The only company for today that has made some progress in the described angle is Apple. It turned over the entire cellular market in 2007 with Jobs and again for notebooks.

The rest are sadly followed in it wake and copy Apple decisions, sometimes unsuccessfully try.

The fact is that the laptops over the past 14-16 years since the appearance of C2D have not become better in terms of noise, autonomy and consumption with the amendment for the past 14-16 years. Moreover, the consumption of "game" models has become many times more than in 2008. And this is abnormally, especially against the background of the struggle (it turns out to be false in practice) with a change in climate and an increase in hardware consumption.

Obviously, Intel woves in the tail of progress with its 10bn+++++++. What is the meaning of its "energy-efficient" cores, if the AMD of its solution have sharply lower consumption without these "energy-efficient" cores? But the AMD during the marketing transition from Zen3 to Zen3+ from "15W" on "25W" obviously lost in terms of energy efficiency for 1 watts. What is that incomprehensible? Real consumption also grows and grows wildly in all of hardware, which is clearly visible in heavy psu for 200-300W in laptops and kilowatt psi in desktop PC with top-level gaming cards. But what about ecology and restriction of consumption, like a mass doctrine? Why do government artificially turn a blind eye to this vile trend, from hardware manufacturers? Despite the fact that EC once banned the sale of plasma panels with a consumption of more than 500W, as far as I know.

Quote from: NikoB on August 03, 2022, 01:08:15If you believe this table, the sweet couple Intel+AMD completely disgraced, especially AMD! After all, looking at TDP, 66%(!) of AMD from 15W to 25W and as much as 86%(!) Intel from 15W to 28W (!), The real performance per 1W fell in both, AMD has catastrophically fell! The performance increase in AMD is only for 11-12% 5600U vs. 6600U, and Intel has 63-64% 1165G7 vs. 1260P (i.e., approximately 5.5-6 times more than the AMD)! Now we divide 11-12% for AMD by 66% of consumption growth and get approximately -32%(!!!) in performance per 1W for AMD in Zen3+, which has already been outdated, because its announcement has passed for almost a year, as in Intel with "paper" Alder Lake (for the first time in the history of Intel)! And the Intel have performance per 1W fell by -12%, that is, almost three times less than that of AMD.

But consumers are coming from new laptops
increased performance on watt and an increase in autonomy with increased performance...

And this is our future?! A drop in performance per 1W for both "leaders"? This is the way in nowhere, the path to bankruptcy...

This "math" is utter nonsense. You have to measure actual power to draw conclusions about power efficiency. Some "typical" TDP numbers don't tell you much. For instance, 5600U has a cTDP of 10-25W, 6600U has a cTDP of 15-28W.

And precisely because the laptops became "better", Intel has 38% falling sales of components in the second quarter 2022 for laptops according to yesterday's financial report (intc.com/filings-reports/all-sec-filings/content/0000050863-22-000030/intc-20220702.htm)? =)

just wanted to let you know that these class of U series offerings from AMD and Intel is rarely shipped with more than 100w power brick. Usually only 65 watts at most. Sure there are times when this class of cpu is shipped with 100+ power brick but that's only when the laptop is configured with discrete GPU. The one that ships with bigger power brick usually is the H class laptops, which draws more power (45-55w TDP).

And TDP is only more like a guidance. Manufacturers decides their own power limit target based on their goals and chassis limitation. Some U class laptop could perform better simply due to having a better thermal headroom, but also have bigger chassis as well.

While this generation isn't anything spectacular in performance jumps compared to the last one, but the gains is more pronounced when you look at just a few years back. just a few years ago there's no way you could have a 6 core laptop with only 28w TDP and around 1,5-2,5x the performance of typical 4 core 45w TDP laptops at the time. So that's quite a good feat indeed.

Isn't it wild when the laptop consumes 200-300W from the PSU? It seems that processors and video chips became faster, everything became faster. But why do laptops and their components of video cards (especially desktop versions) do not reduce consumption every year, while increasing performance, but increase? In fact, this is a regression in the industry.

It is ridiculous to read marketing bravura statements that they made new low-consumption laptop panels (and etc.) (and unsafe for eyes and nervous system, in fact), but SoC eats 10-40 times more than the panel (and everything should be exactly the opposite, with an increase in performance). Is this a normal trend?

Or take batteries - there is no reasonable progress (despite 100500 promises of any startups over the past 20 years about their radical improvement -
apparently manufacturers put all "improvements" under cloth to continue to regularly receive money from consumers)), again, regression. Since earlier, the same 14 years ago (take c2d age), the battery successfully power a laptop with 120W consumption, albeit not for long. Now the batteries cannot out the desired current and power (and the drops and shutdowns in the work have become almost the norm in the "game" series - even despite the intentional restriction of the performance of chips from batteries) due to the widespread decrease in the number of cells (earlier the norms were from 6 to 9 cells, now 3-4 and 6+ cells already is cool and top level battery!), And when switching to the battery, the performance of hardware always falls at times, which before was not at all in sight. Is this progress?

Quote from: RinzImpulse on August 03, 2022, 02:00:22Where are you counting that st*pid math from?

I laugh from the stupidity of some local illiterate commentators who are not able to understand simple arithmetic. No wonder in the USA, as "The Economist" writes, only 5% of schoolchildren study computer science. Apparently the case went much more serious and it is already about problems with the arithmetic of the first grades school. This is a complete degeneration. Apparently in Europe in this regard, everything is very bad...

Please note that I did not start insulting you - you(RinzImpulse) started. And then this is apparently renewed.
----
If you go to the topic, i.e. to progress in IT - it is clearly visible from my carefully verified and calculated comment, which, apparently, can only understand by truly educated people, that a clear regression was outlined in the production of processors (or marketing terms for this industry), and not progress in terms of the performance per 1 watt. And this generally reflects the dead end situation with silicon technologies and almost the achievement of the physical limits of reducing the size of semiconductors. Despite bravura marketing assurances that technologies are improving every year...

If they improved, the TDP of the new SOC was not "28W" compared to the old "15W" (to get a ridiculous supplement in speed), but 10-11W, or even less, _with a better performance per 1watt_, etc. But in reality, we (educated people) well see that the IT industry has long gone the wrong way, now it's clearly a dead end wave (at least a wave, to be an optimist) - videcarts already require kilowatte PSU, consumer's processors consume up to 250W for an insignificant additive. In the place of "green activists" I would have shouted in a voice for such terrible trends for a long time (well, you can still recall the meaningless waste of electricity on fraudulent pyramids of crypts). But the "greens" in this strange world is also not at all altruist-enthusiasts who dream to forward the world for the best ecological future, this is just another business...

Quote from: Russell on August 03, 2022, 06:07:09I have no idea what you are dissatisfied about unless you just emerged from a cave after years of isolated training.  :P

Probably true, he rants about everything. Soon he will post on e-bike articles about how we should have flying cars in 2022 :)

Quote from: RinzImpulse on August 03, 2022, 02:00:22

Quote from: NikoB on August 03, 2022, 01:08:15If you believe this table, the sweet couple Intel+AMD completely disgraced, especially AMD! After all, looking at TDP, 66%(!) of AMD from 15W to 25W and as much as 86%(!) Intel from 15W to 28W (!), The real performance per 1W fell in both, AMD has catastrophically fell! The performance increase in AMD is only for 11-12% 5600U vs. 6600U, and Intel has 63-64% 1165G7 vs. 1260P (i.e., approximately 5.5-6 times more than the AMD)! Now we divide 11-12% for AMD by 66% of consumption growth and get approximately -32%(!!!) in performance per 1W for AMD in Zen3+, which has already been outdated, because its announcement has passed for almost a year, as in Intel with "paper" Alder Lake (for the first time in the history of Intel)! And the Intel have performance per 1W fell by -12%, that is, almost three times less than that of AMD.

But consumers are coming from new laptops
increased performance on watt and an increase in autonomy with increased performance...

And this is our future?! A drop in performance per 1W for both "leaders"? This is the way in nowhere, the path to bankruptcy...

Found a fanboy here LMAO
Where are you counting that st*pid math from? Of course Intel will win because of increased cores and Intel finally catch up to AMD because AMD already win since Zen 2 Renoir by more than 100% (Even Intel still lose with TGL). Also, upgrade from Zen 3 to Zen 3+ is only on efficiency + RDNA 2 which gives much higher boost on gaming than per core performance, I mean, Intel can't even play AAA at 1080p low, while AMD can do 1080p low to medium without dGPU which is huge. Also, Intel is still marginally worst than AMD on battery life and power usage

6000 series' highlight isn't the CPU performance increase.
It's the gpu.
And intel has also started improving, which is a good thing.
M2 seems less power effect than M1, but we're probably gonna see better performance and efficiency from the pro and max versions.
Overall we're seeing good competition and technological advancement compared to the eternal quad-core i7 and dual core i7u era that was caused by absence of competition and intel's laziness.

I have no idea what you are dissatisfied about unless you just emerged from a cave after years of isolated training.  :P

Quote from: NikoB on August 03, 2022, 01:08:15If you believe this table, the sweet couple Intel+AMD completely disgraced, especially AMD! After all, looking at TDP, 66%(!) of AMD from 15W to 25W and as much as 86%(!) Intel from 15W to 28W (!), The real performance per 1W fell in both, AMD has catastrophically fell! The performance increase in AMD is only for 11-12% 5600U vs. 6600U, and Intel has 63-64% 1165G7 vs. 1260P (i.e., approximately 5.5-6 times more than the AMD)! Now we divide 11-12% for AMD by 66% of consumption growth and get approximately -32%(!!!) in performance per 1W for AMD in Zen3+, which has already been outdated, because its announcement has passed for almost a year, as in Intel with "paper" Alder Lake (for the first time in the history of Intel)! And the Intel have performance per 1W fell by -12%, that is, almost three times less than that of AMD.

But consumers are coming from new laptops
increased performance on watt and an increase in autonomy with increased performance...

And this is our future?! A drop in performance per 1W for both "leaders"? This is the way in nowhere, the path to bankruptcy...

Found a fanboy here LMAO
Where are you counting that st*pid math from? Of course Intel will win because of increased cores and Intel finally catch up to AMD because AMD already win since Zen 2 Renoir by more than 100% (Even Intel still lose with TGL). Also, upgrade from Zen 3 to Zen 3+ is only on efficiency + RDNA 2 which gives much higher boost on gaming than per core performance, I mean, Intel can't even play AAA at 1080p low, while AMD can do 1080p low to medium without dGPU which is huge. Also, Intel is still marginally worst than AMD on battery life and power usage

If you believe this table, the sweet couple Intel+AMD completely disgraced, especially AMD! After all, looking at TDP, 66%(!) of AMD from 15W to 25W and as much as 86%(!) Intel from 15W to 28W (!), The real performance per 1W fell in both, AMD has catastrophically fell! The performance increase in AMD is only for 11-12% 5600U vs. 6600U, and Intel has 63-64% 1165G7 vs. 1260P (i.e., approximately 5.5-6 times more than the AMD)! Now we divide 11-12% for AMD by 66% of consumption growth and get approximately -32%(!!!) in performance per 1W for AMD in Zen3+, which has already been outdated, because its announcement has passed for almost a year, as in Intel with "paper" Alder Lake (for the first time in the history of Intel)! And the Intel have performance per 1W fell by -12%, that is, almost three times less than that of AMD.

But consumers are coming from new laptops
increased performance on watt and an increase in autonomy with increased performance...

And this is our future?! A drop in performance per 1W for both "leaders"? This is the way in nowhere, the path to bankruptcy...