3 ms·

Performance per watt is a bad metric. You want instead performance for a given power budget (eg, how much performance can I get at 15w? 30w? etc...) Otherwise

Performance per watt is a bad metric. You want instead performance for a given power budget (eg, how much performance can I get at 15w? 30w? etc...) Otherwise you can trivially win 100% of performance/watt comparisons by just setting clocks to the limit of the lowest usable voltage level. For example compare the 7950X to the 7950X@65w using the officially supported eco mode option: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-review-retaking-the-high-end/20 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x... Cinebench R23 MT: 7950X stock: 225 points/watt 7950X @ 65w eco mode: 482 points/watt Over 2x perf/watt improvement on the exact same chip, and a power efficiency that tops the charts, beating every laptop chip in that notebookcheck test by a large amount as well. And yet how many 7950x owners are using the 65w eco mode option? Probably none. Because perf/watt isn't actually meaningful. Rather it's how much performance can I get for a given power budget.

aurareturn 2y ago
>Performance per watt is a bad metric. It isn't. It needs context. Sure, you can get an Intel Celeron to have more perf/watt than an M1 if you give the Celeron low enough wattage. The key here is the absolute performance. In this case, both the M3 and the X Elite are not only significantly more efficient than both Zen4 and Zen5 in ST, they are also straight up faster while being more efficient.