Quote from: Liviu993 on May 11, 2022, 00:33:32
Just look at the new Razer Blade 15 with Intel 12800h and a 80Wh battery witch lasted only 4h:53min in websurfing test, while the new Razer Blade 14 with AMD 6900HX and 62Wh battery lasted 9h:31m in the same test (both on notebookcheck reviews)
...
You can't compare the intel old 10nm tehnology with 6nm in terms of efficiency.
It's true that Alder Lake seems to post rather bad endurance results. Who knows whether it's a hardware issue or it's BIOS/ firmware and therefore fixable. But look at the Alienware x14. It managed 9 hours. Granted, it has 80 Wh battery. But still, a lot better than others. Either Intel screwed up or the added complexity of a heterogenous architecture is causing issues that will need ironing out.
I recall years ago Dell XPS 13 managing 11 hours and XPS 15 more than 15 hours in the Wi-Fi tests. I think it was around 2017, Kaby and Coffee Lake. Those were impressive results. And coming from 14 nm processors. The key was avoiding higher resolution displays, those were battery killers. This test is quite sensitive to BIOS/ firmware/ drivers/ software. You're dealing with such tiny power budget that even small differences have significant impact. Let's say you've got 90 Wh battery. You've got only 6 W budget if you want to manage 15 hours. 6 W for the entire laptop, including screen and everything. Something happens that causes it to draw 6.5 W and you lose 70 minutes of runtime. 70 minutes for 500 mW. It can be a matter of luck - which screen, SSD, Wi-Fi module, etc. you get. Those can make a lot bigger difference than 500 mW.
As for your last sentence, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Or do you care to tell me to which feature those 6 nm of yours pertain to and what is the corresponding dimension on Intel's current process?