Intel doesn’t think that Arm CPUs will make a dent in the laptop market
"They've been relegated to pretty insignificant roles in the PC business."
You're viewing a single thread.
They're of course exaggerating a little and speaking confidently because theyre in the business of selling a product and not in the business of trash talking what they sell or reducing confidence in their product.
That said the M1/M2 silicon battery life gains were a huge leap forward when they first launched but in terms of battery efficiency and power AMD has been nipping at their heels, and in due time intel will likely get it's stuff together and join them. You can already get ryzen laptops efficient enough and cool running enough that the fan is off during most light usage, and they can get hours into the mid to high teens on some models.
Likewise even macs will start to drain quite a bit when say watching an hd video 1.75x speed, or playing a video game, or encoding something using max CPU power. So while the Macs do have a power per watt advantage, you'll still need to be plugged in.
And thats BEST arm vs intel and amd as they catch up. Samsung, google, and qualcom dont really have anything like the m2 at play and while qualcom is rumored to be close the samsung fab'd chips definitely arent.
So as things are the death Intel and AMD has been greatly exaggerated and in part due a combination of the usual apple hype combined with that hype being VERY VERY justified this go around.
Likewise even macs will start to drain quite a bit when say watching an hd video 1.75x speed, or playing a video game
That's not my experience. I can play demanding games (CPU/GPU flat out) for several hours on battery on my Mac, and it only has a 50Wh battery.
With "normal" use I get about 18 hours on a charge.
I generally charge it overnight, like a phone, except I don't do it every night. I often don't even have access to a charger for days at a time, a laptop charger isn't part of my normal travel kit. If I notice the battery "running low" that means I need to find a charger in, like, five hours time.
The high end MacBook Pros, with a 12 core CPU and 38 core GPU... yeah those can draw a lot of power. In fact they even drain the battery while plugged into a charger if you really push them. But I don't think of those as "proper" laptops. They're more like a portable desktop.
A demanding game on a macbook air m2 will still draw close to 30 watts and while that is actually still good for a laptop relative to what the output is, and you can probably do things to improve that by tweaking in game settings, it's still going to suck power out of a 50Whr battery.
Steamdecks also run an efficient ryzen apu that lets them play games for 2-8 hours depending on how things are tweaked. Likewise on my 39Whr ryzen thinkpad(intel got a 59whr battery dont get me started on that nonsense) I can get 8-12 hours depending on usage normal browsing as well.
This isnt to take down the m1 & m2. They are definitively more powerful, theyre definitively more efficient, I'm not disputing that. But the gap isnt as huge as it was when the m1 launched.
I'm on an M1 MacBook Air - Anandtech measured between 11 and 17 watts with an M1 Mac Mini.
However, the Mac Mini has an excessively large cooling system for the chipset it runs (before Apple Silicon, they sold the same Mac with an Intel i7 that turbo boosted to 4.6Ghz).
The MacBook Air has basically no cooling at all and it definitely throttles under high load. It's still fast enough to get 60fps with good graphics settings while throttled for the games I play - I'd say it's about on par with my gaming PC that has an entry level Nvidia GPU, but there's no way it's drawing as much power as in Anandtech's testing on an actively cooled chip.
Based on the battery life I'm getting, I'd guess it's drawing somewhere around 8 watts on average while playing games. It's a very efficient chip... it draws 0.2 watts while idle according to Anandtech testing. Remember, this family of chips started life on devices with a 10Wh battery and the MacBook Air isn't much faster than an iPhone.
You are absolutely right about efficiency. Even the (less efficient) M2 is way better than the 6800U for example under single-threaded load. It's ~5W vs ~15W, around 3 times as power hungry as the M2, while performing slightly worse.
The M1 is around 25% more efficient than the M2.
The M1 is around 25% more efficient than the M2.
No that's not right. The M2 is far more efficient. Third party tests report he M2 MacBook Air lasts up to 3 hours longer than the M1.
Yes, it draws more power under peak load... but it more than makes up for that with better performance allowing it to return to an idle state more quickly. Give an M1 and an M2 the same task, and the M2 will draw less power to get the task done.
Your original discussion with @lemillionsocks@beehaw.org, was about power usage while gaming, and the corresponding worst-case battery life. I was referring to this as efficiency.
I understand now that the term was misleading The M1 is 25% more frugal than the M2 under worst-case load.
Yeah, I hope so, but they also cannot just lie about the direction they think they are headed like that as a public company. With the kind of progress translation has made it just seems inevitable that the switch will happen for lower power consumer devices at least. (Lower power being relative to a high end workstation) interesting to see if maybe this means a pivot to commercial only products.