intel is hilarious.
they are refreshing stuff all over again, meteor lake is late and they dream of overtaking tsmc.
intel, a friendly advice, first do it and then brag, not the other way around.

I really don't care if Intel remains behind. It's within margin of practical power expectations except Intel will continue to be featured in the best laptops.

AMD has had a decade to fix the availability and choice issues but they don't. They can easily fix the situation by creating showcases like Intel NUC but they don't.

Some of us live in the real-world.

Maybe they will overtake the M1 by then? Maybe they will fab it on TSMC too!

I also see outright corruption among US and EU legislators under the guise of the euphonious term "lobbying." They simply pretend that nothing immoral or inadequate is happening in the IT market, against the background of their own howls about the need to protect the planet and reduce the carbon footprint. It is obvious that when it comes to the selfish interests of their largest and key industry, which is used for geopolitical purposes - "all animals are equal, but some are more equal"... This is exactly how the United States conducts all its affairs in general. Therefore, do not be surprised when the rest of the world no longer wants to look at the United States as the moral compass of humanity and ignores all its populist speeches from politicians and officials.

Your argument does not stand up to scrutiny and is ridiculous. Incandescent light bulbs also consume electricity rather than gasoline, but they were banned for lack of ENERGY EFFICIENCY. The carbon footprint of electric cars is no lower than that of gasoline cars, but rather even higher, taking into account the recycling and cost of producing batteries and investing in their recharging infrastructure with all the associated energy losses.

Another reader who has little understanding of what he is writing about.

Obviously, the topic (trend) with notebooks consuming 150W+ was set by the disgraceful company Intel, which for many years could not improve its technical processes and, against the backdrop of the successes of TSMC and AMD, as their customers, was outright inferior in performance at the same level of consumption, same as AMD processors. To be at least equal, Intel was forced to make increasingly more consuming processors, which is especially shameful and uncomfortable in the consumer laptop sector, because... this one immediately results in overheating and monstrous noise. AMD was forced to follow Intel, which was "overclocking" processors in terms of consumption, with the connivance of antitrust regulators (there are only 2 companies in the x86 market and Intel owns more than 70% of the shares) in order to at least have the same or slightly better performance, although their processors obviously win from 30 to 50% at the same consumption rate.

It is necessary by law, as with incandescent light bulbs, to ban laptops that consume more than 100W at retail (I would even limit it to 80W) - and then, this is the problem of manufacturers, as they will get out by selling the lack of progress in performance. The narrow sector of professional decisions has nothing to do with this. But even there, energy efficiency and carbon footprint should be given priority.

Quote from: NikoB on October 17, 2023, 17:31:25This is all completely unimportant - the level of mouse fuss against the background of the beginning fundamental impasse with silicon. Energy efficiency growth curve, i.e. performance per 1W of consumption becomes flatter every year. This means that instead of progress they will sell you "rhinestones". And this is exactly what has been happening in reality for the last 2-3 generations. Including on smartphones...

All performance results must be normalized by consumption and shown in tables only in this form.

Anything that goes beyond adequate energy consumption standards (which the "greens" advocate so much) should be punished at the state level and limited by laws, as was the case with incandescent light bulbs, despite all the obvious visual shortcomings of mass-produced LED light bulbs.

Laptops with a power consumption of 250-300W are nonsense! Where are the authorities looking and why don't they ban this?

You realise that "power consumption" in a laptop isn't like "fuel consumption" in a gasoline powered car, right? A laptop (or desktop) emitting 200W isn't inherently causing pollution - that depends entirely on the source of the electricity.

If you have a solar panel setup on your roof and use that to charge the laptop, it generates virtually no GHGs (after manufacture). If your electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro or nuclear, the GHGs generated will be relatively small.

There are perfectly good reasons to have a laptop with high power uses - portable workstations with high end GPUs for example. As well, in real world use, the vast majority of laptops aren't usually used as portable systems most of the time. They tend to be sitting on desktops, plugged in, so again, the real issue is the source of electricity, not the laptop. That's why most modern laptops have charge limiting to prevent them from being at 100% all the time.

While a more power efficient laptop is desirable mainly because it allows the device to run on batteries longer, the reality is that it's not that important in exactly the same way (as you note), CPU performance has already exceeded most real world use cases. There will definitely be a group who need very long battery life and a group who needs maximum CPU/GPU performance (and there's even a small overlap group), but neither are the majority of users.

The drive to minimal power use (in laptops) is driven by Apple in much the same way 'let's make this so thin we can't put a battery in this thing' and 'let's make it impossible to replace anything by making everything proprietary' was driven by them. Maybe we should stop chasing pointless goals and reacting every time Apple says "squirrel!"

This is all completely unimportant - the level of mouse fuss against the background of the beginning fundamental impasse with silicon. Energy efficiency growth curve, i.e. performance per 1W of consumption becomes flatter every year. This means that instead of progress they will sell you "rhinestones". And this is exactly what has been happening in reality for the last 2-3 generations. Including on smartphones...

All performance results must be normalized by consumption and shown in tables only in this form.

Anything that goes beyond adequate energy consumption standards (which the "greens" advocate so much) should be punished at the state level and limited by laws, as was the case with incandescent light bulbs, despite all the obvious visual shortcomings of mass-produced LED light bulbs.

Laptops with a power consumption of 250-300W are nonsense! Where are the authorities looking and why don't they ban this?