3 ms·

A higher performance chip can do the things I want to do (such as encode video during a video call) while using less battery, than a lower performance chip coul

A higher performance chip can do the things I want to do (such as encode video during a video call) while using less battery, than a lower performance chip could. That is: paying for performance, no matter how unusable that performance might seem is the same thing as paying for battery time. And I'm always ready to pay for more battery time.

starfallg 2y ago
That's not always the case depending on the different levers that are pulled designing these chips. Focusing on burst performance sometimes/often end up being less efficient as boosting to higher clocks require higher voltages. Process and architectural improvements that yield increases in efficiency is balanced with how much extra burst performance we can wring out of the design, which is a big part of the article's argument.
szundi 2y ago
That is actually not related to performance but the decreasing node size and related gate switching power consumption decrease. In theory companies could now just keep the heat dissipation constant and increase performance with the more advanced node sizes, but they could just decrease power consumption. Of course what users see is that their devices are more responsive, also engineers use the new performance to provide more and more cluttered and animated GUI. So you have to have the performance. Sigh.
- alkonaut 2y ago
  > That is actually not related to performance but the decreasing node size and related gate switching power consumption decrease. Yes. Of course if a chip isn't actually more power efficient at the same times as being more performant then it wouldn't be the case. But that's almost invariably the case, at least long term (if you upgrade every 3-5 years or so). Also, the people who make phones are usually not responsible for the most performance hungry GUI's. I'd blame heave web sites for that. App writers are going to do whatever makes enough % of people have an acceptable performance. So you need your own device to be within some margin from the average, or it will be too slow eventually.

starfallg 2y ago

That's not always the case depending on the different levers that are pulled designing these chips. Focusing on burst performance sometimes/often end up being less efficient as boosting to higher clocks require higher voltages. Process and architectural improvements that yield increases in efficiency is balanced with how much extra burst performance we can wring out of the design, which is a big part of the article's argument.

szundi 2y ago

That is actually not related to performance but the decreasing node size and related gate switching power consumption decrease. In theory companies could now just keep the heat dissipation constant and increase performance with the more advanced node sizes, but they could just decrease power consumption. Of course what users see is that their devices are more responsive, also engineers use the new performance to provide more and more cluttered and animated GUI. So you have to have the performance. Sigh.

alkonaut 2y ago
> That is actually not related to performance but the decreasing node size and related gate switching power consumption decrease. Yes. Of course if a chip isn't actually more power efficient at the same times as being more performant then it wouldn't be the case. But that's almost invariably the case, at least long term (if you upgrade every 3-5 years or so). Also, the people who make phones are usually not responsible for the most performance hungry GUI's. I'd blame heave web sites for that. App writers are going to do whatever makes enough % of people have an acceptable performance. So you need your own device to be within some margin from the average, or it will be too slow eventually.