I have this laptop with the 258V CPU - I'm not sure if you have direct contact with Asus but the USB C - Thunderbolt ports on many Asus laptops, including this one does NOT work with an external monitor. Also, when on battery power, the powersavings of the Realtek driver gives the audio random pop and scratch noises. (Both issues have been mentioned by many people if you google it)
Also, the keyboard is horrible in terms of visibility. You can't see the keys if the backlight is on and bright in the room.
Ok, battery life is good but CPU and Performace is low than AMD, still AMD is best in battery life.
I dont understand something:
you achieve 20 hours in watching movies, great. correct?
the battery is 75Wh.
It means on average 3.75W / hour.
Wifi testing is not that far.
On the other hand, "idle average" shows an extremely high 8W/hour!
It should be lower than movie watching, not higher!
Can you explain the apparent contradictory numbers?
idle 8W => 6.7W, sorry for the mistake.
But it does not change much the datapoint. It is still twice as much as bigbunny watching, and much more than wifi browing also.
Quote from: BGX on January 04, 2025, 02:21:52idle 8W => 6.7W, sorry for the mistake.
But it does not change much the datapoint. It is still twice as much as bigbunny watching, and much more than wifi browing also.
I agree. Also, the idle power consumption measurements with internal screen and external screen are not consistent. Using the internal screen increases the consumption of the AMD model much more than that of the Intel model. It might be due to the image shown on screen, as OLED screens draw more power to display brighter images. Fixing the brightness to 150 cd/m2 doesn't mean anything for OLEDs - their consumption depends on the RGB value of every pixel.
Overall, choosing this Intel model over the AMD does not make sense unless it's much cheaper and you want to save some money. The multicore performance is less than half of AMD's, gaming performance is worse as well, and the battery life is only slightly better. The Intel model has less fan noise and heat, but you can configure the AMD model to consume exactly the same max power to get similar noise and heat, and still get significantly higher performance, as mentioned in the review. I would expect some benchmark results for the same power levels in the review.
Okay, Lunar lake has half the performance of the AMD HX 370, and it runs cooler. Why this makes Lnar lake better??
You can reduce the power profile of the AMD HX 370 to the similar levels as Lunar lake and I am sure it will be much cooler!
The problem for Lunar lake is that you can't do the reverse... to increase the performance of Lunar Lake to AMD HX 370 levels!!
Okay, so you advice people to buy half the performance for the same money (almost). Good conclusion!
Dude, thanks for the review, but you should reconsider your conclusions...
the MAIN reason why the intel variant is cooler and quieter is because it's power profile is tuned differently, aka, the AMD model is tuned in standard to give you a lot more performance, aka 2x.
how tf is that insignificant?
turn it to whisper mode and the AMD will be 1.5x of the intel and the same temps and noise and power...
i have the vivobook s16 with hx 370 and tuned it to whisper it's damn silent, fans rarely turns on so i know exactly what i am saying.
intel has been a bit too drastic with their core cutting (probably because of tsmc prices) and now they have a big deficit in performance that cannot be understated. sure, ST performance is good, but most of the software nowadays is MT.
so that 2x perf of AMD is a BIG factor so I don't see why I would choose the intel variant when i can just set the amd to whisper mode and get 1.5x performance at the same price, at the same noise levels, heat and battery?
Quote from: Aras on January 04, 2025, 17:09:30Quote from: BGX on January 04, 2025, 02:21:52idle 8W => 6.7W, sorry for the mistake.
But it does not change much the datapoint. It is still twice as much as bigbunny watching, and much more than wifi browing also.
I agree. Also, the idle power consumption measurements with internal screen and external screen are not consistent. Using the internal screen increases the consumption of the AMD model much more than that of the Intel model. It might be due to the image shown on screen, as OLED screens draw more power to display brighter images. Fixing the brightness to 150 cd/m2 doesn't mean anything for OLEDs - their consumption depends on the RGB value of every pixel.
Overall, choosing this Intel model over the AMD does not make sense unless it's much cheaper and you want to save some money. The multicore performance is less than half of AMD's, gaming performance is worse as well, and the battery life is only slightly better. The Intel model has less fan noise and heat, but you can configure the AMD model to consume exactly the same max power to get similar noise and heat, and still get significantly higher performance, as mentioned in the review. I would expect some benchmark results for the same power levels in the review.
I think you got it wrong.
Enabling external monitor has an enrgy cost , and the difference is what you witness here.
Yes, OLED image is important, but it s hightly likely the same on all the machines (they use some script), so it would not explain the difference.
What I believe is that their script, may be monitoring, makes the machines far from idle. Hence the idle numbers are not at all what you would witness with true idle. It is ture on this machine, but on pretty much all the notebook test. The protocol should be changed.
Also, sometjhng else which is weird:
average load is less than 1/2 on the lunar lake than on the AI HX370.
But the "load" runtime on battery is very comparable. Does not make sense. Same everything else, including battery.
Quote from: Konstantinos on January 04, 2025, 19:10:29Okay, Lunar lake has half the performance of the AMD HX 370, and it runs cooler. Why this makes Lnar lake better??
You can reduce the power profile of the AMD HX 370 to the similar levels as Lunar lake and I am sure it will be much cooler!
The problem for Lunar lake is that you can't do the reverse... to increase the performance of Lunar Lake to AMD HX 370 levels!!
Okay, so you advice people to buy half the performance for the same money (almost). Good conclusion!
well, check cyberpunk 2077.
25.1FPS vs 24.9fps. Virtually similar.
lunar lake runs at 40W (~2 hours battery life) vs 60W for the AI HX 370 (1.15hours of battery life)
Also, average load for lunar lake is 34W vs 76W for the Rizen. That's a huge difference.
It is just not the same machine at all, for different use.
If you want a workstation to run scientific mutliCPU code, I agree that Lunar Lake is not at all for you.
For the rest - i.e. what you would do with a subnotebook: office job, some games sometimes, you want the best real life battery life - Lunar Lake makes perfect sense, and more than the Rizen.
It all depends what you do with your machine.
Quote from: bgx on January 05, 2025, 04:03:14For the rest - i.e. what you would do with a subnotebook: office job, some games sometimes, you want the best real life battery life - Lunar Lake makes perfect sense, and more than the Rizen.
Okay, I understand your point but the battery life difference is about 0.5 hours only (16.5 vs 17) and as I said you can reduce the power profile to make the Ryzen cooler/quieter for the usual tasks. So why should you sacrifice the multicore performance for almost no advantage in the rest??
"why should you sacrifice the multicore performance"
that is all the question: if it is a sacrifice, then dont take the lunar lake.
In 20 years with a subnotebook as my daily driver (and a desktop for heavier stuff, e.g. gaming), I NEVER wished to have more mutlicore performance. I wished to have more battery life at some point. I also wish to have better gaming experience at other, but I knew the tradeoff.
If you need even 5% of the time strong multicore performance, do not take lunar lake.
Otherwise, THIS IS NOT A SACRIFICE, because you dont care. You live very well even if your subnotebook does have a big score at your favotite benchmark.
> the battery life difference is about 0.5 hours only (16.5 vs 17)
As shown in notebookcheck
"Intel Lunar Lake CPU analysis - The Core Ultra 7 258V's multi-core performance is disappointing, but its everyday efficiency is good" (sorry i cant use URLs).
Power consumption during everyday use:
So far, we have only compared the performance/efficiency under full load, which of course isn't representative of the everyday requirements of the majority of users. However, this is also different for every user, which is why we decided to compare the power consumption during a PCMark 10 test (duration ~22 minutes). We compared the CPU package power of the Core Ultra 258V with the Core Ultra 7 155H and the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, each with the standard power limits. Although the Core Ultra 7 258V was at a slight disadvantage here due to its RAM, its average power consumption remained significantly lower than that of the other two competitors. For the Lunar Lake chip, we noted just under 9 watts, for the AMD Zen 5 processor it was just over 14 watts and the Meteor Lake processor required almost 16 watts.
you see 50% power difference between lunar lake and rizen AI 370.
again, that's not negligible, very far from the 5% displayed in the test.
During wifi browsing, yes, all the processors are close to idle, so difference in battery life is minimal (screen and wifi makes more difference there).
=> I d advocate notebookcheck to include battery live during PCMARK test.
Also, it is important to display battery life / power consumption / benchamrk AT THE SAME TIME.
If you show best possible performance and best possible battery life but they use different settings, then you are missing an important part of the equation.
E.G.
25 fps / 60W / 1hour battery life
15 fps / 25W / 3 hour battery life.
this is more meaninfgul that saying:
-25fps. (forgetting it needs a lot of power)
3 hours battery life. (forgetting that the fps is lower for such a battery life).
as is reported in the review.
People defending the intel variant still don't understand the full picture...
First of all, you cannot say that after 10-15 years of multicore software development, you DON'T feel the need for more multicore performance. That's just...hilarious to say and shows that you don't really know how things work. ST wise, Zen 5 and 258v are very similar in performance and I can bet you there are multiple apps and scenarios, even browser usage like chrome with multiple tabs (i have 30-50) will show a difference in speed between HX370 and 258V, just because HX 370 has more MT performance.
as for the efficiency, yes, 258v is bound to be a more efficient chip.
heck, it's a memory on package solution. it uses PMIC. those are HUGE advantages in terms of power and you can see them in the idle power which is better than the HX 370.
Then again, the difference ain't that pronounced.
As for general usage, HX 370 is tuned more for bursts of performance, for giving you max performance and having 12 cores, of course it will go higher in power for ... 2x performance. so that ain't for nothing. but the amd chip can be configured to run exactly as the intel chip at 25w, 30w and even run to a certain temp and I can bet it will give more performance at the same wattage.
Gaming wise, yeah, the intel chip has a slight advantage, again, because of integrated memory and higher speeds. it can be clearly seen that even though hx 370 has 16 CUs, it doesn't bring that much extra perf over the hx 365 with 12 CUs, because it's memory starved.
So all in all, i think the amd chip gives you flexibility and that's what you want. you can have top notch performance with good battery life or great battery life with better performance still than the 258v.
> People defending the intel variant still don't understand the full picture...
I have a PhD, habilitat. in computer science.
I run an mulinational lab on AI. I am also responsible for the hardware there.
Please explain to me the full picture!
>First of all, you cannot say that after 10-15 years of multicore software development, you DON'T feel the need for more multicore performance.
you forgot the most important part: "with a subnotebook".
Mind you, i am not a kid with a unique computer to do it all (bad).
I also have a powerful desktop at home.
I also have a couple of threadrippers workstations at the lab
We have also access to several national supercomputers.
So, yes, with my subnotebook, I am confident i care more about the ST of LL than the MT of Rizen.
And I fully understand others in other situation may be much more happy with the Rizen than the Lunar Lake.
It is certainly a very strong CPU offering catering for the needs of a lot of people.
It all depend on your use case, which is what i tried to explain.
But people have problem understanding not everyone as the same use case as themselves.
>That's just...hilarious.
bless you.
Quote from: BGX on January 06, 2025, 14:36:59> People defending the intel variant still don't understand the full picture...
I have a PhD, habilitat. in computer science.
I run an mulinational lab on AI. I am also responsible for the hardware there.
Please explain to me the full picture!
>First of all, you cannot say that after 10-15 years of multicore software development, you DON'T feel the need for more multicore performance.
you forgot the most important part: "with a subnotebook".
Mind you, i am not a kid with a unique computer to do it all (bad).
I also have a powerful desktop at home.
I also have a couple of threadrippers workstations at the lab
We have also access to several national supercomputers.
So, yes, with my subnotebook, I am confident i care more about the ST of LL than the MT of Rizen.
And I fully understand others in other situation may be much more happy with the Rizen than the Lunar Lake.
It is certainly a very strong CPU offering catering for the needs of a lot of people.
It all depend on your use case, which is what i tried to explain.
But people have problem understanding not everyone as the same use case as themselves.
>That's just...hilarious.
bless you.
What I don't understand is why would anyone want to sacrifice the multicore performance so much to gain only a little battery life and get a lower idle power consumption? You would benefit from a higher multicore performance even in daily usage when multitasking, yet many apps use multiple processes/threads alone. Even if you don't notice the difference in the performance now, you might start noticing it in a few years (because of apps and websites getting more and more demanding), hence, higher performance makes the device more future-proof.
Both battery life and multicore performance are important. The thing is tho, on x86 side the battery life improvements are so incremental relative to gen-on-gen price increases that it makes it almost not worth it anymore. On the other side, zen 5 had severe latency issues. I know these were fixed on desktop but have they been for mobile strix too? Even if they are now, still doesn't change the fact that there's terrible pricing for them and availability is not great either.
Don't know why people are getting so defensive on the side the choose to die on a hill for. Everything sucks anyway. I would say, go Apple instead but even with them only light to medium load battery life is solid. As soon as you look at heavy load, it's 1-2 hours runtime at most.
Looking forward to Oryon v2 and nvidias AI PC's. Hopefully, they can make some significant improvements in these areas. We will see.
What browser/version are you using to test WebXPRT/Kraken? I get much higher results(304) from a Intel 155H from 2023 using Firefox 134.
I should be getting lower than your test results.
I have this laptop and I connect my HDMI cable to my 24" 1080p LG monitor, but I don't receive any signal. I've tried testing the cable and the monitor with other laptops and they work; it's only with this laptop that it doesn't work. I've already updated the BIOS and the graphics drivers, and I've used the Windows+P options, but I still haven't found a solution. Has anyone had this problem or found a solution?
What exactly is the difference between Asus models S5406SA and Q423SA? The specs in this article make them seem identical.
Are the vivobooks with 8845hs still in production ? Or are already replaced ? I would like to buy 8845hs in vivobook but it is sold out everywhere. would it be available again ?
Most in this discussion fail to understand MT performance difference. Yes AMD version is twice the performance in MT. BUT what application do people know that uses 24 threads? ALMOST NONE. so when most applications are using 4-8 threads both these AMD and Intel will perform identically (and in efficiency too). The only scenario where AMDs 24 threads becomes usefully is in specialized scenarios, like massive project compilation like Linux or running two CPU bound applications at 100%. But here's the question how many here know or have every been in that scenario? And the issue is not as simple as that either because ram/memory per thread also matter to see if all those threads can actually be used to boost performance
Let me give another example I run massive data backtest, here keeping data in ram for each thread is twice as fast as loading from the fastest SSD. So a 8 thread run in memory can perform the same as 16 thread having to load from SSD in batched processing. So the wisdom is to really use high core count you need the ram to match it. these systems with only 32GB ram 24 thread CPU is wasted on these.
But on the flip side additional core draw idle power, this lunar lake I have 258v, draws as little as 1.6 watts because of the display self refresh. That is over 40hrs on idle reading mode.
So the CPU core count argument is really a trade off question. Intels approach to limited ram is simple better. At least for me who actually is the heaviest user, because for one 8 threads does not need additional coding to limit threads because I will need to balance the ram being used. everything is at its ideal numbers.
And finally most heavy duty tasks like video encoding, graphics work, audio, gaming are all done by the GPU not the CPU anymore. and here Intel is simply better than AMD. which is why the core count argument seems even weaker for AMD.
Not to mention the software support for intel is always going to be better. if you working on ML like pytorch or tensorflow AI applications. Intel has all the software sorted out to run it on any platform windows/linux/WSL. While AMD is always going to be a pain where you won't find support in windows or wsl.
I donot want to keep dual boot just to run what I want to run. Intel simply works.
These advantages are far too big for the core count difference on the CPU to matter.
On my desktop with dGPU and 8C/16T AMD CPU, running AI inferencing always uses all threads typically at 17% but infrequently at 100%. The AI would profit from the following in order:
1. faster / more dGPU(s) (if the CPU does not create a bottleneck)
2. higher single thread CPU speed
3. more CPU threads (of ordinary cores, do not know about the slowdown if some are E cores)
There is no limit to more / faster hardware being more useful because the neural net scales. Notebooks work like downsized desktops.
Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 11, 2025, 18:02:27On my desktop with dGPU and 8C/16T AMD CPU, running AI...
Serious question Robert - do you ever do anything else except "running AI"? Because that's pretty much all you ever say in any of your comments around here. No hard feelings, just asking.
99% of AI computing is in the cloud, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Adding it to any consumer device is marketing gimmick. If you need it locally you are probably running local models and getting a notebook with it would be silly. Cache (CPU) and memory limitations of most notebooks would prevent any serious work on a notebook versus dedicated workstation.
I'd like to see a local AI model make Veo 2 level 8-second videos available in less than 2 minutes on a notebook. I'll be *very* impressed!
Quote from: sharath on May 11, 2025, 13:23:08gaming are all done by the GPU not the CPU anymore.
For the longest time this was the case. Unfortunately, current state of gaming trends are forcing people to resort to retro emulation as a response. The changing market dynamics are going towards a negative trajectory which is unsustainable.
iirc, rpcs3 can use many as many threads as you throw at it despite the PS3 only using 6-7, I've seen people saturate 24 threads on some of the heavier games when using high resolution and unlocked FPS settings. It's almost like video encoding / running blender or something. And this is an older emu now, not even looking at the future requirements more modern emulators will no doubt bring with them.
Quote from: Toortle on May 11, 2025, 18:39:20do you ever do anything else except "running AI"? Because that's pretty much all you ever say
I think it's closely related to his line of work so he kind of has to?
Quote from: indy on May 11, 2025, 18:53:14Adding it to any consumer device is marketing gimmick. If you need it locally you are probably running local models and getting a notebook with it would be silly.
I do think eventually there will be something useful with AI but it's been largely way overhyped. Probably 2 decades from now people will look at this era like we look at those 90s Terminator 2 movies thinking the second coming of skynet is near due to internet and pentium revolution.
Also, every time AI actually does something somewhat novel, it usually takes like 200,000 GPUs to do it. One has to ask, spending billions of dollars and wasting all that energy, wouldn't it have just been better hiring an actual real person instead? It would support local communities and give people jobs in an already struggling world economy.
Whenever I see people saying AI is the solution to everything, it almost reminds me of those people trying to send themselves to mars and the colonize it. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to fix this planet instead you've that kind of money?
@Toortle, everything else except running AI and tablet usage I can do on my simple office mini PC with 7100U as well as on my AI desktop: book writing, PDF writing, Go diagram editing, Go playing against humans, Go teaching, text reading, media editing (simplest video cutting or basic image effects), media viewing, file management, browsing etc. Only for AI I need a dGPU in the fast PC.
@N1x, different AI applications require different speeds from NPU via 1 GPU to many GPUs, different amounts of RAM from very little to very much, VRAM as before. Many applications are still a dream, such as automatic Go book writing or mathematical Go theory creation (which I do myself) but some are already useful, such as Go next move suggestion stronger than all human players and therefore accelerating decision-making when better knowledge is not available yet.
Some consider AI text or image creation already useful. I am still sceptical. A million GPUs used for creating LLMs are interesting to watch but not everybody already finds LLMs useful.
We live in a transition phase. AI will become more and more useful. Not to replace doctors but to enhance their tools. We hope. Not a solution to everything - no ethics!
Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 11, 2025, 18:02:27On my desktop with dGPU and 8C/16T AMD CPU, running AI inferencing always uses all threads typically at 17% but infrequently at 100%. The AI would profit from the following in order:
1. faster / more dGPU(s) (if the CPU does not create a bottleneck)
2. higher single thread CPU speed
3. more CPU threads (of ordinary cores, do not know about the slowdown if some are E cores)
There is no limit to more / faster hardware being more useful because the neural net scales. Notebooks work like downsized desktops.
Actually you got this all wrong. These igpus does not need to transfer data over pcie to the gpu like dgpu need to. The only reason you see high cpu usage is because of its need to move data.
This lunar lake igpu cpu is almost idle when running dl or ai work.and it's ml performance is around 30% of nvidia l4 gpu you can rent on collab. And this can do all the half precision too to boost the performance 3x. Not to mention it all works on windows linux or wsl.
So are these slower than dgpu for ai. Yes. But you will be surprised that it is not by the margin you are thinking.
My ai work load on fp32 precision takes 24 seconds on collab nvidia t4 gpu while on this it takes 44 secs. But turn on half precision this does it on 15secs.
Sharath,
1) when running AI, I do not use the iGPU at all. I might also use it for a small increase in speed but prefer to keep the CPU fans rather quiet.
2) You make the false assumption that every AI would have similar load or bandwidth behaviours.
3) For the AI I use, bandwidths and VRAM size are almost immaterial because each object is small.
4) My previous statements about the order of priority (faster dGPU(s), then single thread speed, then more threads) is based on my monitoring during the previous two years when running my AI. Most of the time, single thread speed and more threads are also unimportant; these two aspects only become important when the AI hits exception handling for object repetitions reached by different data paths. Usually, such repetitions do not occur and mostly the dGPU speed matters; this has also been confirmed by many other users of Go AI.
5) Floating point is not a bottleneck for Go AI because objects comprise integers and probabilities can be represented by a few decimal points so like integers, too. The complexity of Go does not lie in the objects themselves but is in the decision-making among them.