>Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency.
It isn't worthless. It clearly gives a good enough picture on efficiency to draw conclusions. It's not like Apple and Qualcomm drastically slow their chips down in order to get better perf/watt. No. They have better raw performance than Intel's chips regardless of perf/watt. >Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;)
Intel's new chip is using TSMC's N3B in the compute tile, same as M3 and better than X Elite's N4P. >Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA.
I'm still here. Is AMD the king of the Titanic (x86)?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/kg4e8j/is_amd_th...
Yes, and city kids also eat, poop, and talk. :)
I think it's the degree that matters.
Degree matters here too.