chunko

This whole debate happened because of intel's deception tactics, as redefining industry standard term to unclear and vague due to their lack of tech supremacy on the market, which tricked you to think 20~30W processor as 6~15W. While it's fine to have a personal opinion you had to be clear when you were on debate. on topic: I still think you are being deceptive. If you weren't favoring intel, this debate should be ended earlier. You were on total denial about what i was saying entirely, then you pulled excuse about memory bandwidth as on whatever TDP settings it wasn't able to beat Ryzen's singlecore benchmark performance. after i pulled exact CPU measuring benchmark, you started to redefine "real world usage" (just like intel ) while you have no idea what geekbench does for benchmarking, lol. after that you pointed OEM manufactures are responsible for TDP, which isn't true at all... I don't buy your words that you aren't preferring intel. Lastly, as dopeytree said on extreamly low TDP conditions, ARM based SoCs literally rapes any x86 based CPUs. there's a reason that rPi exists and gone so much bigger on the market (but mostly goes to Apple folks for their marvelous work of A12Z, M1 arch). Which means even if 6W is conditioned for full load TDP budget, intel has no such appealing point on the market So you magically knew my server's average load status, server applications i run and entire purpose of my machine? o.o And that's all. not gonna continue this, really. Sorry for hijacking the thread folks, i hope AMD also comes aggressively on mini-ITX market Have a good day!

Argumentum ad populum. You are depending on random praises on youtube rather than factual test and usage case datas. Doesn't makes so much sense to me. Nope, but your server is. I suggest you to buy ARM chips as told above Because i misunderstood you are actually not aware of some factual infos, now i do know you will be kept on denial due to your personal preferences, so i will not. It's not just beelink. every single Alder Lake-N Chips has exact same symptoms due to the "redefinition" of TDP by intel themselves that we talked about before. It's their own TDP clusterfuck made by intel themselves. You really need to read reference first. It's on intel, not those poor third party OEM makers. Thanks for your honesty, but i dont care about fanboysm. I only care about detailed fact based, which chip is better or not type infos. I'll stop from here. I still don't like deceptive and non-clear wordings of you are writting, but whatever. getting halved performance with twice power consumption, that's not a solution i would pick, but at least they are cheap and works for your situation. good for you, then. Have a good day.

Define your "real world experience". You clearly didn't read what i said on previous post, don't you? anyways, what usage case are you claiming, that intel is more effective than AMD compared on latest gen tech? Are you just almost idle your server, most of the time? then you can just safely buy rPi, Apple Silicon, etc. not sure why are you even here if that's the case. Nope, We are on exact on same topic aka power efficiency on load. That's why we are comparing various benchmark results on same environment including power limits(TDP), HW setup etc. We didn't took any different approaches. It's just you on denial for whatever reason. and i don't care about that as my purpose is finding most effective x86 chip in "real world experience" like you said. I don't want to fry my setup as i don't just idle my CPU on 6W on most of case They are used for UMPC. their whole industry sector purely relies on chip's power efficiency. They are not so different unlike your claims. Again check reference before spitting nonsenses. They do help, thanks. I just want to be clear about current latest tech level gap between only two lasting x86 CPU manufactures, and not spreading misinformation. that's all. Then post it. send me some help from HODL hell, really. If N100/N300 would able to reach performance as written on spec, without exceeding 10W, I would already bought N100 cheapskate boards instead of considering much expensive AMD boards (spoiler: they aren't) IMHO I do understood you want to stop debating about power efficiency, then you should just admit instead of pulling new excuses. because unless you brings actual facts (which nonexistent) that's just same as spreading misinformation, and that's what i don't like

What are you even up to? What's your reference of your words? even yourself had proven that benchmark on 6W with your own N305 has lower score(1K) than most benchmarks (1.3~1.35K) with 30~35W burst, which are designed to work in that way by intel. they made them to *not* stuck on 6W. Are you saying those facts aren't enough for you? Nobody changed that up except rare OEM manufactures for their fanless system. It's Intel themselves who "changed that up" to make them "properly roll" on load situation, they are NOT truly designed as low-powered solutions, at all. I'm really not sure why you are assuming system users are manually doing it. Not true. 18W boost / 7w base gives exactly same result you made with your N305. It only results 1.2K on 25W boost / 15~20W base. I guess you just assumed those benchmarks are made at 6W only, instead of looking for power consumption page that i mentioned earlier. You implied that 10W is "near" the Ryzen 7840HS's TDP while it's obviously not true. it's the value that axed triple times of it. This is true. Sorry about that, Geekbench is indeed not fair point to 1:1 compare for pure CPU performance. Let's compare Cinebench R23 Singlecore benchmark result which is widely known for factors pure CPU perf only. Seems like they are still doubled. (sorry for not bringing up 7840HS / N305 directly, for 7840HS it doesnt had any low-powered conditions so i had to bring up 7840U which is basically same relation like N300 and N305, same chipset but axed power by chip makers. both CPUs uses same architecture just as 7840HS / N305 anyways ) I have to highly disagree about this lmao. Geekbench is born to do exact same "real world use", e.g. Compiling, JS parsing for web browsing, etc.. that's why they are affected by memory bandwidth. modern benchmarks are born because of exact point that you brought up Even if they were "synthetic", they are doing exact same task with doubled differences. I don't think that's valid point to argue about AMD's performance supremacy. Hope these made clear of your confusions.

The problem is that Nobody uses Processor N as 6W locked on any performance-demanded situation, and hell even intel themselves didn't designed Processor N series to be performant on 6W (which means they know what they are doing ). this is why they "boosts" to 30W and even beyond on some benchmarks. that's the point. it's not really performant on that wattage despite what they said on specification. Not really. again N305's TDP is on 15W and 7840HS is on 30~54W, and Singlecore performance gets near-doubled already on 10W situation. As you own N305 already you can check it yourself if you want to compare at 10~15W situation. Actually Apple is the only real winner in this TDP area, lol. That's why we are comparing processor TDP only . I had cross-checked the multiple N100/N300/N305 benchmarks, not just assuming they would do something because they are on same e-core architecture. and I'm pretty confident to say that they just sucks compared to 7840HS or equivalent as every single result says they cannot score over Single 1.3K on whatever watt they are given. if you want go check them on notebookchecks. they provides a lot of sample benchmarks with TDP and exact score results. Intel sucks (they don't even allows you the dual channel rams!), they are popular on this market just because AMD isn't that much aggressive on mini-ITX market unlike UMPC, for some reason. I hope not just CWWK and some other OEM builders kick in to this area much more...

Problem is that small competitive condition, isn't actual use case, at all. and again regarding that edge case i said it's happening due to core count differences. it's not competitive at all in actual sane use cases, but it can only be "competitive" in super small edge case, that's what you are essentially saying. I never said they are on different generation, either. but indeed i confused N100/N305 with N50/N100 respectively, sorry about that. regardless, please refer what i said on above. You do understand that N50/N100/N305 are using exactly same E-core architecture like you said, right? They are scoring Single 1.3K on 34.5W burst(https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i3-N305-Processor-Benchmarks-and-Specs.678904.0.html), while 7840HS with 8c/16t is easily scoring Single 2.3K on 10W . how would this change any facts regarding current power efficiency comparison? This is true, but i wasn't cherry-picking or focusing on multi-core scores at all. In fact i was keep focusing on single core score. This is bullshit and not true at all. or maybe you swapped context, who knows. but at least not on current subject. They are. i feel like you are cherry-picking 6w comparison, because elsewise you wouldn't say that. if you are, please refer what i said on this post's first quote. Right, this happened becuase i confused like i said on 2nd quote, but please refer to what i said on 1st and 3rd quote's reply. It not "at least". it's "only" robust on that ~6w case. Keep in mind 7840HS's TDP is 35-54W unlike N305's 15W.

What are you talking about? We are talking about power efficiency. By what makes you think it's apple vs orange level comparison? In fact AMD is on the down hand in this case as they hold more/large cores despite on low power cap. even benchmark you did proves it; as n305 only holds up 4c/4t only unlike 7840HS's 8c/16t, it does perform slightly better on 6w condition. If it was on "fair" condition, 4c/4t only w/ reduced CCD including GPU, it would absolutely trashed N305 on every single matrices. My points are still valid. now are you saying that N100/N305's 6w usage is ideal on loads? no intend to do any offense, but I'm unsure why we are still continuing this. intel is indeed inferior on power efficiency without any doubts.

that's why im keep saying that as an example of "scams". they defines what it used to be to their twisted, "custom defined" definition which is horrible. oh well, that's what they do as they lost their tech supremacy of industry... also think about intel 7 - they "termed" it well to be tricked as 7nm process, but in fact it's just "custom defined" 10nm process, as their definition. you can't say that sort of things are fine, by all means. trickery is still a trickery. I am aware of that. but again, what's the meaning of that when it's performance goes pure dogshit as i mentioned earlier? it's meme, you know it, i know it, everybody knows it. they shouldn't be called as 6W cpu if they cannot be realistically usable on that TDP. hell they can be on that TDP only if they are idle xD, not sure how they can be called as 6W CPU by all meaning as so many other CPUs can do same on idle state. not just interesting, it's god damn impressive. that's why I'm looking for AMD boards for now. 7840HS (it's basically boost unlocked 7840U) https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDLaptops/comments/178k7v5/7840hs_benchmarked_at_various_tdp/ it's jawdropping. Single 2240, Multi 5520 on 10W limited - this is the true low TDP CPU, unlike 30W garbage N100. think about that N100 struggles to hold Single 1200 Multi 3000 on boosted 30W. it's just absurd such CPU claims "low and efficient" CPU. only if AMD allowed these officially to be usable for industry ITX boards to OEM partners, NAS and low-power, small server meta would had cataclysm just like UMPC market

Thanks for the reply, and i do agree what you said except intel part you spoken of; again, if they needs 15~20W+ for actual "performance" as specified on sheet, it's just terrible scam. (unless they actually pushes U300 to OEM partners, but im fairly certain it would be same in the end) AMD's counterpart U series can do so much more than them with manually limited TDP. the only reason that im considering n100 is that there are no such AMD replacements as ITX boards. i do see some Mini-PC deals, but they are out of scope for me due to it's terrible expandableness, and non-fanless enviroment. (but at least they have dual-channel ram ) Only if AMD folks are giving official interests in those area, instead of OEM folks doing some dark magic stuff to build up some ITX stuff with laptop series CPUs...

Does anyone know AMD equivalent of those lineups? (6~10w, max 15w under load) Currently I'm looking for any sane low power consumption CPU for passive cooling system. The problem, while searching for those boards, is that the fact they are actually pulling A LOT of powers when they gets under load and doesn't supporting RAM dual channels. No matter of lineups (except U300, N50 because they simply non-existent on market and i can't find any benchmarks), all of them seems to be spiking up to 30W (regardless of 8core vs 4core differences, what the fuck?), which isn't really 6W (or 15w) CPU. I rather call that as Intel's dirty trickery to confuse the consumers.. Practically they just worth nothing if they requires 20W+ on load, as AMD's 5000~7000 HS/U lineups would be ten times better than them if they are also manually power limited at 20W. but that's not standard chip usage for it and again, there seems to be none mini-itx boards with those AMD CPUs or APUs but mini-PCs only if anyone can find them with sane price unlike CWWK's... , please, reply on here for god's sake!