NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

Too expensive, screen would be better with 3.2K 120Hz, they charge 400$ for 32GB (32to64GB) and too black. i think color of macbook pro 16 is much nicer. the only stellar thing is AMD zen5 processor and asus used this to leverage the high price. we need laptop manufacturer to use LPCAMM2 modules to end to this non-sense pricing.

Quote from: chris@amd on August 06, 2024, 12:01:00Too expensive, screen would be better with 3.2K 120Hz, they charge 400$ for 32GB (32to64GB) and too black. i think color of macbook pro 16 is much nicer. the only stellar thing is AMD zen5 processor and asus used this to leverage the high price. we need laptop manufacturer to use LPCAMM2 modules to end to this non-sense pricing.

Totally agree, too expensive. ASUS takes advantage of the good performance and performance of AMD Zen 5 and hence its high price. For me, this ultrabook's price would be $2,500 and the truth is that it is time to put LPCAMM2 memories that are cheaper and give more performance than traditional ones, in addition to producing lower temperatures and their performance is much higher than traditional ones, in addition to their ease of exchanging them, something that all manufacturers should allow the user to do.

Well, now it is clear that Zen5 of this version will not reach 5200+ points in CBR15 even at 110W, like 7945HX, i.e. Zen4 is more energy efficient than Zen5, it is a fact. Funny? Sad.

On the one hand, the owner gets a much more efficient memory controller than in Zen4 (and probably 64GB soldered is available only in Zen4 Phoenix and Zen5), on the other hand, at 80W PL1 7945HX would have given out figures in the region of 4500-4700 in CBR15, which is clearly faster for the kind of work for which such series are bought...

Let's move on - 16", but again a cropped keyboard. Although the target group is like creative "artists", they probably don't need a numpad..

The consequence of the low weight and thin case was increased noise even at rest, as well as pre-critical heating with the exhaust of hot air under the screen and onto the screen.

This author, as usual, misleads readers about the "infinite black level". In reality, such a black level is possible only on AMOLED panels with the "True Black HDR XXX" nameplate, and here it is not, which means the real contrast (and the level black) for AMOLED screens are a priori shameful, so Asus did not receive a certificate-nameplate for this screen.

Another strange Frankentshane from Asus at a clearly inflated price of at least 800-1000 euros. But at least it showed us for the first time the limits of performance, or rather scalability depending on TDP. We learned from this review that at high consumption levels, Zen5 Strix Point 100% loses in pure performance (at least on old code, of which there is a lot) to the 45 series Zen4.

Thanks for toning it down Niko or whomever is pretending to be Niko.

Most people would be okay with losing to 12 cores of Zen 4 with or without 3D cache by a little by 19% while consuming 33% less power, being almost 5 dBa quieter, and for 30% more battery life. It is clear AMD went for efficiency improvements with Strix Point. The Asus Zenbook S 16 review showed at lower TDPs, Strix Point gives HS levels of performance while consuming U levels of power. 

As for the screen, Asus needs to offer the 3200x2000 panel again.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 06, 2024, 21:55:25or whomever is pretending to be Niko

Pretty sure it's the same retard.

Quote from: Real NikoB (old bl) on August 06, 2024, 14:23:59like 7945HX

Lol 7945HX+4070 had like two-three times less battery life, wtf are you even mumbling about. 7945HX was a bad chip made with a single reason to battle bad Intel chips. New times require new approaches, it's not about raw power anymore, it's about power/performance/area balance.

Good subpixel arrangement photo! Perfectly aligned and correctly demonstrates the vertical orientation of the blue stripes. One could complain that it's still upside down, but that's small potatoes in comparison.

On the product itself, it is nice to see that a 3840x option made a comeback. However, this resolution in OLED format is overdue for a bump to 90Hz. It's also aggravating that they continued with the "ProArt" label underneath. This naming already alienates non-creators who might simply be in it for the specs, display, or design, not to mention the staggeringly repair-unfriendly nature of the edge-to-edge glass panel it's printed on. This product line truly peaked in its first OLED design iteration, and only fell off since.

Is the structure seen in the review of the PX13 model (presumably from the touch structure) not present in P16?

Disappointing.  State of the art pricing, but the 16" model doesn't go into tent mode so its just a crappy clamshell with a 60Hz OLED display, THAT'S so 2019!  Take away the CPU and the product is meh!

Quote from: Steven22 on August 06, 2024, 22:34:03

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 06, 2024, 21:55:25or whomever is pretending to be Niko

Pretty sure it's the same retard.

I wonder why the local asshole moderator allows direct insults?

The rest of the commentators are probably dyslexic, because in my comment I clearly stated why and for what purpose I compared Zen4 HX with Zen5 Strix Point. And battery life here does not matter at all, they need pure performance, and the 80W PL1 test CLEARLY shows that this model is designed to work only from a power supply.

7945HX clearly beats Zen5 Strix Point at 80W from a PSU. That's the point. But the local bots certainly don't understand this, they act with false attacks according to a stupid manual handed down from above. Or they are just idiots...

Quote from: Real NikoB (name bl) on August 07, 2024, 14:17:07The rest of the commentators are probably dyslexic, because in my comment I clearly stated why and for what purpose I compared Zen4 HX with Zen5 Strix Point. And battery life here does not matter at all, they need pure performance, and the 80W PL1 test CLEARLY shows that this model is designed to work only from a power supply.

7945HX clearly beats Zen5 Strix Point at 80W from a PSU. That's the point. But the local bots certainly don't understand this, they act with false attacks according to a stupid manual handed down from above. Or they are just idiots...

No idea on moderator. But my comments are not dyslexic in the slightest. The performance value you quote for the 7845HX was while it was consuming long term of 118 W according to Notebookcheck's database/review unit. Please link the 80 W results you are claiming.

Else it's a moot point because Asus (and AMD) were going for a more balanced approach for this laptop (and processor/APU): lower maximum power consumption means less cooling means less weight and longer battery life. This is the lightest 16" laptop in this little comparison article if I remember correctly.

Just because in your mind you want 120+ W from a notebook when plugged in, not everybody does. Maybe some laptop manufacturer will make a laptop with this chip with 110+ W for you. You just have to wait for it or make it yourself.

Oh and if you want to compare it to the 7945HX, why would a 12 core 370HX with 8 lower frequency more compact area cores beat a 16 core desktop processor when both made on a very similar node? The IPC gains would have had to be in excess of 25-30% for that to happen.

The is one of the lightest and thinnest 16" laptops on the market, with video and load battery runtimes better than an arm-based M3 MacBook Pro 16" on a smaller battery. So, if it's super portable and one of the best runtimes for a creator focused laptop, I would be surprised if ASUS did that by mistake and had to tell everyone not to unplug it.

[/quote]
The rest of the commentators are probably dyslexic, because in my comment I clearly stated why and for what purpose I compared Zen4 HX with Zen5 Strix Point. And battery life here does not matter at all, they need pure performance, and the 80W PL1 test CLEARLY shows that this model is designed to work only from a power supply.[/quote]

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 17:20:25runtimes better than an arm-based M3 MacBook Pro 16" on a smaller battery

What? M3 Pro mops the floor with AMD runtime, even M3 Max (which is much more performant) runs longer.
AMD shills have no boundaries.

Quote from: Real NikoB (name bl) on August 07, 2024, 14:17:07And battery life here does not matter at all, they need pure performance

Who "they" lol, everyone else is explaining you battery life is more important.

Quote from: Real NikoB (name bl) on August 07, 2024, 14:17:07why the local asshole moderator allows direct insults?

Man is in a serious paranoia.

Quote from: ertyldia on August 07, 2024, 17:29:49

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 17:20:25runtimes better than an arm-based M3 MacBook Pro 16" on a smaller battery

What? M3 Pro mops the floor with AMD runtime, even M3 Max (which is much more performant) runs longer.
AMD shills have no boundaries.

I'm referring to the battery runtimes for this comparison, where they test three parameters. The P16 got 21-hours for video playback and 2-hours for the heavy loads test, which is longer than the M3 Max got in this test comparison. While I'm not an 'AMD shill', as I admit that's cherry-picking data as Apple has longer Wi-Fi runtimes and it's a gap that can't easily be closed with future BIOS/Driver updates, my point was to show that this laptop can definitely be used on battery as a response to the earlier comment.

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 17:51:04I'm referring to the battery runtimes for this comparison, where they test three parameters. The P16 got 21-hours for video playback and 2-hours for the heavy loads test, which is longer than the M3 Max

Do you realize M3 Max is like 1.5x more powerful chip and even it stomped AMD in Wifi battery runtime. Compare this AMD to something of it's level - M3 Pro chip - and AMD gets completely destroyed.

Also M3 Max outran this AMD in Wifi battery life test by x2 - and Wifi test is actually a better one because it shows a real workload, while video test compares the efficiency of onboard hardware codes, not CPUs.

If you don't know how to add M3 Pro to the table, here's numbers 1481 1204 83.
AMD can't reach those runtimes.

Quote from: Goberman on August 07, 2024, 18:05:24

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 17:51:04I'm referring to the battery runtimes for this comparison, where they test three parameters. The P16 got 21-hours for video playback and 2-hours for the heavy loads test, which is longer than the M3 Max

Do you realize M3 Max is like 1.5x more powerful chip and even it stomped AMD in Wifi battery runtime. Compare this AMD to something of it's level - M3 Pro chip - and AMD gets completely destroyed.

You and John Doe are both correct. For this model, the Macbooks beat this 370HX in wi-fi runtime but in video playback, the 370HX wins. I've posted on the wi-fi runtime elsewhere (reddit and here).

However, you need to understand this very poor showing in wi-fi run time is strictly due to the MediaTek Wi-Fi 7 chipset.

Compare
HP 845 G10 - 7840U - 779 min wi-fi time from a 51 Whr battery = 15.27 min/Whr (will get similar 14.5+ min wi-fi/Whr battery from Lenovo T14s G4 with same 7840U and similar 30 W/25 W power settings. Both of these laptops do not use a MediaTek wi-fi chipset).

Asus Zenbook S16 = 640 min wi-fi from a 53% larger 78 Whr battery = 8.205 min/Whr and the difference can't be due to the OLED screen in the Zenbook S16 because the video playback runtime increases by 5% more than the battery capacity increase.

ProArt P16 = 500 min wi-fi from 90 Whr battery. Even worse. But again. Over 1250 min in video playback test which is comparable to the Zenbook S 16's 1204 minutes. So slightly more power hungry OLED in this ProArt due to more pixels.

Your famous and illustrious M3 Pro based Macbook Pro 14 is 1213 min of video playback and  979 wi-fi minutes from a 72.6 Whr battery. Similar video playback times but only 13.48 minutes per Whr battery = worse because it is fabbed on TSMC 3 nm and not TSMC 4 nm. The M3 Pro 16 = 1204 wi-fi minutes from 99.6 Whr battery = 12.09 minutes per Whr. Even worse efficiency than the OLD AMD platform.

On the AMD systems, one should be able to sway out/Get rid of the MediaTek wi-fi and see how the systems compare for wi-fi. You can't do that on Apple.

ArsLoginName, what a pile of bad data you got here. Different laptops, with different performance, different screens - and you really think you can just divide hour by Wh and get anything relevant? Where did you get this idea?

So 7840U, that is slower than base M2 chip, "won" in your "efficiency calculations" when compared to big kids? Why not compare it to base M2 Air, that does 884 minutes Wifi on 52.6Wh battery and thus wins? You HAVE TO consider only chips of a similar performance to compare efficiency. It's like weight categories for boxers.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 07, 2024, 19:12:37strictly due to the MediaTek Wi-Fi 7 chipset

Top baseless claim-2024.

7840U loses to M2, same performance category give or take.
Asus ProArt P16 loses to M3Pro, same performance category give or take.
That's it.

if we are not comparing cpu's inside their performance categories anymore, my Radxa pi zero 2w with aliexpress screen is the best laptop, it can run 48+ hrs on 100w power bank with a glorious solid 120 points of geekbench multicore brilliance.

so yeah, better stick to performance brackets when comparing or Radxa will smack yo a**.

Goberman... all data from notebookcheck so all had same video playback, wi-fi tests and screen brightness values. So there is no bad data as you suggest.

I brought up 2 major points. 1 - The wi-fi times for the 370HX platforms are not in accordance with all the other performance and efficiency improvements. The wi-fi run times regressed for this new 370HX platform. 2 - MacBooks on a more advanced processing node, do not have a higher wi-fi efficiency than Zen 4 based 7840U based business laptops.

For the 370HX platforms (both ProArt and Zenbook S16), the local video playback time increased in excess of battery capacity increase for these notebooks. This test does not use the wi-fi chipset. This means the OLED displays can't draw that much more power than the displays in the 7840's I was referencing else local video playback time would have decreased relative to the battery capacity increase. Thus AMD had to increase the efficiency of video playback in excess of any increase in total power consumption by the screen.

It's simple math. Run time = battery capacity/(display power + platform task power including wi-fi). Whr/W = run time in hours.

Macbooks have had impressive video and wi-fi run times because they have used the largest batteries in their notebooks. That is what one buys. A complete notebook regardless of pixel density, display technology (IPS, mini-LED, OLED), wi-fi chipset, processor, and battery. Your M3 Pro Mac Books are on a more advanced node than these 370HX so they *should* have been more efficient per Whr based upon processor/GPU/IO/RAM etc.

My analysis shows that Mac Books do not have the highest wi-fi efficiency per Whr of battery capacity and this new AMD platform has terrible wi-fi efficiency compared to several of their old Zen 4 regardless of whether this higher power ProArt or the same power consumption Zenbook S 16 compared to the Zen 4 based 7840U's. This new AMD system has a MediaTek wi-fi chipset. The HP 845 G10 and Lenovo T14s do not.  On the AMD systems, you can change the wi-fi. On the Mac Book Pros, you can't and they are not the most efficient platform in terms of wi-fi run times.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 07, 2024, 20:51:55I brought up 2 major points. 1 - The wi-fi times for the 370HX platforms are not in accordance with all the other performance and efficiency improvements. The wi-fi run times regressed for this new 370HX platform. 2 - MacBooks on a more advanced processing node, do not have a higher wi-fi efficiency than Zen 4 based 7840U based business laptops.

Ok this is just bullshit at this point. Feel free to stay ignorant.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 07, 2024, 20:51:55My analysis shows

Your "analysis" is a comparison of laptop with 8000 geekbench and 15000 geekbench. And you've ignored the fact your 8000 geekbench laptop lost to 9000 geekbench macbook.

Bye. You are hopeless.

Quote from: Goberman on August 07, 2024, 18:05:24

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 17:51:04I'm referring to the battery runtimes for this comparison, where they test three parameters. The P16 got 21-hours for video playback and 2-hours for the heavy loads test, which is longer than the M3 Max

Do you realize M3 Max is like 1.5x more powerful chip and even it stomped AMD in Wifi battery runtime. Compare this AMD to something of it's level - M3 Pro chip - and AMD gets completely destroyed.

Last comment I'll make on this as otherwise I will sound like an AMD shill but performance and efficiency are at opposing sides, that said the Wi-Fi test is not running the M3 Pro/Max or AI 9 370HX at full load, that's what the loads test is for. What I said still stands. I will explore your "more powerful" claim, so I'll look at the full load performance and endurance below.

Performance metrics also vary significantly between what, who, where and when a device is tested. Even if you use a site (NanoReview in this comment as it shows No. of samples in the dataset) that uses a large pool of benchmark data to establish a more accurate mean, performance STILL varies greatly on how the benchmark tests are designed like Cinebench(x86-bias) vs Geekbench (Linux + MacOS bias...? or rather Windows sucks). I also hear you about only comparing devices in a similar class, but I merely looked at this review. I'll go the extra step and try verifying your claims:

So M3 Pro = AI 9 370HX: 12-Core = 12-Core both are in 16" creator laptops, similar size and retail price. Using multicore benchmarks to ensure full-load, CinebenchR23 shows an average 14799 vs 24407 in favour of the AMD-chip (65% faster is expected as it's bias to x86). How about Geekbench 6 to avoid x86 platform bias? 14579 vs 15545 in favour of the AMD-chip. (So, 7% faster in what Geekbench consider "real-world" load). How long did they last in their respective loads test here? P16 = 116min vs MBP 16(M3 Pro) = 83min. (M3 Pro 28% less endurance on a 11% bigger battery)

So M3 Max vs AI 9 370HX: 16-core vs 12-core, again both are in 16" creator laptops, similar size but here Apple is almost twice the retail. CinebenchR23 'nT' averages 23507 vs 24407 in favour of AMD by 4% (again not Apples to Apples and rather Apples to Windows as x86-bias). Geekbench 6 nT shows 20930 vs 15545 in favour of Apple by 35%, this is more realistic. Now what are the runtimes where you actually use this 1.35x 'more powerful' advantage? P16 (90WHr) = 116min vs MBP 16 (M3 Max, 99.6Whr) = 71min.

So going back to your 1.5x more powerful claim.. Yes, the M3 Max is 1.35x more powerful but it's also going to last 0.61x the duration of the AI 9 370HX in the P16, even with an 11% battery size advantage. You correctly guessed the M3 Pro has the same performance as the AI 9 370HX but lasts 0.71x the duration under heavy load scenarios. Does that mean the AMD AI 9 370HX is more efficient than any of the Apple M3 variants as a whole?
No, but under heavy loads or just video playback... it's closer than you think.

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24CinebenchR23

I've stopped reading after I saw you referring to R23 when talking about Apple ARM chips. How many times in this forum people had to tell you that Cinebench only added Apple chips support/optimizations in Cinebench 2024. It It is literally second paragraph on their home page.

QuoteCinebench 2024 is designed to accommodate a broad range of hardware configurations - while it seamlessly supports x86/64 architecture (Intel/AMD) on Windows and macOS, it also extends its reach to Apple Silicon on macOS and Arm64 CPUs on Windows

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24How about Geekbench 6 to avoid x86 platform bias? 14579 vs 15545 in favour of the AMD-chip.

And this is a lie, if you add M3 Pro in this review you will see 15480 macbook and 15367 this AMD laptop. Plus you've ignored a whopping 3100 single-core of macbook, because it's VERY inconvenient for AMD.

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24in their respective loads test here?

In their battery life test M3 Pro DESTROYED your AMD. And as for "Load" test, do you even remember at this point that Windows laptops switch to low power mode on battery and macs do not? AMD is DESTROYED in every normal productivity test, video and web browsing, and managed to come ahead in "Load" test just because it cut down it's power on battery for unknown amount.

AMD shills on this forum are funny. Complete brain rot.

ROFL !!!!!!
I really hope these "AMD totally beats Apple" peeps are on AMD salary because otherwise it's mental, one just keeps "beating Apple" with hallucinated data, the other one compares budget CPU to tops ignoring performance bracket, TDPs and even screen sizes.

Also some info for folx so they don't ashame themselves more --- "Load" test is performed at max brightness, so whatever display is brighter usually uses more power, e.g. macbook uses 5 watts more than this ASUS even just idling at max brightness --- just because of display. And with display off macbook idles at 3 watts less than this Asus. It's all there in reviews if you are actually LITERATE AND READ+UNDERSTAND THEM.

The same iFan(atic) with multiple names is always polluting every thread around in NikoB's fashion.

Wow, this quickly went donwhill...
One word. Uneducated...
There is a graph in review. "Power consumption Cyberpunk / stress test"...
One of data points says, "Idle 150 nits", 7.36-16.9W...
Now go to Macbook Pro 16 M3 Pro review, same graph, Idle 150 nits, 7.2-8.44W...
Now look at graphs "Power consumption with an external monitor"...
Asus, idle, external monitor, 7.74-13.8W, avg 10.2W...
Macbook, Idle, external monitor, 5.58-6.35W...
What are you discussing if AMD idles at 4W+ more with screen off on AC power. What are you comparing exactly? Screens? OLED with 350 nits vs MiniLED with 550 nits? Or you are comparing which producer made Windows slow laptop down more on battery? And then extrapolating all this to chips?..
Uneducated...

Quote from: Toortle on August 07, 2024, 23:43:10The same iFan(atic) with multiple names is always polluting every thread around in NikoB's fashion.

Paranoia...

Quote from: tyniyun on August 07, 2024, 22:42:30

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24CinebenchR23

I've stopped reading after I saw you referring to R23 when talking about Apple ARM chips. How many times in this forum people had to tell you that Cinebench only added Apple chips support/optimizations in Cinebench 2024. It It is literally second paragraph on their home page.

QuoteCinebench 2024 is designed to accommodate a broad range of hardware configurations - while it seamlessly supports x86/64 architecture (Intel/AMD) on Windows and macOS, it also extends its reach to Apple Silicon on macOS and Arm64 CPUs on Windows

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24How about Geekbench 6 to avoid x86 platform bias? 14579 vs 15545 in favour of the AMD-chip.

And this is a lie, if you add M3 Pro in this review you will see 15480 macbook and 15367 this AMD laptop. Plus you've ignored a whopping 3100 single-core of macbook, because it's VERY inconvenient for AMD.

Quote from: John Doe on August 07, 2024, 22:06:24in their respective loads test here?

In their battery life test M3 Pro DESTROYED your AMD. And as for "Load" test, do you even remember at this point that Windows laptops switch to low power mode on battery and macs do not? AMD is DESTROYED in every normal productivity test, video and web browsing, and managed to come ahead in "Load" test just because it cut down it's power on battery for unknown amount.

AMD shills on this forum are funny. Complete brain rot.

To avoid being called an AMD shill again, I can clarify if needed. (I've only ever used Intel FYI)
1. Why use Cinebench R23? I use NanoReview which doesn't show CB2024 yet so finding 100+ benchmarks or reviews and averaging them would be a hassle, therefore I outright said, "test is like comparing apples to windows" if you didn't catch that. I included it to prove the fact that benchmarks are not all equal which mainly alluded to an earlier statement I made. In stats you never just take one sample and say that's representative of the whole group, that's why I didn't just use the benchmark numbers in this review and call it a day. I also didn't use 1T (Single Thread) benchmarks as that doesn't fully saturate/load the CPU, if you're that pedantic about single core, yes M3 Max is a whopping 5% faster than the AI 9 370HX according to a large pool of Geekbench 6 tests on those respective chips (3141 vs 2983).

2. If you're not sure about the performance cut on battery, it's the difference of 10W to the CPU (so from 80W PL1 to 70W PL1) which is a 7% reduction in performance according to the NotebookCheck review. So, if we go by that logic, Apple win's the reward hitting 0% quicker under full load cause Apple doesn't cut power to the CPU and ASUS cut's 10W and lasts considerably longer under full CPU load. It's not a question about efficiency it's a question of power draw vs battery capacity.

I hope this helped.

Quote from: Goberman on August 07, 2024, 21:05:03Ok this is just bullshit at this point. Feel free to stay ignorant.

Bye. You are hopeless.

Ignorant? LOL. You can't understand math apparently. Typical Mac fanatic saying longest battery life, etc but when shown the math, can't understand basic math and English. LOL. Then resort to name-calling and do nothing to present anything to the contrary but resort to moving the goalposts and bring up the most waste of a benchmark there is, Geekbench. Like another post brought up over their very low power device with their GB score, one can only compare items in similar power envelopes else we should all be using our phones for all computations based upon their GB6 scores of 6700-7200 (tel:6700-7200) for SD8G3 and A17 Pro at 10-ish W. M3 Pro is only 15k at 27 W. Are you saying a 6 big 6 little core M3 Pro MacBook is only 2x as good as a 2 big core 4 efficiency core iPhone while consuming almost 3x the power? Quick. You better tell Apple you know more than they do and they don't need the big, expensive M3 Pro.

Being informed is looking at all data and analyzing. You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency (minutes of use per Whr of battery) of Mac Books and this Zen 5 (370HX at 33 W/28 W Zenbook S16) compared to several Zen 4 (7840U 30 W/25 W) of a similar power envelope.

As for ignorant (i.e., lacking knowledge or awareness in general), you have to be closer to the definition of it to not even know about tthe information presented here. If you were aware, you'd have realized MacBooks only get the wi-fi and video playback times they do because of their very large battery capacities and always on leading edge node. But they get similar minutes/Whr of battery as several x86 platforms when put under the same testing conditions.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01finding 100+ benchmarks or reviews and averaging them would be a hassle

You are on a specific site discussing specific review, yet you fail somehow.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01I also didn't use 1T (Single Thread) benchmarks as that doesn't fully saturate/load the CPU

Single core load is 90% of the load your CPU will ever experience in productivity use. Don't even try downplaying single core performance just because AMD never could.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01M3 Max

M3 Pro

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01whopping 5% faster than the AI 9 370HX according to a large pool of Geekbench 6 tests on those respective chips (3141 vs 2983).

You really tried to cherry pick the highest number for AMD chip, according to this review it's 2877. And yes 5% is 1/3rd of what AMD could do generationally, so it's a lot.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01If you're not sure about the performance cut on battery, it's the difference of 10W to the CPU (so from 80W PL1 to 70W PL1) which is a 7% reduction in performance according to the NotebookCheck review.

Oh really? Let's do math? 90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W. This was the power consumption (with the screen at full brightness) for Asus Load test, unless you think there was some "asus magic" involved. So what were you saying, 70W? very funny. Laptop was running at half its power roughly. performance losses are unknown.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01Apple win's the reward hitting 0% quicker under full load cause Apple doesn't cut power to the CPU and ASUS cut's 10W and lasts considerably longer under full CPU load

You've ignored "Load" is full brightness and screens are different.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01It's not a question about efficiency

Finally you've admitted you are wrong.

Quote from: John Doe on August 08, 2024, 00:26:01it's a question of power draw vs battery capacity

1) Macbook Pro M3Pro is indeed about the same performance as this AMD laptop.
2) Macbook Pro has a brighter display
3) Macbook sustains 1482 minutes idle on 99.6Wh, Asus 1260 minutes on 90Wh - Macbook wins
4) Macbook sustains 1204 minutes wifi on 99.6Wh, Asus 499 minutes on 90Wh - Macbook wins by a lot
5) Macbook in high power mode with 600 nits screen sustains 83 minutes Load on 99.6Wh, Asus in low power mode with 300 nits screen 116 minutes on 90Wh - unclear, because you can enable low power mode on macbook too and it will double the runtime. Also we kind of calculated that Asus was running at PL1 about 40W with unknown performance losses.

So macbook beats this AMD in both categories. I hope this helped.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02Typical Mac fanatic

I'm truth fanatic. If Intel was more efficient I'd defend Intel. I have different machines from all three big manufacturers. Including 7840U and M3Max and 155H lol.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02Ignorant? LOL. You can't understand math apparently.

You done? Looks like at least you've finally understood you can't compare efficiency of 7840U and M3 Max.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency (minutes of use per Whr of battery)

I don't have to disprove your conspiracy theory based on incorrect interpretation of data.
Stay ignorant, it's your right.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02But they get similar minutes/Whr of battery as several x86 platforms when put under the same testing conditions.

And it's a lie based on incorrect interpretation of data.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency

If you really want me to destroy your conspiracy theories, I can do it with one sentence.
90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W. This was the power consumption (with the screen at full brightness) for Asus Load test. While macbook was fairly working it's a** of at 70W, same as on AC power. So all your theories are based on a fact you didn't know Asus laptop cuts power consumption on a battery considerably. And you didn't know Load test is done with display at full brightness, so you can't directly compare different laptops.
You didn't know all this because you are ignorant and by the looks of will stay this way. Or you are a paid AMD marketer (I really hope). Have fun.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:03:53

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 00:56:02Typical Mac fanatic

I'm truth fanatic. If Intel was more efficient I'd defend Intel. I have different machines from all....

I don't have to disprove your conspiracy theory based on incorrect interpretation of data.
Stay ignorant, it's your right.

And it's a lie based on incorrect interpretation of data.

1- As for products from all manufacturers, so do I. This doesn't prove anything.

2 - You not being able to do simple division is definitely ignorant. Not only are you smarter than Apple, QC, AMD, and Intel engineers, you are also telling Notebookcheck their testing is flawed and all their data points and tests are lies! Especially wi-fi run times and battery capacity! Only you can interpret their data. LOL.

3 - Again.... No data simple math to show otherwise....especially now that GB was shown to be worthless. Again... minutes of wi-fi time at 150 screen brightness divided by battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency. Kind of like miles per gallon and fuel tank size.

Goober-man.... LOL.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:21:08No data simple math to show otherwise....

90Wh/116minutes*60 = 46.55W PL1 AMD in Load test.

For a person who does random calculations on incorrect data he doesn't even understand you use word "math" too much. Please don't respond to me anymore, stay ignorant.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:21:08Goober-man.... LOL.

Thought I was talking to adult until I saw this.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:21:08you are also telling Notebookcheck their testing is flawed and all their data points and tests are lies

Bullshit btw, I've operated on data from this review all the time. Lying about opponent is an argument of a loser. Not surprised though.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:16:36If you really want me to destroy your conspiracy theories, I can do it with one sentence.
90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W.
You didn't know all this because you are ignorant .....

Apparently you think you know the definition of "efficiency" and "ignorant." But this calculation shows you do not. What you have just shown is that a Lamborghini gets worse fuel efficiency than a Prius and can burn through a tank of gas faster.

Never did I say anything about maximum power consumption. But you moved the goal posts again.

NBC makes it easy. Wi-fi minutes of run time at screen brightness of 150 cd/ battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency which is just 1 measure of overall platform efficiency.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:32:34Never did I say anything about maximum power consumption

You still don't understand, right? Let me explain it to you like you are a child.
AMD CHEATED! AMD CUT CPU PERFORMANCE IN HALF AND GOT A FAKEY BATTERY LIFE NUMBER WHILE DOING ONLY HALF THE WORK! IF YOU PUT YOUR MACBOOK INTO LOW POWER MODE MANUALLY YOU WILL GET EVEN MORE!

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:32:34Wi-fi minutes of run time at screen brightness of 150 cd/ battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency

So you also don't know how "wifi" test is performed, my non-ignorant friend. They have a script that loads different web pages once in a while, maybe once in 30 seconds or a minute, i don't remember. Those pages are heavy on javascript and animations, one of them IS even a javascript benchmark. If it not wifi, it's web browsing test. You can even google up the link to the test itself, it's public and I use it on my machines too.

So just as I said, you are doing random math on data you can't even interpret properly.

This is getting ridiculous.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:28:16Bullshit btw, I've operated on data from this review all the time. Lying about opponent is an argument of a loser. Not surprised though.

That is you. Name calling is #1 method people uses to deflect and attack when they lose. Psych 101. They also use that technique so they don't have to answer the question. Other techniques include name-calling and calling the other person a cheater or liar. Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading when used by others and you insinuated only you know how to interest them correctly.

Efficiency = miles per gallon for autos (Miles driven divided by fuel used including up to the entire fuel tank). Wi-fi efficiency for a notebook = minutes of wi-fi use per Whr of battery used which includes up to the entire battery capacity.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:42:42Name calling is #1 method people uses to deflect and attack when they lose. Psych 101.  They also use that technique so they don't have to answer the question. Other techniques include name-calling and calling the other person a cheater or liar. Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading when used by others and you insinuated only you know how to interest them correctly.

used a message just to throw s*** my way? You ran out of arguments this much already? Just admit you were wrong, be a grown man.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:42:42Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading

Oh same bullshit again, I've beat you exclusively using NBC reviews data.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:42:42Efficiency = miles per gallon for autos (Miles driven divided by fuel used including up to the entire fuel tank). Wi-fi efficiency for a notebook = minutes of wi-fi use per Whr of battery used which includes up to the entire battery capacity.

Deja vu. Haven't I just explained you what "wifi" test is? It's barely using "wifi", lol.

I've even took my time to find you their web browsing test, my non-ignorant friend.
www.notebookcheck.com/nbcbattery/index.php

Just run on idle machine and wait, it keeps a log of how much time passed at the top of the screen. It is not a heavy load by all means but once in a while it pops a Kraken javascript benchmark. Have fun.

Still laughing at "wifi test is wifi use per Whr battery", you've made my day.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:46:20used a message just to throw s*** my way? You ran out of arguments this much already? Just admit you were wrong, be a grown man.

LOL. Name calling and swearing still? Clearly shows who is upset, mad, and trying to deflect. Again. Psych 101/Philosophy 101. Well not really. Your local community college might have it under a different number. Take it sometime. You might learn something about yourself. But it's clear you think highly of yourself by using words like 'destroyed' when you weren't even doing the correct calculation for wi-fi efficiency.

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 01:42:42Oh same bullshit again, I've beat you exclusively using NBC reviews data.

You haven't beat anything. Are you delusional much? If so, seek help. Honest. The math I am doing is not hard.

Deja vu.  Haven't I just explained you what "wifi" test is? It's barely using "wifi", lol.

Notebookcheck explains their wi-fi test efficiency almost every time. If not, they have an entire page to their testing procedures. Clearly states screen at 150 cd. Time to go from battery full to empty running the same wi-fi script. Simple math to determine system level wi-fi efficiency - which MacBooks can lose to x86 on an inferior processing node.

So let's see..so far I'm ignorant 6 or 7 times....But I do know how to read and comprehend NBC's wi-fi battery test to determine system level efficiency. But again, people buy a complete notebook not just a screen or a processor or a wi-fi chip. The pieces all come together to form a system and MB M3/M2 Pro's aren't superior in wi-fi efficiency. They just have always used larger capacity batteries and been a node ahead compared to x86 until recently for battery sizes. Soon there will be node parity with Intel's Lunar Lake on N3B.

Thanks. I know how to read and I know NBC's testing methodology well. Just like it says above: "In the Wi-Fi test at 150 cd/m² ..."

Why are you laughing? You seem to have left the word "efficiency" out. Nothing like mis-quoting.

Efficiency = the rate of useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended/consumed.

There. I helped you back. Now you know what efficiency means. Applying this definition to a user gives  how many minutes a user gets to perform a task like using their notebook to do emails or shop online per unit battery capacity consumed.  Just like miles per gallon - which neither are measured under full loads but only under light loads.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:56:36I've even took my time to find you their web browsing test, my non-ignorant friend.
www.notebookcheck.com/nbcbattery/index.php


Still laughing at "wifi test is wifi use per Whr battery", you've made my day.

With the amount of telemetry in modern windows these days, think it'll be hard to for any pc match macs in battery life. Wendell said in a video fairly recently about how he got better battery life under tweaked Linux than on windows on his Ryzen APU laptop.

Also doesn't help that AMD just isn't as vertically integrated as Apple yet, which I don't expect to see m1 level efficiency until zen 6 in 2027.

Apple's efficiency on lightly threaded workloads is truely impressive not quite sure how they do it.

Nice to see you back in good health, "lmao" !

Quote from: ArsLoginName on August 08, 2024, 03:12:39Efficiency = the rate of useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended/consumed.

Quote from: Goberman on August 08, 2024, 01:39:58Let me explain it to you like you are a child.
AMD CHEATED! AMD CUT CPU PERFORMANCE IN HALF AND GOT A FAKEY BATTERY LIFE NUMBER WHILE DOING ONLY HALF THE WORK! IF YOU PUT YOUR MACBOOK INTO LOW POWER MODE MANUALLY YOU WILL GET EVEN MORE!

Thanks for the review,
Cant wait to see one for the new tuf a16

Not that I can buy any in my region, but still hope to buy the 4060,32gb, fhd version

Great Review... but anyone else wondering what the point of this laptop is? I'm an artists and will invest in a good convertible, but for the last few years there's been nothing with decent GPU without major concessions (usually intel cpus tbh, like the surface studio's i7-11370H... remember that absolute mess!?).

I mean, strix halo is coming, which will make this cpu/gpu setup redundant. Integrated mega gpu's are the future, sharing 64gb of ram, basically M3 max on windows, canny wait for them foldy badboys.... if they bother making them. Though it looks like the OEM's are well on this AMD new hardware bandwagon, so hopefully.

So, most us nerdz know this is gonna be a hotter, louder and less efficient machine compared to devices coming in a few months, and those who don't are gonna feel mighty peeved after buying these, right?

Just picked this up at Best Buy on an early black Friday deal for $1300 to replace my Thinkpad P1 amd outside a few little things, its pretty nice, well built, gets amazing battery life, and the factory calibrated display is 0.44 delta E. Keyboard is on par with my Thinkpad.

Definitely happy with the purchase. No ragrets! Lol

Quote from: Goberman on August 07, 2024, 18:09:34Also M3 Max outran this AMD in Wifi battery life test by x2 - and Wifi test is actually a better one because it shows a real workload, while video test compares the efficiency of onboard hardware codes, not CPUs.

If you don't know how to add M3 Pro to the table, here's numbers 1481 1204 83.
AMD can't reach those runtimes.

Comparing a mac to a pc is like comparing a bean to a cow. Sure mac is useful as a paperweight. Who cares if it is faster when only 20% of programs will run on a mac.
Nothing is intuitively designed despite their feable efforts.
I bought an iphone and had to take it back because compared to android ot was absolutely impossible to measure up. Everything was flawed. Even the simplest things like moving your icons around on the screen were met with massive challenges. Placing your cursor in a text message. And dont get me started about the standby non usage battery life.

Mac is trash.
So what if it beat AMD. Thats like the worlds strongest man wrestling a garbage truck. of course the garbage truck will win. But the man is way more useful.