Intel and AMD roadmap for 2021 and 2022 reveal interesting developments: Zen 4 Raphael to change status quo by featuring an RDNA2 iGPU

[Vyor]

While GPU encoding is indeed much faster, it's nowhere near as good, and it results in worse quality and larger file sizes. I know that's changed a lot with the RTX NVENC, but even though it's a lot better, I still wonder if it can compete with software encoding on pure quality, i.e. it might be comparable at similar speeds, but I suspect software encoding, when slowed down, would still be superior. So if you want to encode videos, software encoding is still probably the best option in order to maximize quality and file size, whereas if you're talking about Twitch streaming, yeah, NVENC is probably better, or at least as good.

It can compete on pure quality according to this comparison: REDACTED LINK It beats x264 on Slow as well. Every encoding task has to be evaluated in terms of time spent too. And Turing NVENC sort of marked a transition where the quality being so good and the speed insanely fast, the only reason left now to use software encoding is if you want to use low bitrates (2000 kbits/s or lower). Everyone's connections too are fast enough to stream high bitrate video.

Twitch does not accept HEVC or h.265. Medium x.264 beats everything else.

For recording, x.265 medium beats all else bar AV1, which is way too heavy on things to use.

[Ben3000]

@_MT_
(sorry for links, I cant post with those im comment :< )

If you need to run at 4.5 GHz to match the performance, I can't see you matching efficiency (under high load) on the same manufacturing node.

Even if M1 high performance cores are probably a lot larger? As I said earlier my Ryzen 4900HS clearly beats M1 if I underclock(underTDP? dunno how to describe it) it to 20W, so in theory it should be under load as efficient as M1 sucking 14W. Anandtech reviewed m1 mac and discorevered that under one core load mini is draining 10.5W while on idle its only 4.2W.
images.anandtech. com /graphs/graph16252/119344.png

Let me quickly dispel something. Underclocking is the same as overclocking. You are trying to get as close as possible to the edge of the capacity of the silica.

There is a reason why your 4900HS uses a specific amount of power, in a specific range. Namely, to enable as much as possible CPU's to be sold, within a specific range. So your comparison is the same as overlocking a CPU and stating its faster then the competition, while maybe 90% of the other owners of that same CPU, can not get that gain.

Next error:

You are looking at 10.5W WALL drawing power for the single core performance of the mac Mini. That means:

* Power conversion loss
* Memory power consumption
* GPU
* Controller
* Fan
* ... and every other component

Where as the numbers you are trying to use for your 4900HS, are totally different measurements.

youtu+++be/y_jw38QD5qY?t=684

Replace the +++ with a dot.

Notice how in real world, the package power reported by the 4900HS is 54W, then drops to 35W for 20% faster performance. While the M1 stays at 13W, for 20% less performance then the 4900HS, with 2.4 to 4.8 times less power used.

A theoretical 8+4 Core M1X can produce 30% faster results then a 5900HS at twice the power efficiency given the benchmark leaks. So no, AMD can not magically make power / efficiency appear out of thin air.

AMD and Intel produce desktop CPUs, where power consumption is secondary to performance. And then downscale those to Laptops.

Apple used Phone parts, where power efficiency is primary and then upscaled them to their laptop parts. And this approach is paying off much better in efficiency.

And while one can complain about Apple 5nm. Apple did the investment to buy 5nm space ( and 80% 5nm in 2021 ). AMD did not. AMD people did not complain when AMD got 7nm and Intel was still stuck on 14nm.

So the whole "things will be different when AMD is at 5nm". By that time Apple we are looking past 2022 ( AMD is going 6nm in 2022 based upon the leaks ). That means Apple is already looking at the M3/M3X + 3nm.

People underestimate how much of a leap Apple has on the competition in this regard. Anyway, enjoy the fun competition times. One thing i see is that for Apple, it was a good move to do away with Intel, as a lot more people are interested in their products as a result.

[Vyor]

@_MT_
(sorry for links, I cant post with those im comment :< )

If you need to run at 4.5 GHz to match the performance, I can't see you matching efficiency (under high load) on the same manufacturing node.

Even if M1 high performance cores are probably a lot larger? As I said earlier my Ryzen 4900HS clearly beats M1 if I underclock(underTDP? dunno how to describe it) it to 20W, so in theory it should be under load as efficient as M1 sucking 14W. Anandtech reviewed m1 mac and discorevered that under one core load mini is draining 10.5W while on idle its only 4.2W.
images.anandtech. com /graphs/graph16252/119344.png

Let me quickly dispel something. Underclocking is the same as overclocking. You are trying to get as close as possible to the edge of the capacity of the silica.

There is a reason why your 4900HS uses a specific amount of power, in a specific range. Namely, to enable as much as possible CPU's to be sold, within a specific range. So your comparison is the same as overlocking a CPU and stating its faster then the competition, while maybe 90% of the other owners of that same CPU, can not get that gain.

Next error:

You are looking at 10.5W WALL drawing power for the single core performance of the mac Mini. That means:

* Power conversion loss
* Memory power consumption
* GPU
* Controller
* Fan
* ... and every other component

Where as the numbers you are trying to use for your 4900HS, are totally different measurements.

youtu+++be/y_jw38QD5qY?t=684

Replace the +++ with a dot.

Notice how in real world, the package power reported by the 4900HS is 54W, then drops to 35W for 20% faster performance. While the M1 stays at 13W, for 20% less performance then the 4900HS, with 2.4 to 4.8 times less power used.

A theoretical 8+4 Core M1X can produce 30% faster results then a 5900HS at twice the power efficiency given the benchmark leaks. So no, AMD can not magically make power / efficiency appear out of thin air.

AMD and Intel produce desktop CPUs, where power consumption is secondary to performance. And then downscale those to Laptops.

Apple used Phone parts, where power efficiency is primary and then upscaled them to their laptop parts. And this approach is paying off much better in efficiency.

And while one can complain about Apple 5nm. Apple did the investment to buy 5nm space ( and 80% 5nm in 2021 ). AMD did not. AMD people did not complain when AMD got 7nm and Intel was still stuck on 14nm.

So the whole "things will be different when AMD is at 5nm". By that time Apple we are looking past 2022 ( AMD is going 6nm in 2022 based upon the leaks ). That means Apple is already looking at the M3/M3X + 3nm.

People underestimate how much of a leap Apple has on the competition in this regard. Anyway, enjoy the fun competition times. One thing i see is that for Apple, it was a good move to do away with Intel, as a lot more people are interested in their products as a result.

It wasn't wall power, it was from Apple's internal metrics.

Go away ARM fanboy

[Obero]

So AMD is going to give tough time to intel