I see AMD Defense Force is on it.

As consumers, we should all be fans of sincere competition.  If you're AMD fanboy'ing, in this day and age, you are playing the role of corporatist monopoly fanboy.

Keep the playing field even.

This is wrong. You can expect similar performance at 30 watts for both, if both is used in a laptop environment, it would be capped around 30 watts for both, over 50 watts is diminishing returns.

If you compare both in 30 watts, the Radeon performs only slightly worse (~10%-5 FPS worse), very marginal

Your graphs have red and orange and it's quite difficult to tell what is what.  Have you considered different colors for each device?

Nice! I have an 11th gen Intel system, that was before they started putting them on a power diet so it's performance per watt is not great.  But I can say the Linux Intel GPU drivers are very good and I'd have no qualms gaming on one.

Quote from: cynan on March 13, 2025, 22:25:0212 full power cores on AMD vs 4 P and 4 E cores on Intel. Apples to oranges comparison. Why is this useful?

And who buys a thin and light efficient laptop to play games?

Lots of folks do!!

While a G14 is more powerful (along with weighing a bunch more) other lightweight power houses are on the market that are very popular.

Who wants to lug around the extra weight of a heavy laptop that is 'gaming enabled' when there are lighter ones on the market?

Quote from: cynan on March 13, 2025, 22:25:0212 full power cores on AMD vs 4 P and 4 E cores on Intel. Apples to oranges comparison. Why is this useful?

And who buys a thin and light efficient laptop to play games?

Incorrect, it's not 12 full-power cores for AMD, but instead "4x Zen 5 , 8x Zen 5c" so it's 4P+8E done AMD style.
There's nothing wrong with providing decent gaming performance in a (ultra-)thin laptop. Those chips can be used in handhelds (like Steam Deck) and hopefully they also scale up to offer even better performance at the higher, but "standard" gaming laptop power levels.

12 full power cores on AMD vs 4 P and 4 E cores on Intel. Apples to oranges comparison. Why is this useful?

And who buys a thin and light efficient laptop to play games?

Quote from: LifePo7 on March 13, 2025, 20:42:52notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-16-laptop-review-The-first-Copilot-laptop-with-AMD-Zen-5-inside-a-1-3-cm-thick-case.868219.0.html

Did you just choose a lousy Strix implementation to market Intel? Lol

890m in the ZenBook S16 doesn't stand a chance against 140V, even in this weak implementation (the X1 Carbon has one of the worst 140V performances of any laptop tested here).

In the S16, Ryzen is limited to 28-33W, and at this level it is well below Lunar Lake.

notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-16-laptop-review-The-first-Copilot-laptop-with-AMD-Zen-5-inside-a-1-3-cm-thick-case.868219.0.html

Did you just choose a lousy Strix implementation to market Intel? Lol

Surely GOOD NEWS for Team Blue wherein their platform might be a bit slower however the performance per watt is actually better.

A complete 180D turn of events as for Decades the AMD platforms were winning this race!

To OEMS: Yes we want 'thin and light weight' HOWEVER please don't skimp on the Wh of the installed battery!!!

IMHO: it is 'A-OK' to have some extra 'heft' if it is for run times. :)

While for some, having 'light office', 'web surfing' & 'streaming' run times of 20hrs or more seems rather silly, the larger battery that enables these use cases also enables greater than a few hours of game play. :)