More or less. Have some design improvements, like from FX8000 series to FX9000 series processors.
Anyway is an inexpensive tatic.
Carrizo-l is a rebrand of beema.
We are talking about laptop screens here, right? Anyways this is cherry picking at it's finest my 15" notebook are more in the region of 2W at maximum brightness extra. The brightness on the Ipad can by the way go that high so that you can use it in direct ligth aka sun for example.At idle there is almost only the screen left.
While, old. Example of the Ipad2 vs Ipad3. Resolution got a big impact as well.
But but... the datalink power usage that is a whopping 300mW. And with these cherry picked results we can "prove" it must be at least 5W power usage.The tests could be made with an external monitor, best option to eliminate laptop monitor dependencies
What? You were wrong with a factor of 1000, and now you try educate me regarding the same subject?
I'm still correct, changing brightness affect power with several watts on a laptop. It is important to understand when interpreting test results.
There's no doubt about it, AMD has the most powerful Powerpoint slides the world has ever seen.
That must be because they hugely outperformed their own previsions and want to keep it as a strategical secret, i really see no other explanation, and i doubt that you have a better one...
Intel prefers to let their products do the talking, instead of their Powerpoints.
Where did you find that statement?Intel prefers to let their products do the talking, instead of their Powerpoints.
Check the post above yours their products talk for themselfs as in they totally don't meet the advertised numbers. Over 2x the performnace/Watt they sayIntel prefers to let their products do the talking, instead of their Powerpoints.
Check the post above yours their products talk for themselfs as in they totally don't meet the advertised numbers. Over 2x the performnace/Watt they say
Maybe if you look at the TDP or do a measurment but let it record data beyond the actually bench. Core Meh showed very clearly how it could not sustain both the gpu and cpu in the 6W package and actually it's base clock was 1,1GHz with a boost to 2,6GHz. In no way an achievement actually I would go as far as calling Core M Intel's worst Broadwell chip. They showed off 50k 3dmark cloudgate scores and talked about how it would fit 15W Haswell performance in a 4,5W "SDP"
We don't have benches by individuals yet but I can't see Carrizo being a worse case of Intel's deceptive statements. Aka lies.
They can't be lying for a single reason: thermodynamics.
They promised to put twice the transistors in the same area and managed to do so.
Now because temperatures aren't twice as high in Broadwell cores under the same loads and they are using the same thermal interface/cooling the power emitted must be half or close. Easy, no?
Applied physics student and while there is obviously conversation of energy always there is a very simple thing you aren't accounting for. Also temperatures in non static situations don't say a thing.They can't be lying for a single reason: thermodynamics.
They promised to put twice the transistors in the same area and managed to do so.
Now because temperatures aren't twice as high in Broadwell cores under the same loads and they are using the same thermal interface/cooling the power emitted must be half or close. Easy, no?
Are you sure..?..
What about when someone say 100% while it s 10-15% in real world..?
Applied physics student and while there is obviously conversation of energy always there is a very simple thing you aren't accounting for. Also temperatures in non static situations don't say a thing.
TDP means thermal design power. Simply the integral of the power function is what accounts for the the TDP rating of the used cooler. I can say I have a 2W TDP chip by having it run the benchmark 30 seconds at 10W and 240 seconds at 1W. The result would be no that over a long time the averaged TDP doesn't exceed the chip rating. Thus the metric is correct.
The reason this can be done is because despite the 30 seconds grosely exceeding the rated specification the cooler has thermal inertia or thermal resistance it takes energy to increase the entropy.
TDP is a flawed metric and can not be used for power usage unless the duration of the ran benchmark approaches infinite.
In a nutshell TDP =/= power consumption in any case except the above.
In a nutshell TDP =/= power consumption in any case except the above.
You are full of bullshit.
Like facts.
That is not a very constructive argument.You are full of bullshit.
Care to show me some more "facts"Like facts.
I'm sorry but maybe you should read the paper before posting lies about the content. Because the paper says exactly what I just said.
What they are saying here is basically TDP is only equal to power consumption when the duration of the test approaches infinite.It is important to note that thermal design power is the maximum thermal powerthe processor will dissipate, but not the same as the maximum power the processor can consume.
It is possible for the processor to consume more than the TDP power for a short period of time that isn’t “thermally significant”. For example, a processor might consume slightly more power than the rated TDP value for say one microsecond...but then consume less power than the rated TDP value for a long period of time.
On AMD's ACP:
"Intel sees no value adding another specification to our processors."
Just a humble question: Does that interfere with SDP in any way?
Not that i want to answer, that s for hygienic purposes that i saved your trollish and hatefull post...
That is not a very constructive argument.
Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors.
You should consult other information andperformance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products.
Intel prefers to let their products do the talking, instead of their Powerpoints.
You are full of bullshit.
I'm sorry but maybe you should read the paper before posting lies about the content. Because the paper says exactly what I just said.
On page 2 of that linked pdf:
What they are saying here is basically TDP is only equal to power consumption when the duration of the test approaches infinite.
TDP means thermal design power. Simply the integral of the power function is what accounts for the the TDP rating of the used cooler. I can say I have a 2W TDP chip by having it run the benchmark 30 seconds at 10W and 240 seconds at 1W. The result would be no that over a long time the averaged TDP doesn't exceed the chip rating. Thus the metric is correct.