3 ms·
That's what I'm thinking - they make trade-offs to reach peak performance in desktop designs that don't translate optimally to laptops and when you start from m
by rafaelmn 2y ago
That's what I'm thinking - they make trade-offs to reach peak performance in desktop designs that don't translate optimally to laptops and when you start from mobile designs you probably made the opposite trade-offs - that would be my guess for the discrepancy.
- aurareturn 2y agoI'm pretty sure that M3 Max closely matches the 14900k in ST speeds but using something like 5 - 10% of the power.
- rafaelmn 2y agoNot sure - they had power/thermal envelope in desktop parts and no difference in performance AFAIK.
- hajile 2y agoLaptops vastly outsell desktops, so this tradeoff means hurting the majority of your customers to please a small minority. Servers also care about perf/watt a LOT and they are the highest profit margin segment. Why would AMD choose a target that hurts the majority of their market unless there wasn't another good option available?
- rafaelmn 2y agoThe architecture started in desktop space and data center/mobile was an afterthought up until Intel shitting the bed repeatedly. If they redesigned from ground up they could probably get better instructions/watt but that would look terrible if it wasn't accompanied by a perf boost over previous generation. Just like Apple doesn't seem to scale well with more power.
- aurareturn 2y ago> Just like Apple doesn't seem to scale well with more power. How do you know this? When has Apple ever given 400w to the M3 Max like the 14900KS can get up to? PS. An M4 running at 7w is faster in ST than a 14900KS running in 250w+.