Asus ProArt P16 laptop review - AMD Zen 5 meets RTX 4070 laptop and 4K OLED

[ArsLoginName]

Ok this is just bullshit at this point. Feel free to stay ignorant.

Bye. You are hopeless.

Ignorant? LOL. You can't understand math apparently. Typical Mac fanatic saying longest battery life, etc but when shown the math, can't understand basic math and English. LOL. Then resort to name-calling and do nothing to present anything to the contrary but resort to moving the goalposts and bring up the most waste of a benchmark there is, Geekbench. Like another post brought up over their very low power device with their GB score, one can only compare items in similar power envelopes else we should all be using our phones for all computations based upon their GB6 scores of 6700-7200 for SD8G3 and A17 Pro at 10-ish W. M3 Pro is only 15k at 27 W. Are you saying a 6 big 6 little core M3 Pro MacBook is only 2x as good as a 2 big core 4 efficiency core iPhone while consuming almost 3x the power? Quick. You better tell Apple you know more than they do and they don't need the big, expensive M3 Pro.

Being informed is looking at all data and analyzing. You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency (minutes of use per Whr of battery) of Mac Books and this Zen 5 (370HX at 33 W/28 W Zenbook S16) compared to several Zen 4 (7840U 30 W/25 W) of a similar power envelope.

As for ignorant (i.e., lacking knowledge or awareness in general), you have to be closer to the definition of it to not even know about tthe information presented here. If you were aware, you'd have realized MacBooks only get the wi-fi and video playback times they do because of their very large battery capacities and always on leading edge node. But they get similar minutes/Whr of battery as several x86 platforms when put under the same testing conditions.

[Goberman]

finding 100+ benchmarks or reviews and averaging them would be a hassle

You are on a specific site discussing specific review, yet you fail somehow.

I also didn't use 1T (Single Thread) benchmarks as that doesn't fully saturate/load the CPU

Single core load is 90% of the load your CPU will ever experience in productivity use. Don't even try downplaying single core performance just because AMD never could.

M3 Max

M3 Pro

whopping 5% faster than the AI 9 370HX according to a large pool of Geekbench 6 tests on those respective chips (3141 vs 2983).

You really tried to cherry pick the highest number for AMD chip, according to this review it's 2877. And yes 5% is 1/3rd of what AMD could do generationally, so it's a lot.

If you're not sure about the performance cut on battery, it's the difference of 10W to the CPU (so from 80W PL1 to 70W PL1) which is a 7% reduction in performance according to the NotebookCheck review.

Oh really? Let's do math? 90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W. This was the power consumption (with the screen at full brightness) for Asus Load test, unless you think there was some "asus magic" involved. So what were you saying, 70W? very funny. Laptop was running at half its power roughly. performance losses are unknown.

Apple win's the reward hitting 0% quicker under full load cause Apple doesn't cut power to the CPU and ASUS cut's 10W and lasts considerably longer under full CPU load

You've ignored "Load" is full brightness and screens are different.

It's not a question about efficiency

Finally you've admitted you are wrong.

it's a question of power draw vs battery capacity

1) Macbook Pro M3Pro is indeed about the same performance as this AMD laptop.
2) Macbook Pro has a brighter display
3) Macbook sustains 1482 minutes idle on 99.6Wh, Asus 1260 minutes on 90Wh - Macbook wins
4) Macbook sustains 1204 minutes wifi on 99.6Wh, Asus 499 minutes on 90Wh - Macbook wins by a lot
5) Macbook in high power mode with 600 nits screen sustains 83 minutes Load on 99.6Wh, Asus in low power mode with 300 nits screen 116 minutes on 90Wh - unclear, because you can enable low power mode on macbook too and it will double the runtime. Also we kind of calculated that Asus was running at PL1 about 40W with unknown performance losses.

So macbook beats this AMD in both categories. I hope this helped.

[Goberman]

Typical Mac fanatic

I'm truth fanatic. If Intel was more efficient I'd defend Intel. I have different machines from all three big manufacturers. Including 7840U and M3Max and 155H lol.

Ignorant? LOL. You can't understand math apparently.

You done? Looks like at least you've finally understood you can't compare efficiency of 7840U and M3 Max.

You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency (minutes of use per Whr of battery)

I don't have to disprove your conspiracy theory based on incorrect interpretation of data.
Stay ignorant, it's your right.

But they get similar minutes/Whr of battery as several x86 platforms when put under the same testing conditions.

And it's a lie based on incorrect interpretation of data.

[Goberman]

You've said and shown nothing to disprove any of the information regarding wi-fi efficiency

If you really want me to destroy your conspiracy theories, I can do it with one sentence.
90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W. This was the power consumption (with the screen at full brightness) for Asus Load test. While macbook was fairly working it's a** of at 70W, same as on AC power. So all your theories are based on a fact you didn't know Asus laptop cuts power consumption on a battery considerably. And you didn't know Load test is done with display at full brightness, so you can't directly compare different laptops.
You didn't know all this because you are ignorant and by the looks of will stay this way. Or you are a paid AMD marketer (I really hope). Have fun.

[ArsLoginName]

Typical Mac fanatic

I'm truth fanatic. If Intel was more efficient I'd defend Intel. I have different machines from all....

I don't have to disprove your conspiracy theory based on incorrect interpretation of data.
Stay ignorant, it's your right.

And it's a lie based on incorrect interpretation of data.

1- As for products from all manufacturers, so do I. This doesn't prove anything.

2 - You not being able to do simple division is definitely ignorant. Not only are you smarter than Apple, QC, AMD, and Intel engineers, you are also telling Notebookcheck their testing is flawed and all their data points and tests are lies! Especially wi-fi run times and battery capacity! Only you can interpret their data. LOL.

3 - Again.... No data simple math to show otherwise....especially now that GB was shown to be worthless. Again... minutes of wi-fi time at 150 screen brightness divided by battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency. Kind of like miles per gallon and fuel tank size.

Goober-man.... LOL.

[Goberman]

No data simple math to show otherwise....

90Wh/116minutes*60 = 46.55W PL1 AMD in Load test.

For a person who does random calculations on incorrect data he doesn't even understand you use word "math" too much. Please don't respond to me anymore, stay ignorant.

Goober-man.... LOL.

Thought I was talking to adult until I saw this.

[Goberman]

you are also telling Notebookcheck their testing is flawed and all their data points and tests are lies

Bullshit btw, I've operated on data from this review all the time. Lying about opponent is an argument of a loser. Not surprised though.

[ArsLoginName]

If you really want me to destroy your conspiracy theories, I can do it with one sentence.
90Wh/112minutes*60 = 46.55W.
You didn't know all this because you are ignorant .....

Apparently you think you know the definition of "efficiency" and "ignorant." But this calculation shows you do not. What you have just shown is that a Lamborghini gets worse fuel efficiency than a Prius and can burn through a tank of gas faster.

Never did I say anything about maximum power consumption. But you moved the goal posts again.

NBC makes it easy. Wi-fi minutes of run time at screen brightness of 150 cd/ battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency which is just 1 measure of overall platform efficiency.

[Goberman]

Never did I say anything about maximum power consumption

You still don't understand, right? Let me explain it to you like you are a child.
AMD CHEATED! AMD CUT CPU PERFORMANCE IN HALF AND GOT A FAKEY BATTERY LIFE NUMBER WHILE DOING ONLY HALF THE WORK! IF YOU PUT YOUR MACBOOK INTO LOW POWER MODE MANUALLY YOU WILL GET EVEN MORE!

Wi-fi minutes of run time at screen brightness of 150 cd/ battery capacity = wi-fi efficiency

So you also don't know how "wifi" test is performed, my non-ignorant friend. They have a script that loads different web pages once in a while, maybe once in 30 seconds or a minute, i don't remember. Those pages are heavy on javascript and animations, one of them IS even a javascript benchmark. If it not wifi, it's web browsing test. You can even google up the link to the test itself, it's public and I use it on my machines too.

So just as I said, you are doing random math on data you can't even interpret properly.

This is getting ridiculous.

[ArsLoginName]

Bullshit btw, I've operated on data from this review all the time. Lying about opponent is an argument of a loser. Not surprised though.

That is you. Name calling is #1 method people uses to deflect and attack when they lose. Psych 101. They also use that technique so they don't have to answer the question. Other techniques include name-calling and calling the other person a cheater or liar. Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading when used by others and you insinuated only you know how to interest them correctly.

Efficiency = miles per gallon for autos (Miles driven divided by fuel used including up to the entire fuel tank). Wi-fi efficiency for a notebook = minutes of wi-fi use per Whr of battery used which includes up to the entire battery capacity.

[Goberman]

Name calling is #1 method people uses to deflect and attack when they lose. Psych 101.  They also use that technique so they don't have to answer the question. Other techniques include name-calling and calling the other person a cheater or liar. Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading when used by others and you insinuated only you know how to interest them correctly.

used a message just to throw s*** my way? You ran out of arguments this much already? Just admit you were wrong, be a grown man.

Your posts clearly show you said Notebookcheck's data are lies/misleading

Oh same bullshit again, I've beat you exclusively using NBC reviews data.

Efficiency = miles per gallon for autos (Miles driven divided by fuel used including up to the entire fuel tank). Wi-fi efficiency for a notebook = minutes of wi-fi use per Whr of battery used which includes up to the entire battery capacity.

Deja vu. Haven't I just explained you what "wifi" test is? It's barely using "wifi", lol.

[Goberman]

I've even took my time to find you their web browsing test, my non-ignorant friend.
www.notebookcheck.com/nbcbattery/index.php

Just run on idle machine and wait, it keeps a log of how much time passed at the top of the screen. It is not a heavy load by all means but once in a while it pops a Kraken javascript benchmark. Have fun.

Still laughing at "wifi test is wifi use per Whr battery", you've made my day.

[ArsLoginName]

used a message just to throw s*** my way? You ran out of arguments this much already? Just admit you were wrong, be a grown man.

LOL. Name calling and swearing still? Clearly shows who is upset, mad, and trying to deflect. Again. Psych 101/Philosophy 101. Well not really. Your local community college might have it under a different number. Take it sometime. You might learn something about yourself. But it's clear you think highly of yourself by using words like 'destroyed' when you weren't even doing the correct calculation for wi-fi efficiency.

Oh same bullshit again, I've beat you exclusively using NBC reviews data.

You haven't beat anything. Are you delusional much? If so, seek help. Honest. The math I am doing is not hard.

Deja vu.  Haven't I just explained you what "wifi" test is? It's barely using "wifi", lol.

Notebookcheck explains their wi-fi test efficiency almost every time. If not, they have an entire page to their testing procedures. Clearly states screen at 150 cd. Time to go from battery full to empty running the same wi-fi script. Simple math to determine system level wi-fi efficiency - which MacBooks can lose to x86 on an inferior processing node.

So let's see..so far I'm ignorant 6 or 7 times....But I do know how to read and comprehend NBC's wi-fi battery test to determine system level efficiency. But again, people buy a complete notebook not just a screen or a processor or a wi-fi chip. The pieces all come together to form a system and MB M3/M2 Pro's aren't superior in wi-fi efficiency. They just have always used larger capacity batteries and been a node ahead compared to x86 until recently for battery sizes. Soon there will be node parity with Intel's Lunar Lake on N3B.

[ArsLoginName]

Thanks. I know how to read and I know NBC's testing methodology well. Just like it says above: "In the Wi-Fi test at 150 cd/m² ..."

Why are you laughing? You seem to have left the word "efficiency" out. Nothing like mis-quoting.

Efficiency = the rate of useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended/consumed.

There. I helped you back. Now you know what efficiency means. Applying this definition to a user gives  how many minutes a user gets to perform a task like using their notebook to do emails or shop online per unit battery capacity consumed.  Just like miles per gallon - which neither are measured under full loads but only under light loads.

I've even took my time to find you their web browsing test, my non-ignorant friend.
www.notebookcheck.com/nbcbattery/index.php


Still laughing at "wifi test is wifi use per Whr battery", you've made my day.

[ignoramushiller]

With the amount of telemetry in modern windows these days, think it'll be hard to for any pc match macs in battery life. Wendell said in a video fairly recently about how he got better battery life under tweaked Linux than on windows on his Ryzen APU laptop.

Also doesn't help that AMD just isn't as vertically integrated as Apple yet, which I don't expect to see m1 level efficiency until zen 6 in 2027.

Apple's efficiency on lightly threaded workloads is truely impressive not quite sure how they do it.

Nice to see you back in good health, "lmao" !