s what I’m talking about. They are not matching Apple. They’re making big cuts somewhere. It may be a big improvement in the PC space, and good for them if it is, but don’t say you’re beating Apple if you’re getting 40% of the battery life at the same performance.