AMD Claims New Laptop Chip Is 30% Faster Than M1 Pro, Promises Up to 30 Hours of Battery Life

[djphat2000]

huh?
there's no problem at all to let pretty much any PC laptop utilize full power on battery. depending on the hardware configuration, the battery charge just won't last you very long.
but pf course even a MacBook won't give you 20h of battery life while doing Blender renders at higher screen brightnesses, though i guess it should fare much better, even though it won't compete with a PC laptop with a good dedicated graphics card installed.

You actually don't get full power to "both" the CPU and dedicated GPU off the battery alone. Many tests have shown this to be the case with Windows based laptops. As the combined power required to run it full tilt is more than the power output of the battery. Unless you want a pretty big laptop. The GPU on the highest end can reach 150w. Just the GPU. Add a full tilt 7940 at 54w. Do that math.

Now, we can come MUCH lower than that so that you can operate with a 100w battery. Which Apple's laptops are just 99.5w batteries. But, for a PC to do that, they have to cut down on the power they provide to the dedicated GPU. Which is why Apple tends to show their graphs beating a PC dedicated GPU. Cause at that level of power, Apples SOC can outperform the PC. You have to increase the power (double or even triple). In order to get 30-50 or 100% better performance. Meaning you're using more power than the performance you get out of it. Diminishing returns. I'm not saying in any way you can't get more performance from a PC. You certainly can, and do. Just that it costs more power (not linear!) to do it. At which point you're plugging in the laptop, and it loses is full mobility.

With Apple you get full performance on or off the power adapter.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple is falling behind. Apple needs 3nm fast. Also needs to double the standard ram and storage against PC competitors. 16GB and 1TB is now dirt cheap after the shortage ended.

The M1 Max has the same CPU cluster as the M1 Pro. That's why there's no point in AMD doing an M1 Max comparison.

Secondly, the Ryzen will be in sub $1500 16" laptops. Comparable M1 Max 16" starts around $4000 USD.

Well, even easier for AMD to fix. Show it against a more expensive M1 Max laptop and show that you're still outperforming it. Why pick the M1 Pro if your statement is true?
All irrelevant now since we have M2/Pro/Max chips "shipping" this month. Maybe they will do another revision against these chips?

 

[ls1dreams]

NO, they are announcing their new chip and comparing it with what's currently available on the market and they are able to test. SIMPLE, LOGICAL, REASONABLE.
Also the Ryzen 9 7940HS is only the mid-range 8 core APU, the top of the line APUs will have 12 cores and 16 cores.

It's funny but ignoring totally predictable emotional responses on this thread and pointless jokes I was absolutely certain that one of the main attack points(because everybody that compares it's product with an Apple product it's a clear enemy on this site even if AMD has been one of Apple's best hardware partners) would be the fact that AMD are comparing their new CPU to the years old M1. Fun fact Zen 4's design was finished in 2020 and Zen 4 was meant to be released in 2021 but wasn't mainly because of the chip shortage. The M1 Pro is not a Q4 2020 chip, you can add a 1 at the end to actually be accurate.

Now to more constructive remarks, AMD's Zen 4 laptop chips were always going to be a huge jump in performance and efficiency mainly because of the move the TSMC's superior manufacturing node. This is where most of apple's superior efficiency comes from and logically the effect is similar on other CPU architectures, SD 8 Gen 2's CPU also has a big efficiency improvement vs previous generation.
Now why did AMD compare their APU for the first time with Apple's M Silicone? Very easy, because they feel really confident about the efficiency of their new chip and want to capitalize on that. It's obvious that because of such comparisons reviewers will pay extra attention to R9's 7940HS power consumption. If efficiency wasn't great AMD would have just compared themselves to Intel and show a performance lead and a huge efficiency lead.
Ultimately Windows laptops with AMD CPUs will see a huge improvement in efficiency in 2023.

The 7900 series look like they are finally quite close to the M1 chips. I'm actually surprised they caught up in ~ 2 years - I thought it would be closer to 3 years.

 

[djphat2000]

The 7900 series look like they are finally quite close to the M1 chips. I'm actually surprised they caught up in ~ 2 years - I thought it would be closer to 3 years.

To be fair. Only AMD has caught up to M1. intel still hasn't
I'd like to see the Blender render now with an M2 Pro. I'm sure it's going to be on YouTube soon enough.

 

[M3gatron]

The 7900 series look like they are finally quite close to the M1 chips. I'm actually surprised they caught up in ~ 2 years - I thought it would be closer to 3 years.

It's nothing surprising.
Zen 4 uses 4/5nm tech form TSMC, it was always expected it would be very good in performance and efficiency. The 7950X is often 45% faster than it's predecessor for example.
Now here's the kicker, Zen 5 is rumored to have 25% better IPC than Zen 4, that's 25% better performance at the same power usage, same clock speeds.
Intel also has really decent CPU architecture, their main problem is the node they use isn't as efficient as TSMC's nodes. Things will probably change once they move past their 10nm tech.
The competition for x86 CPU is mainly driven by the rivalry between AMD and Intel so we should see some pretty exciting chips from these 2 companies in the future.

 

[ls1dreams]

It's nothing surprising.
Zen 4 uses 4/5nm tech form TSMC, it was always expected it would be very good in performance and efficiency. The 7950X is often 45% faster than it's predecessor for example.
Now here's the kicker, Zen 5 is rumored to have 25% better IPC than Zen 4, that's 25% better performance at the same power usage, same clock speeds.
Intel also has really decent CPU architecture, their main problem is the node they use isn't as efficient as TSMC's nodes. Things will probably change once they move past their 10nm tech.
The competition for x86 CPU is mainly driven by the rivalry between AMD and Intel so we should see some pretty exciting chips from these 2 companies in the future.

Apple definitely ends up taking a lot of credit from stuff simply produced by other people. TSMC for the fabrication, NAND manufacturers for their fast SSD NAND flash, etc.

Obviously their chip architecture designs are better as well, but I'd guess a good 75% of the performance edge comes from just having the right partners. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple definitely ends up taking a lot of credit from stuff simply produced by other people. TSMC for the fabrication, NAND manufacturers for their fast SSD NAND flash, etc.

Obviously their chip architecture designs are better as well, but I'd guess a good 75% of the performance edge comes from just having the right partners. Maybe I'm wrong.

If it was that easy, everyone would do it no?
There are only so many CPU designers, and so many fabs. Clearly, it's not something that you can easily do better than another. Everyone that makes a chip has a trade off or many to contend with when making a chip design. What do you want it to do? What do you want it to do well, and what are you willing to give up to get those things you really want. Do you want to support any legacy functions, etc. And if you want it all, then it's going to cost you more. Performance, for heat and power draw. Or create specific areas that perform incredibly well, while giving up some performance in other areas. Making old stuff incompatible or maybe not run as well. If you want it to run as well or better, you add cost..

For now, I'd say Apple has struck a really good balance on providing ample performance for little power draw. However, it costs a lot. Of course they (Apple) would most likely argue that you're getting a GPU and AI/ML chip with that high performance/efficiency CPU and specialized acceleration functions like 4k/8k/H264/5/ProRaw/Res etc. That in a typical PC you would need a dedicated GPU that can also accelerate video and AI/ML functions. Typically costing more than what Apple (would if they did sell it on its own) could sell on its own. While M1/2 can provide all of that in the space of an old US 50c piece. Along with insanely high bandwidth RAM. Which is fully shared by the way with the GPU. Something no other dedicated video card has in such abundance (laptops, and many desktops. You need a RTX A6000 to get close 48GB of ram). Yes it has more performance than an M1 Ultra. But, at about 8-10x the power requirements.

So, I'd say Apples chip design is arguably better than both intel and AMD. While also being more efficient (performance per watt) than any of them. Which has gotten all of them to change how they design x86 chips.

 

[pasamio]

Similar arguments abounded at the launch of the iPhone that it wasn’t anything new, similarly with the iPod before it that there were plenty of other MP3 players. Yet these are the devices that redefined their categories: an MP3 player that can actually hold a collection of music and a phone that redefined what a smartphone looked like with a big screen, full touch interface and no keys or specialised pointing devices. It took two to three years for the majority of phones being sold to end up like the iPhone and Android scrambled to move from being a Blackberry clone requiring all sorts of keys to being an iPhone clone and Google eviscerating the competition in the mobile phone operating system market by using their monopoly in advertising to cement their place in mobile to continue their ability to sell ads.

Apple‘s power is their ability to integrate their ecosystem which is what pushed the iPhone forward and the iPad with it. They’re working towards doing the same with their Mac ecosystem, slowly removing their external dependencies with the true north that they’re shipping a product and an ecosystem to support it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple‘s power is their ability to integrate their ecosystem which is what pushed the iPhone forward and the iPad with it. They’re working towards doing the same with their Mac ecosystem, slowly removing their external dependencies with the true north that they’re shipping a product and an ecosystem to support it.

Apple over the years has been focused on, “Let’s find the folks that want to buy our stuff at a price that makes it profitable for us.” They built up a large number of folks that, RIGHT from the start provide their credit card details just to be a part of the ecosystem… these are people with a “I intend to buy things and have the means to do so” mindset. Going further, Apple’s created a marketplace where the protections are juuuust onerous enough so that these folks, again WITH a mind to spend and the money to spend already, will spend rather than try to find it for free. Apple doesn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts, no, it’s a way to make money. But, when they’re tying their way to make money to the developer’s way to make money (instead of ads), then they’re both working to make a customer click that buy button.

There WILL be the equivalent of AR “fart apps”. And simple “find your way through a maze” demos, Kirkland brand Harry Potter ripoffs (Gary Trotter) where you wave your hands and cast spells, and they’ll be cheap enough to create and easy enough for people to buy. Someone that never thought of themselves as a developer will decide it’s worth sticking to it to see what else they can do, bringing fresh new views and ideas into the space. This will be possible because Apple’s built a crowd of “folks that WILL buy” unlike any other headset maker has ever had.