But the AMD is using more than 40% extra power. So that is FAR from an Apples to Apples comparison.
Power differences are a common problem with notebook tests.
Across a wider selection of games, LNL in 258V form doesn’t quite keep up with STX. I just posted the results in the CPU thread, http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...akes-discussion-threads.2606448/post-41306602
But the AMD is using more than 40% extra power. So that is FAR from an Apples to Apples comparison.
Power differences are a common problem with notebook tests.
That’s wall power with completely different systems/screens. All the SoCs were set to a 28W power limit.
Here's an additional problem, Computerbase has fewer games, but where they overlap (CP2077 and BG3) they are very different. JT shows the AMD signficantly faster, computer base shows them in a tie:
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V „Lunar Lake“ im Test: Leistung im Notebook-Testparcours
Intel Lunar Lake im Test: Leistung im Notebook-Testparcours / Anwendungs-Benchmarks / Gaming-Benchmarks / Leistung in AI-Anwendungenwww.computerbase.de
That’s wall power with completely different systems/screens. All the SoCs were set to a 28W power limit.
Memory consumption is missing on the other devices though. Notebookcheck tested 10 games at 28W and sees the 258V a few percent in front. So maybe it's just the game selection or there is a power difference we are not aware of.
Memory consumption shouldn’t be more than a couple of watts, but yeah, that’s part of it. I like JT’s reviews because he tries to stay away from canned benchmarks and he tests the widest amount of games for laptops that I’ve been able to find.
Nope I would never buy beta products. In fact as an avid MacBook user I never brought the M1 MacBook because I considered them as a beta product in 2020. I won’t buy something until it’s proven.Okay, I'll debate it. This forum is mostly enthusiasts, how many bought ARC? Of the ones that did, how many bought the A770? Did you ever put skin in the game and buy ARC? There is no card brand that was going to change the performance or driver maturation issues. Most only wanted the media capabilities found on the A310 and A380, as the gaming performance is too low for their needs.
Sales have flatlined due to a combination of the Osborne effect and bottom tier performance in most of the latest game releases. A bit of, anyone that wanted one, already bought one, is probably in the mix too.
Unfortunately not much data from him to check out all is fine. We don't even know the driver version he was using. Why not using an ingame overlay for 2-4 games where we could see the power draw from CPU/GPU/package. Or a hwinfo screen.
He used the latest drivers at the time of publishing, except for 1 game which had a bug and he used the prior version.
Few, if any, of the actual reviewers show screen captures with HWinfo, they create charts and present the results.
Latest what? Did he even say that? In some months nobody knew what was latest. Seems difficult to tell the most important things, not just for this test.
Not sure about this test without more data. Did you see the timespy GPU score of 3874 in this test from HX 370? Isn't this too high for 28W? This score is oddly high when compared to other 28W tests. Just to give other examples two links from other tests. How is it getting 3874 GPU points at 28W on 890M? Looks more like 70W. Who knows maybe it stayed at 28W in CPU only benchmarks and with CPU+GPU combined for some reason this limit didn't lock in. There is no data to check as I said.
Intel Lunar Lake iGPU-Analyse - Arc Graphics 140V ist schneller und effizienter als die Radeon 890M
Notebookcheck-Analyse der neuen iGPU Intel Arc Graphics 140V in Verbindung mit dem Lunar Lake Core Ultra 7 258V.www.notebookcheck.com
He's running Timespy at 1920x1080, which is lower than the default resolution (1440p), so the graphics scores will be higher than what other outlets show (obviously unless they too lowered the resolution).
Lunar Lake score too low in this case no?
Maybe? It seems to be roughly the same score as default res. at ~30 W, but without additional tests, it's hard to say whether it's a bad test run on Time Spy or there's something going on with LNL and res. scaling in Time Spy. I'm going off of memory, but I think MTL had an issue like this when it first launched and it required a driver update to fix.
They lowered the default resolution on AMD but didn't on Intel? Makes no sense. Or they didn't lower it on Intel but did on AMD but this doesn't make sense either. 4100 points on Lunar Lake is a default run, that's for sure. Why would they lower the default rendering resolution in the first place, for what reason? Simply use default settings which makes it easy for a comparison and to check if a device works as expected. This is the point of 3dmark. I really would like to see benchmarks with the power consumption and clock speeds in it. Also more infos about bios and driver which might be useful for later if something improves. Why not give basic infos like this.
You must also consider how good the benchmarks themselves are. It's still Time Spy.That's the bit I find a bit strange.
Only looked at CB and PCGH (since those automatic recalculating charts are so handy), and in both the synthetics were way ahead of 890M but the gaming performance was mostly within 10%.
Didn't look that hard but had assumed that Intel graphics are still Intel graphics: far far better in synthetics than real life. Something that goes back generations at this stage.
Yeah Intel is bigger threat to Nvidia than AMD if they get their ACT together they have competent SW teams that made drivers work AMD has advantage of being in console + years into thisDon't forget that this is mostly Nvidia's strong arming tactics that prevented more AIBs from getting onboard the ARC bandwagon.
Intel seriously needs to launch a lawsuit against them.
I think it's possible G21 will release this year, but offering little higher performance than A770 is nothing to be proud about in late 2024, and they won't make lot of money either because price will still be bottom bin. Yes it will improve but going up in the performance stack is what really makes the difference.And that's just for the G21, means G31 will be out when Xe3 iGPU in Panther Lake is around the corner.
As long as it is not hit or miss like A770 🤣I think it's possible G21 will release this year, but offering little higher performance than A770 is nothing to be proud about in late 2024, and they won't make lot of money either because price will still be bottom bin. Yes it will improve but going up in the performance stack is what really makes the difference.
That IMO is the most important fix. I.E. that performance be balanced with B series. The box of chocolates experience is great for us adventurous types, but it won't win significant market share.As long as it is not hit or miss like A770 🤣
Let me Present you the Intel HD 4000/4400 meme graphics that everyone knows cause it was such a meme 🤣Intel needs a far far more impressive product to win market share. People do not equate graphics with Intel.