News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by James21342132
 - August 12, 2023, 16:20:23
The whole cool thing about these processors is the new AI cores, supposedly better than mac mini's M2, and you didn't test them AT ALL. Run an LLM, or stable diffusion or test it's TOPs for INT8. Do something, lol.
Posted by S.Yu
 - June 05, 2023, 19:11:35
Quote from: ArsLoginName on May 07, 2023, 17:38:05
Quote from: Paviko on May 04, 2023, 11:16:36I can't believe these numbers. It's the biggest letdown of 2023. Going from TSCM 7 to TSCM 4 gives absolutely nothing. 190 points/W for 4nm versus 182 points/W for 7nm. I was waiting for Zen 4 notebooks, but it's not worth it.

Efficiency does appear to be underwhelming in the manner the results are presented. But the results are in line with Zen 4 IPC gains from AMD's presentation of 11% in CB R23 coupled with TSMC's N4 to N7 guidance on process node of 15-18% for a total improvement of 25-30%.

Efficiency is not really a plot of CBR23 score vs processor TDP. That only shows the trade-off in performance vs power. Total power consumption (W) to do a task is a much better metric to show efficiency. Since CB score is based on how many frames can be rendered in a fixed quantity of time, all you have to do is some simple ratios to analyze the 'true' efficiency gains.

Let's start with the 80 W TDP with total power consumption of 108 W and a CB R23 score of 18044 pts. Since score = # frames/time, the fixed quantity of work (# of frames) = time*CBR23 score. Since the highest # of frames is generated at the highest power settings, everything can be ratioed to these values (total power consumption of 108 W for 'z' frames and 18044 pts). When the processor is set to a TDP of 35 W, it should take (18044/13723) = 1.315 longer time to generate the same number of frames during which the system consumes 1.315*54 W = 71.0 W of total power instead of 108 W. Over the power range investigated for the 7940HS for this task, 71.0 W is the least amount of power consumed but at the trade-off of the longest time to complete the task. So it takes 52.1% more power (108 W/ 71 W) to save 31.5% in time.

Doing the same at 45 W TDP for the 7940HS (15625 pts, 66 W consumption) yields 1.15x longer time with a total power consumption of 76.2 W (41.7% more power to save 15% in time compared to 80 W settings). When compared to the 35 W values, the 45 W setting is consumes only 7.3% more power (76.2 W/71 W) while gaining back over 50% of the 'extra' time it took to complete the task.

Similarly 55 W (1.086x extra time, 85.8 W total) gains a little bit more than 75% of the extra time back for 21% more consumed total power (85.8 W/71 W) compared to 35 W. Compared to 80 W, 55 W saves you 20.5% power for only 8.6% longer in time. But it is all just a trade off of total energy vs time over this power range.

The 28 W 7840U processors will have a higher efficiency due to the 20% reduction in power compared to the 35 W settings for a 5-10% reduction in clock speeds/CBR 23 scores. But leak says 14789 pts so they may be on a slightly different N4 process than these higher power H/HS parts. Or just better binned. Maybe the HS parts are 'worse' binned than U and H are worse binned than HS.

Let's look at the N6 based 7735HS/6900HS scores of about 11200 and 12200 pts at 35 W and 45 W respectively. Assuming similar total power consumptions for RAM since both DDR5, similar refresh rates, SSDs, and taking off an additional 1 W for the difference between the mini-LED screen vs LCD, this would give a total energy consumption of 85.4 W and 96.1 W for the 35 W and 45 W 7735HS/6900HS respectively. These powers are 20.3% and 25.8% higher than the 7940HS at equivalent TDPs. These increases in power also correspond to time increases of 1.61x and 1.479x compared to the 80 W 7940HS and are substantially longer than the 7940HS at same TDPs. A 45 W 7735HS/6900HS consumes almost exactly the same total power as the 65 W 7940HS (94.4 W) to complete this task but the 7940HS completes the task 30% faster.

So yes. The 7940HS is more efficient than the 7735/6900HS. But the mini LED screen really seems to kill the idle power. Wait for reviews with standard LCDs to make final judgements.


On the spot. Andrei at Anandtech once made many efficiency calculations based on total power, he left quite some time ago though...I don't think there's a valid replacement for his analyses, at least not in public.
Posted by Crear
 - May 18, 2023, 03:54:45
I sincerely wish it's just a flaw of ROG G14 only...I respect the power efficiency that M2 Pro reached, but my work flow requires x64 instead of ARM64 (well done, Nvidia SDK Manager). Still waiting for the Razer Blade 14 2023. Hopefully the idle power can be optimized, along with 32GB DDR5 and 16:10. Mercury edition will be a bonus. If not the lack of CUDA and x64 support, I would most likely just get a 14-inch MacBook Pro.
Posted by Abc
 - May 14, 2023, 15:33:23
Thanks for doing the power limit test. Efficiency is tied to how high of frequency you run your processor (the faster above the sweet spot, the less efficient), so it makes no sense to use the default limits. We all know too well many manufacturers will sacrifice 50% power draw for a 5% benchmark gain (and Intel and AMD happily let them).

In fact, a lot of efficiency has to do with how much power each core gets (which determines how high of frequency the core can reach). Which is why Intel U and P series processors have different efficiency curves because they have different core counts, with the U processor reaching its sweet spot at lower power levels.

There is still a gap between AMD and Apple at similar power levels. I think it is mostly due to architectural differences. X86 needs to move to 64 bit only like ARM has, to get rid of useless silicon dedicated to 32 and 16 bit code which leaks current.

The gap between Intel and AMD has a lot to do with TSMC's 7nm and 5nm process being so good. We see that from Exynos and Snapdragon as well that Intel and Samsung foundry is simply lagging behind TSMC in leakage, which translates to higher power draw and heat production. If Intel used TSMC for some models we should see the gap close considerably.
Posted by ArsLoginName
 - May 07, 2023, 17:38:05
Quote from: Paviko on May 04, 2023, 11:16:36I can't believe these numbers. It's the biggest letdown of 2023. Going from TSCM 7 to TSCM 4 gives absolutely nothing. 190 points/W for 4nm versus 182 points/W for 7nm. I was waiting for Zen 4 notebooks, but it's not worth it.

Efficiency does appear to be underwhelming in the manner the results are presented. But the results are in line with Zen 4 IPC gains from AMD's presentation of 11% in CB R23 coupled with TSMC's N4 to N7 guidance on process node of 15-18% for a total improvement of 25-30%.

Efficiency is not really a plot of CBR23 score vs processor TDP. That only shows the trade-off in performance vs power. Total power consumption (W) to do a task is a much better metric to show efficiency. Since CB score is based on how many frames can be rendered in a fixed quantity of time, all you have to do is some simple ratios to analyze the 'true' efficiency gains.

Let's start with the 80 W TDP with total power consumption of 108 W and a CB R23 score of 18044 pts. Since score = # frames/time, the fixed quantity of work (# of frames) = time*CBR23 score. Since the highest # of frames is generated at the highest power settings, everything can be ratioed to these values (total power consumption of 108 W for 'z' frames and 18044 pts). When the processor is set to a TDP of 35 W, it should take (18044/13723) = 1.315 longer time to generate the same number of frames during which the system consumes 1.315*54 W = 71.0 W of total power instead of 108 W. Over the power range investigated for the 7940HS for this task, 71.0 W is the least amount of power consumed but at the trade-off of the longest time to complete the task. So it takes 52.1% more power (108 W/ 71 W) to save 31.5% in time.

Doing the same at 45 W TDP for the 7940HS (15625 pts, 66 W consumption) yields 1.15x longer time with a total power consumption of 76.2 W (41.7% more power to save 15% in time compared to 80 W settings). When compared to the 35 W values, the 45 W setting is consumes only 7.3% more power (76.2 W/71 W) while gaining back over 50% of the 'extra' time it took to complete the task.

Similarly 55 W (1.086x extra time, 85.8 W total) gains a little bit more than 75% of the extra time back for 21% more consumed total power (85.8 W/71 W) compared to 35 W. Compared to 80 W, 55 W saves you 20.5% power for only 8.6% longer in time. But it is all just a trade off of total energy vs time over this power range.

The 28 W 7840U processors will have a higher efficiency due to the 20% reduction in power compared to the 35 W settings for a 5-10% reduction in clock speeds/CBR 23 scores. But leak says 14789 pts so they may be on a slightly different N4 process than these higher power H/HS parts. Or just better binned. Maybe the HS parts are 'worse' binned than U and H are worse binned than HS.

Let's look at the N6 based 7735HS/6900HS scores of about 11200 and 12200 pts at 35 W and 45 W respectively. Assuming similar total power consumptions for RAM since both DDR5, similar refresh rates, SSDs, and taking off an additional 1 W for the difference between the mini-LED screen vs LCD, this would give a total energy consumption of 85.4 W and 96.1 W for the 35 W and 45 W 7735HS/6900HS respectively. These powers are 20.3% and 25.8% higher than the 7940HS at equivalent TDPs. These increases in power also correspond to time increases of 1.61x and 1.479x compared to the 80 W 7940HS and are substantially longer than the 7940HS at same TDPs. A 45 W 7735HS/6900HS consumes almost exactly the same total power as the 65 W 7940HS (94.4 W) to complete this task but the 7940HS completes the task 30% faster.

So yes. The 7940HS is more efficient than the 7735/6900HS. But the mini LED screen really seems to kill the idle power. Wait for reviews with standard LCDs to make final judgements.

Posted by tipoo
 - May 05, 2023, 04:57:47
Well this is quite whelming tbh. I suppose one could have guessed at this, since TSMC N4 is not really a new node, but a derivative of N5, where Apple again will likely get the first run of 3nm, the true new gen node. 

It looks like Intel may have a very good shot here with Meteor Lake also, the 128 Xe core Tile GPU at 4Tflops would probably be close to the 680M, and I can surmise that like the desktop side of things, the 780M doubling the tflops on paper didn't amount to much performance uplift, just counted different.
Posted by locksleee
 - May 05, 2023, 03:26:46
Quote from: flow x13 owner on May 04, 2023, 01:38:35I don't get the reported idle power consumption numbers.

On my 7940HS flow x13 (received 3 days ago), the CPU power package (as reported by HWinfo) drops below 1W at idle.

Is the 3W reported here a G14 specific issue?

When you're measuring the 1W, is your laptop plugged in or running on battery power?

On my G14 I'm seeing 3W as well and the CPU bottoms out at about 3200MHz.  But if I unplug and enable Battery Saver mode in Windows, the CPU speed drops to 1600MHz and pulls 0.8-1.2W while idle, so this is how the G14 can get its 7940 down to those lower power levels, it's just not something that's possible to enable when the laptop is plugged in.
Posted by Neenyah
 - May 04, 2023, 23:31:39
Quote from: Andres Callegari on May 04, 2023, 04:36:24Those people highlighting single core performance live in the prehistoric cave times or directly/indirectly paid by Intel contrafund to spread Intel beneficial misinformation to naive people.

It's like praising a car above others because it has higher performance when disabling the other 3 wheels. Utterly useless..

Very unrealistic real world usage, which is misinformation deeply marketed by Intel, since it is behind its competitors, under-performing in real world usage, and using synthetic benchmark programs that benefit them only. Reminder that Intel disables compiler optimizations when it detects competitors hardware and hides that and other legally required disclose information by burying the links/information in their information.

Comparison must be with all cores enabled, on real life used software, and benchmarking the power used by the hardware.
The hell are you talking about? Is Adobe Photoshop real enough for you? 13:20 in the vid 👉 youtu.be/nTLs3-LQGjg

64C/128T Threadripper 5995WX gets DEMOLISHED (-27.17%. -36.61%, +9.35%, -54.88% (!)) against the 13900K. Guess why? Because single core performance is the most important metrics in most (not all, just most) of the professional software. Check the rest of the video.
Posted by LL
 - May 04, 2023, 22:01:10
Come to real world Andres Callegari please many processes are still done single core in 3D for example.
Posted by NikoB
 - May 04, 2023, 15:00:32
Quote from: :) on May 04, 2023, 02:22:31Soldiers of Rohan! Hold! Remain steadfast!

Do not buy anything from these companies. They're trying to make a killin' during a recession. Literally blasphemy.

Stuff is still way too ridiculously priced for what they're. (I mean, €800 for ROG Ally in EU? Ayy Lmao. Do they realize that this sheety gtx 1650 tier graphics is barely enough to run anything in 2023? At most, these weak rdna3 igpu's should be relegated to sub < €400 chromebooks by now)

Hold onto your old toaster with your dear life and wait until Zen 5 APU's coming mid-to-late 2024.

Hopefully prices will go back to more reasonable levels by then. If not, oh well. At least we tried.

:)

The dollar for 15 years has depreciated in purchasing power by 2 times.

The pre-top video card AMD 2008 - HD4850 (and then NVidia was weaker, because AMD was really the absolute top on the planet in the consumer segment for the summer of 2008 - HD4870) cost $220-240.

Now an analogue in the class of 2023 vs 2008 HD4850 but from NVidia - GTX4080 costs $1200-1300.

Thus, for exactly 15 years, the prices for video cards have speculatively increased, minus the devaluation of the dollar by 2 times, $1250/$230/2 ~ 2.7 times!

This is madness! Where is the technological progress? Even taking into account the devaluation of the dollar by 2 times in 15 years, the price of 4080 should be no more than $460-550 right now. At worst.
Posted by prajaybasu
 - May 04, 2023, 14:33:21
QuoteIn comparison, the current Raptor Lake generation Intel Core i7-13700H (which is practically a slightly faster Alder Lake Core i7-12700H)

13700H is not the same silicon as the 12700H. It supports DDR5-5200 and it's using "Intel 7 Ultra" process w/ Raptor Cove. It's more efficient because it's running at a higher frequency while consuming less power than the 12700H. That's the point of Raptor Cove, they fixed the V-F curve which is quite important because these P and H series CPUs have their voltage control fully locked since 12th gen (except 12900HK).

The only recycled silicon for Raptor Lake Mobile is the HX series, only 13850HX and higher variants are new silicon. Anything below that in HX is ADL with only DDR5-4800 support.

Brushing off Raptor Lake and overhyping TSMC N4 (= N5+), no wonder the author is disappointed.
Posted by usacomputer
 - May 04, 2023, 12:30:05
At last the AMD Zen 4 7040 begin to arrive.
And Intel fans don't want to acknowledge AMD's Great Work
It is very clear who is thinking of buying an ultrabook weighing at least 1kg, the only option is AMD Zen 4 7040, this time AMD has broken all the molds with its RDNA 3 together with Artificial intelligence that will be very useful for the new version of Windows 12, Office and the new Direct XII APIs all focused on Artificial intelligence which many hate but is currently the future of many and agony for others.
The news is somewhat impartial as always against AMD but for 90% of the population and you are not a gamer this Zen 4 7040 APU is ideal to be able to Play AAA games, render 3D, videos etc... and for artificial intelligence at a price of €1000
It is clear that next year Apple with the New M3 will surpass AMD and Intel but at what price €3000 I do not want to spend that much money enough with Zen 4 7040 of €1000
Posted by h4
 - May 04, 2023, 11:39:20
To author
I take two objections to this article.

The first: please stop phishing.
The title says "Zen4 Phoenix is ideally as efficient as Apple" and the conclusion says "Zen4 Phoenix didn't quite live up to expectations at times".

The second: measuring actual battery life is required for the conclusion, I think.
AMD often had longer battery life on WiFi v1.3, etc. (although ADL and Zen3+ were comparable under Office-like loads).

Quote from: Paviko on May 04, 2023, 11:16:36I can't believe these numbers. It's the biggest letdown of 2023. Going from TSCM 7 to TSCM 4 gives absolutely nothing. 190 points/W for 4nm versus 182 points/W for 7nm. I was waiting for Zen 4 notebooks, but it's not worth it.

As you can see, the performance at the same power consumption is 20% higher, which is exactly what node advancement brings. However, AMD chose to prioritize performance and increase the clock to offset this.

In the ADL vs Zen3+ era, the Zen3+(8C) won at around 35 W as the dividing line and below that, the ADL(6P8E) was superior. Based on these measurements, in MTL vs Zen4, MTL(6P8E) would win at 15 W or higher and Zen4(8C) would win at 15 W or lower. However, at this idle power consumption, there may be a penalty of 9 W or less.


Quote from: Andres Callegari on May 04, 2023, 04:36:24Those people highlighting single core performance live in the prehistoric cave times or directly/indirectly paid by Intel contrafund to spread Intel beneficial misinformation to naive people.
...
Very unrealistic real world usage

With 6 cores (12 threads) or more, MS Office and Photoshop rely on single-threaded performance; you can run benchmarks that include them, like PCMark or Crossmark, or you can make a huge Excel file yourself to see. The additional two cores are only beneficial at some times, such as Windows Update.

If you still doubt it, please download HWiNFO and log the utilization of each core. I finally came to the above conclusion using this method.

Certainly your argument makes sense if you are comparing Tiger lake vs Cezanne, but in the 8C vs 6P8E era, single threaded performance is gaining weight.
Posted by Paviko
 - May 04, 2023, 11:16:36
I can't believe these numbers. It's the biggest letdown of 2023. Going from TSCM 7 to TSCM 4 gives absolutely nothing. 190 points/W for 4nm versus 182 points/W for 7nm. I was waiting for Zen 4 notebooks, but it's not worth it.
Posted by Andres Callegari
 - May 04, 2023, 04:36:24

Those people highlighting single core performance live in the prehistoric cave times or directly/indirectly paid by Intel contrafund to spread Intel beneficial misinformation to naive people.

It's like praising a car above others because it has higher performance when disabling the other 3 wheels. Utterly useless..

Very unrealistic real world usage, which is misinformation deeply marketed by Intel, since it is behind its competitors, under-performing in real world usage, and using synthetic benchmark programs that benefit them only. Reminder that Intel disables compiler optimizations when it detects competitors hardware and hides that and other legally required disclose information by burying the links/information in their information.

Comparison must be with all cores enabled, on real life used software, and benchmarking the power used by the hardware.

If a sport vehicle uses double the fuel to run 0-60 mph in 3 seconds, it can't be compared favorably with a vehicle that achieves the same using half the fuel. Yet, Intel marketing is an expert in confusing customers that its hardware consuming twice the power is a good thing, its ok, and  makes them better than the compatition.!!