> LNL throttles heavily even on the default profile, not just power saver modes.
This does also show it not changing in other benchmarks, but I don't have a LNL laptop myself to test things myself, just going off of what people I know tested. It's still also balanced so best performance power plan would I assume push it to use its cores normally - on windows laptops I've owned this could be done with a hotkey.
> Lunar Lake uses TSMC N3 for compute tile. There is no node advantage.
LNL is N3B, Apple is on N3E which is a slight improvement for efficency
> Yet, M4 is 42% faster in ST and M5 is 50% faster based on Geekbench 6 ST.
Like I said they simply have a better architecture at the moment, which also more focused on client that GB benchmarks because their use cases are narrower.
If you compare something like optimized SIMD Intel/AMD will come out on top with perf/watt.
And I'm not sure why being behind the market leader would make one lose faith in Intel, their most recent client fuckup was raptor lake instability and I'd say that was handled decently. For now nothing else that'd indicate Windows ARM getting to Apple level battery performance without all of the vertical integration
ETA: looking at things the throttling behaviour seems to be very much OEM dependent, though the tradeoffs will always remain the same
This does also show it not changing in other benchmarks, but I don't have a LNL laptop myself to test things myself, just going off of what people I know tested. It's still also balanced so best performance power plan would I assume push it to use its cores normally - on windows laptops I've owned this could be done with a hotkey.
It literally throttles in every benchmark shown. Some more than others. It throttles even more than the older Intel SoC LNL replaced.
LNL is N3B, Apple is on N3E which is a slight improvement for efficency
Still the same family. The difference is tiny. Not nearly enough to make up the vast difference between LNL and M4. Note that N3B actually has higher density than N3E.
Like I said they simply have a better architecture at the moment, which also more focused on client that GB benchmarks because their use cases are narrower. If you compare something like optimized SIMD Intel/AMD will come out on top with perf/watt.
This does also show it not changing in other benchmarks, but I don't have a LNL laptop myself to test things myself, just going off of what people I know tested. It's still also balanced so best performance power plan would I assume push it to use its cores normally - on windows laptops I've owned this could be done with a hotkey.
> Lunar Lake uses TSMC N3 for compute tile. There is no node advantage.
LNL is N3B, Apple is on N3E which is a slight improvement for efficency
> Yet, M4 is 42% faster in ST and M5 is 50% faster based on Geekbench 6 ST.
Like I said they simply have a better architecture at the moment, which also more focused on client that GB benchmarks because their use cases are narrower. If you compare something like optimized SIMD Intel/AMD will come out on top with perf/watt.
And I'm not sure why being behind the market leader would make one lose faith in Intel, their most recent client fuckup was raptor lake instability and I'd say that was handled decently. For now nothing else that'd indicate Windows ARM getting to Apple level battery performance without all of the vertical integration
ETA: looking at things the throttling behaviour seems to be very much OEM dependent, though the tradeoffs will always remain the same