3 ms·
Efficiency is one thing. Efficiency and performance is another. We've long known that pushing clock speeds results in diminishing efficiency, so it's about ti
by GeekyBear 2mo ago
Efficiency is one thing.
Efficiency and performance is another.
We've long known that pushing clock speeds results in diminishing efficiency, so it's about time we see Intel stop pushing the clocks (and power) so hard that the chip melts down and the battery drains quickly.
- mr_toad 2mo ago“But they can’t match Intels performance” used to be the rejoinder of the Intel crowd. Now we’ve come full circle.
- GeekyBear 2mo agoUntil Intel is capable of making a fanless laptop chip that also has industry leading single core performance, they aren't in the same ballpark.
- bigyabai 2mo agoGetting sustained single-core performance requires you to push the P-cores to junction temp. It's only efficient in bursty workloads, under load it will go back to Intel-tier efficiency.
- AnthonyMouse 2mo agoIntel's actual problem was that their process fell behind TSMC's. That meant competing on performance per watt was out of the question and the best they could do was turn up the clock speed and try to stay on top for performance. If they've managed to fix their process then they don't have to do that anymore.
- GeekyBear 2mo agoThey have finally prioritized buying leading edge Fab technology over stock buybacks, so their design team finally has a chance.