3 ms·
Ofcourse, but that's the whole point right? At similar power levels, Apple M-series is a lot faster. The only way for AMD and Intel to compete on performance is
by mmcnl 1y ago
Ofcourse, but that's the whole point right? At similar power levels, Apple M-series is a lot faster. The only way for AMD and Intel to compete on performance is by providing more power, but this obviously has a negative effect on efficiency. So with AMD/Intel you have to choose: efficient and slow or inefficient and fast. With Apple you can actually have it both ways.
- Dylan16807 1y ago> Ofcourse, but that's the whole point right? At similar power levels, Apple M-series is a lot faster. The only way for AMD and Intel to compete on performance is by providing more power They're saying the exact opposite of that. Their claim is that all the extra power is only juicing performance a little bit, so at similar power levels the performance is not all that far apart.
- solardev 1y agoOK, so I'm still curious about the underlying efficiency. Is there a better test of single core efficiency at the same TDP? Does Apple Silicon provide any noticeable improvement over other x86 or Arm chips in that scenario, or is it really just a straightforward function of process and node size?
- Dylan16807 1y agoSomeone needs to run the same single core benchmarks on Intel and AMD while forcing those CPUs to only use 5 watts. In a few minutes of searching I was not able to find anyone doing power-limited single core benchmarks.