News Tiger Lake Tested: We Benchmark Intel’s Latest With Iris Xe Graphics and 10nm SuperFin

[GetSmart]

So the 4800U has lower peak power and used slightly less total energy, while completing the task in 33% less time.

On the other end when running on batteries alone, AMD Renoir will use even less energy (which increases battery runtime) but will complete the same task at much longer time (probably longer than Intel's Tiger Lake). There are still a number of pros and cons here. 😛

Main question is what type of power management implementation will ODMs use on the final laptop products with Intel's Tiger Lake. Will it maintain nearly the same performance when on batteries (as shown in the preview), or resort to extending battery runtime configuration as with previous laptops? 🤔

 

[PCWarrior]

That's based on the power management implemented for the particular laptop, it's not inherent to the CPU.

Isn’t that the laptop everyone has been praising for showing the 4800U’s full potential? Now it's not good? You do know that in other implementations it performs worse, don't you? You can’t have it both ways.

Both Intel and AMD exceed their stated TDP while boosting, that's not a secret. Where's the "smoke and mirrors"?

Classic example of the fallacy of false equivalency. You are equating Intel exceeding the power limit for a few seconds to AMD doing it indefinitely. The 4800U, a “15W” cpu, used 35W during the first 5 minutes and then at least 23W for the remaining for the test (30+ minutes). And then you dare talk about someone else being misleading.

No, what it tells you is that you run a bunch of largely synthetic tests and combine all the scores in an arbitrary way to arrive at a single number, that number will be lower for a unplugged Ideapad Slim 7 w/ 4800U than an S10.

If you bothered to click on the links I posted before you would have noticed that it is not just the overall score that is higher but the individual scores on the several subtests including the HTML5 tests. So no, you are wrong once again.

Posting those results in isolation is just as misleading here as the last time you posted them. My response is the same

Well and you saying the same thing here is just as wrong as it was last time. Just because I don’t always bother to reply to each non-sense on here (you know I have much more important things to do) don’t ASSume you are right. We are talking about total energy consumed to complete said task. This is the same metric Ian used in his comparison and the same as the ones I listed. The point was that no one until now brought such tests up, it was always all about power. But as it makes AMD look bad the goalposts are now shifted and new tests are introduced to show AMD in positive light. And when energy consumption is shown to be the same for other cpus that fanboys bashed, it is “oh but AMD takes less time”. Well if it took less time and still consumed the same energy it means that during the time the AMD cpu was running it was pulling more power. Jeez. It is that simple. You said the 10900 performed 37% slower than the 3900X but you fail to mention that the 10900 also pulled 37% less power. During that test the 3900X system pulled 201W from the wall and the 10900 only 140W (green bar). There is like 40W system power consumption for the other system components so we are talking about 100W vs 160W for the cpus themselves (that’s 37% lower power for the 10900). So they do have the same performance per watt which is the other main metric used. But, no, let's use some other B$ metric in order to sustain the bubble AMD FBs live in...

 

[GetSmart]

Just to illustrate my comment earlier, this is AMD Renoir on batteries, includes performance mode. 🤠

Source https://www.hardwaretimes.com/asus-zephyrus-g14-review-ac-vs-battery-performance/