Recent content by fret

And I mention Turboing, because after 55 Watts (it's true TDP,), it's up to Laptop Manufacture to set the Power Limits and their Times, how they Power Up and Down to those Power Limits, etc... This is why we see the 13000HX have score between 24,270 and 32,623 on Cinebench R23. NONE of those...

Yes I did. And yes, one can use up to 157 watts (even more actually), but the moment the chip uses more than 55 Watts, that's when efficiency starts to go out the window.

We'll see how it all goes, but I feel the same as you do. If everything that has been reported is True, Intel is going to leapfrog TSMC in quick order. (Unless TSCM has some unforeseen Trick Up their Sleeve)

PS: Please don't think I'm being hateful or such to you. I'm not intending to be. Sorry if it seems that way. In fact, I just learned most of this stuff myself. The problem is that Tech Sites do not explain this stuff to their Audience, and therefore can cause a lot of misconceptions /...

The TDP for this chip is 55 Watts (Base Power). Efficiency after this point begins to fall. (note, it is not in a linear fashion either). The "Max Turbo Power Value" is the most the ENTIRE Processor can handle, including the iGPU when the CPU and iGPU are running at the same time. Statement...

So, back to the main subject: If you've read my above posts, and have an understanding of what I said, you should now NOT be surprised that a 55 watt TDP, 5nm AMD is better than a 55watt TDP, 7nm Intel chip.

PS: An M3 Pro with a TDP of 27 Watts and running at a Sustained 27 watts gets a Cinebench R23 Score of 15,000. So, lets look a little closer at 3 chips all running at their TDP's of 27/28 watts: M2 Pro: 11,800 (5nm chip) Intel Ultra 7 155H: 13,000 (4nm chip) M3 Pro: 15,000 (3nm chip) See...

Trying to determine a CPU’s Efficiency while a CPU is using Watts beyond the Designed TDP of the Chip (which is called Turboing) is pointless. Turboing is Terribly Inefficient. Here is an example. I’m going to compare an Intel Ultra 7 155H to ……..itself. Cinebench R23 Multicore scores: Intel...

Plus there is this: From the Notebookcheck review: "Please note: During our power measurements using an external display, the dedicated graphics card was active—this was also the case on quite a few of the comparison systems. The video output's configuration largely depends on the laptop...

"Intel's comeback appears on track: Gelsinger says 18A process node performance is 'a little bit ahead' of TSMC's N2, but Intel's process arrives a year earlier" At this point, the only real winner is going to us customers. Regardless of who ends up being AHEAD, it likely won't be by much...

PS: Kind of sad that I'm the one who has let this be known. But unfortunately, to anyone who has read this article, the damage as already been down. Most who read this article will already assume the 14 Gen HX chips are garbage. Mission accomplished?

So, per Notebookcheck, last years Intel 13000HX had a Cinebench Multi Core Score RANGE between: 24,270 and 32,623. That's a huge gap in performance right. Well, not all laptops are the same; some are thinner, some are thicker; some are meant to be cooler and quite, some hotter and louder...

Agreed. NotebookCheck reviewed a reference device in which we don't even know what the PL1 limit is, The AMD is 5nm chip.

There was only 800 million active Windows computers when Vista Launched compared to the 1450 million active Windows computers now. So which is more, 2.2% of 800 million or 1.6% of 1450 million? Vista had 17.6 million units. Windows 8 has 23.2 million. Here's the numbers. Here's one from...