3 ms·
>The "170%" number is bogus. Actually, it's 253%. I made a mistake assuming the 890M was limited to 35w. It was actually 46w as measured by Notebookcheck.[0]
by aurareturn 2y ago
>The "170%" number is bogus.
Actually, it's 253%. I made a mistake assuming the 890M was limited to 35w. It was actually 46w as measured by Notebookcheck.[0]
>Reducing the power of 890M to 17 W, the same as quoted for M3, would reduce the performance much less than the reduction in power consumption, improving the energy efficiency.
That depends. Sure, give almost any chip less power and it will be more efficient. I'm not arguing against that.
The problem with reducing power for the 890M is that it's already slower than the M3 by 26% while using 2.7x the power.
If you give the 890M 17w, yes, it will be more efficient than 46w. It just just be even slower than the M3.
>The better performance of the Apple GPU could be entirely caused by the much higher memory bandwidth
M3's bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s. AMD Strix Point uses LPDDR5X-7500 in dual channel mode so it should be around 120GB/s.
>and by the better CMOS process used for the Apple GPU.
AMD's Strix Point is manufactured on TSMC's N4P. M3 is on N3B, which is roughly 10% more power efficient than N4P. It doesn't explain the huge discrepancy in efficiency.
[0]https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-iGPU-analysis-Radeon-890M-versus-Intel-Arc-Graphics-Apple-M3-and-Qualcomm-Adreno-X1-85.868475.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-iGPU-ana...