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 nikobsux
 - December 12, 2023, 00:41:31
Quote from: NikoB on December 11, 2023, 19:55:37This is pure fraud and juggling with numbers. No one is interested in how much cpu and igpu consume separately, everyone is interested in how much they consume together. But instead they consume 41+38W ~ 80W? So the 7940HS consumes much less! And still 1.5 times faster!

And where is the -40% efficiency per 1W between "10nm"++++++++ and "7nm" from Intel? Yes, this is a complete failure if the performance is the same, but only -9% (45W vs 41W)...

Did customers expect such a disgrace from Intel? They expected the minimum energy efficiency of the 7940HS to be 54W in total, but here it turns out to be a 1.5-fold loss in CPU performance alone!
how do you always end up writing the most objectively wrong and cringe comments on here every time? lol give it up
Posted by ArsLoginName
 - December 12, 2023, 00:05:10
How does this show the Ultra 7 155H in better light and go against MLID in terms of CPU performance? His graph showed improved efficiency of MTL/Intel 4 at <50 W TDP (boost power unknown) by 10-15% in CB R23 and this shows the roughly same score at 9% less power? Isn't that worse?
Posted by PHVM_BR
 - December 11, 2023, 21:35:49
Quote from: NikoB on December 11, 2023, 19:55:37This is pure fraud and juggling with numbers. No one is interested in how much cpu and igpu consume separately, everyone is interested in how much they consume together. But instead they consume 41+38W ~ 80W? So the 7940HS consumes much less! And still 1.5 times faster!

And where is the -40% efficiency per 1W between "10nm"++++++++ and "7nm" from Intel? Yes, this is a complete failure if the performance is the same, but only -9% (45W vs 41W)...

Did customers expect such a disgrace from Intel? They expected the minimum energy efficiency of the 7940HS to be 54W in total, but here it turns out to be a 1.5-fold loss in CPU performance alone!

Erase quickly while there's still time...
Posted by Anontifier
 - December 11, 2023, 21:09:25
I don't trust Intel. They manipulate data.
Posted by NikoB
 - December 11, 2023, 19:55:37
This is pure fraud and juggling with numbers. No one is interested in how much cpu and igpu consume separately, everyone is interested in how much they consume together. But instead they consume 41+38W ~ 80W? So the 7940HS consumes much less! And still 1.5 times faster!

And where is the -40% efficiency per 1W between "10nm"++++++++ and "7nm" from Intel? Yes, this is a complete failure if the performance is the same, but only -9% (45W vs 41W)...

Did customers expect such a disgrace from Intel? They expected the minimum energy efficiency of the 7940HS to be 54W in total, but here it turns out to be a 1.5-fold loss in CPU performance alone!
Posted by Sandalfo
 - December 11, 2023, 19:51:15
i got 3300 @ 3dmark time spy with my 7840U and 780M. 30W tdp.
no ocking just setting a fixed igpu frequency. 7500 MT DDR5
Posted by Redaktion
 - December 11, 2023, 19:13:11
The Intel Core Ultra 7 155H's CPU and iGPU performance has leaked and it appears that the CPU will bring a noticeable efficiency advantage over the Raptor Lake chips. Additionally, the chip also features a much more powerful Xe-LPG iGPU than previously rumored, as it reportedly beats the AMD Radeon 780M.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/New-Core-Ultra-7-155H-leak-shows-Xe-LPG-iGPU-handily-beating-Radeon-780M-alongside-noticeable-CPU-efficiency-bump.781867.0.html