PCMark did a battery life comparison using identical Dell XPS 13s[1]:
* X Elite: 1,168 minutes, performance of 204,333 in Procyon Office
* Intel Ultra 7 256V (new): 1,253 minutes, performance of 123,000 in Procyon Office
* Meteor Lake 155H: 956 minutes, performance of 129,000 in Procyon Office
Basically, Intel's new chip has 7% more battery life than X Elite but the X Elite is 66% faster while on battery. In other words, Intel's new chip throttles heavily to get that battery life.
>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.
The efficiency tests are garbage. Notebookcheck are comparing whole system power draw and equating it with SOC power draw, when in reality the SOC may draw a fraction of total system power, especially under single core workloads. Take those numbers with a full truck of salt.
Cinebench is really a terrible benchmark and not indicative of real-world numbers for performance or efficiency (particularly not for any of my use cases). I'll wait for better reviews and benchmarks before deciding who's "won".
Geekbench is also terrible though? I'm not an Intel fanboy that's upset about Intel not winning, I've owned AMD chips for most of my life. These are just terrible benchmarks that don't tell us anything. I'm more interested in seeing what Phoronix or gaming benchmarks (particularly Factorio and MSFS) have to show. Real-world benchmarks are infinitely more useful to guaging the real-world benefit of buying one or the other hardware.
Performance vs power across a CPUs operating range is not a linear relationship. Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency. You need to at the very least normalize to either the same power or same performance, but preferably reviewers should be measuring and reporting a full perf/power curve for each chip instead of just one data point. Geekerwan seems to be the only reviewer that understands this, and they mostly focus on phones.
>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.
You can't even get perf/watt curves on Apple's A series and M series of chips because it's impossible to manually control the wattage given to the SoC. On PCs, you can do that. But not on iPhones and Macs. Therefore, Geekerwan's curves are not real curves for Apple chips - just projections.
> It isn't worthless. It clearly gives a good enough picture on efficiency to draw conclusions.
They routinely draw wrong conclusions when comparing parts that are close, such as comparing between generations of Apple's chips when the maximum power has increased.
No I did not read it, we just arrived at the same conclusions although you were a bit earlier than me to realise this. What opened my eyes was the easy of transition to the ARM-based macs. I fully agree with all your points and that has been my view since around 2021 (when I got an M1 mac).
Once dev computers are running ARM at large no one is going to bother cross-compiling their server code to x64, they will just compile to ARM which will tear through AMD server demand. In fact my own org already started migrating to AWS graviton servers.
And this bodes poorly for Nvidia as well, I bet all cloud providers are scrambling to design their own in-house alternatives to nVidia hardware. Maybe alternatives to CUDA as well to either remove the nVidia lock-in or create their own lock-ins. Although Nvidia is much better positioned to stay ahead in the space.
The problem with the Nvidia replacement goal of big tech is that they don't have an ARM-like organization to design cores for them. Big tech use their own ARM CPUs because they use stock ARM core designs and its ISA. The hardwork was already done for big tech.
Big tech must design their own GPUs. From the looks of it, it's much harder to do it on your own than license cores from ARM.
Apple does and other big tech are just an acquisition away from being able to do it as well. In fact if memory serves me right Apple in-house chips were originally derived from an acquisition.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft or Google would buy AMD or Intel (or subdivisions of them) at some point in the future.
This is all speculation of course, and you are not wrong about Nvidia being harder to replace. I mentioned this myself in my previous post, but I don't discard the possibility of it happening.
What happens if the unions succeed in draining the profits, corporate has less money to invest in R&D, and a foreign efficient automaker comes in and takes all the market share away from the union-led automakers?
The experience of Tesla clearly shows that this is a completely inaccurate picture of what motivates R&D. For decades big automakers took steady profits but declined to spend much on R&D, preferring to make incremental refinements to a conventional product. When they were challenged by an efficient upstart with an innovative product, the threat to their steady profits suddenly made them decide that they were prepared to spend on R&D.
Except, what also allowed Tesla to grow was lack of unions and Chinese manufacturing.
Even in the US, Tesla workers make an average of $45/hr while Detroit automakers have to pay $67/hr due to the UAW.
I agree, incumbents are typically lazy and stifle innovation, however that’s not the full picture.
OP is correct. Unions are also interested in profit maximizing for their members. So a foreign competitor or upstart without union concerns is at an advantage. Even if you like unions and think they are generally good, this is an undeniable fact given the global market for consumer products.
Most union workers don't want their employment to end. Why would they want to destroy the company this way?
Most large company CEOs can retire on the wealth they've already accumulated. Why should we assume they have higher long-term interest in the success of the company?
What is an example of union-led automaker? Perhaps some small cooperatively-owned car company somewhere? Or do you mean worker representation on the board, like at BMW in Germany, or how there was once a union seat on Chrysler's board?
What happens if a global investment company buys another company, stops all R&D to focus on short-term gain, runs the company into the ground, sells what's left, and makes an overall profit?
What happens then?
Oh, right, what happens is the investment company owners make a lot of money and the ex-employees get screwed. "Vulture capital" doesn't get that name out of love, and my life was negatively affected when KKR did a leveraged buyout of the non-union company where my father worked.
> If there are any profits to speak of, then clearly either already enough is spent on R&D or nothing at all.
What?
If you spent more on R&D you might make more sales, even if you are already profitable. You might also still be profitable (perhaps less so) if you spent less on R&D and made fewer sales. The sales numbers determine how many workers you need to make the stuff you're selling though.
It's also a common misunderstanding that a company is sustainable as long as its profit is above zero. It's only sustainable if its profit is above the market rate of return, because otherwise investors would make more money by shutting down the company and selling off its assets. If shareholders don't get a competitive return then they don't continue to lend you their money and you don't have a company. The management of the company can't change the economics.
If you have profits, then you're not spending them on anything, like e.g. R&D, or it's already budgeted in, meaning the argument that increasing salaries hurts R&D is not sound.
You can say you can't increase salaries because you're reinvesting profits into R&D, but you can't use the same argument when there was a several year streak of profits.
> If you have profits, then you're not spending them on anything, like e.g. R&D, or it's already budgeted in, meaning the argument that increasing salaries hurts R&D is not sound.
But you are spending them on something. Convincing shareholders not to shut down the company. It's like a loan, except that the terms are they get whatever profit your company makes instead of a fixed interest rate, but can call in the loan at any time and shut you down if the company doesn't make enough money.
You can't say that you don't need that unless you also don't the continued use of the shareholders' capital. You'd need another source of money to buy land and factory equipment etc., like a bank loan, and then you'd have to pay the interest on the loan instead.
> If you have profits, then you're not spending them on anything, like e.g. R&D, or it's already budgeted in, meaning the argument that increasing salaries hurts R&D is not sound.
The assumption you're making is that the money to increase salaries can only come out of profit and not by trading off against anything else, but that's not how it works. They're still going to try to maximize profit.
Maybe they used to have 15 models but they didn't all have the same profitability. At higher salaries only 10 of them could recover their R&D expenditure, so R&D for those lines gets cut, which means those lines get cut and a third of the workers lose their jobs. Meanwhile the company still turns a profit because the remaining lines are still profitable.
But all of this depends on the circumstances of the company. It could be that only one of the lines was making a significant profit and the others were barely breakeven, so at higher salaries 93% of the workers lose their jobs.
Or maybe there is only one product line. If they make a million widgets for $1500 and sell them for $2000 then they make $500M, and spending $150M on R&D to make the product a million customers want instead of half a million caused them to net $100M: They spent $150M to get $250M. But if labor costs increase so it costs them $1800 to make a widget customers will still only pay $2000 for, the R&D would still cost $150M but only recover $100M. So they cut the R&D rather than lose $50M, which cuts sales in half and that proportion of workers lose their jobs.
The "free market" takes its course and unionized labor is (sadly) replaced by labor operating in companies with far worse tracks on things that detract from profits like "human rights" or "people not commiting suicide over work" [1]
Every suicide, inside Foxconn or outside, is a tragedy.
But re: implying causation, note that the wikipedia article you cited mentions:
"ABC News[49] and The Economist[50] both conducted comparisons and found that although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn was large in absolute terms, the suicide rate was actually lower than the overall suicide rate of China[51] or the United States."
It's already proven that it's not just the node advantage. Just compare Apple's 7nm A series chips to Zen3 or M2 to Zen4. The power advantage for Apple is 3x - 10x.
Actually, it's way worse for Intel and AMD if you only use single core power.
If you run Geekbench 5 or 6 on an M1, the total package power ranges 0.3w - 5w, mostly staying below 3w. Intel and AMD can use 10x or more power to achieve similar or lower Geekbench scores.
I just quit weed after getting addicted for almost 2 years.
There is a large community of people who are trying to quit: /r/leaves
The article is nothing new to me. Read a few posts from the subreddit and you'd see a pattern.
Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.
Edit: I'm not against decriminalization of weed. I'm highly against pro-recreational use. I'm against high THC %, easy access, advertisements, sponsorships, etc. I believe weed should be classified as a highly addictive drug - especially to youth. We should not have weed stores. It should be sold behind the counter. It should have a very high tax so that it's not cheap. It should have huge, bold warning labels on packaging. It should not be legalized at the federal level.
Society does this all the time though realistically. If there is a 1:N chance of harm; and N is low, and we have no idea who will be harmed, we tend to regulate or make illegal.
There are many things that provably have much higher risk of harm than cannabis but have no serious attempts underway to make them illegal. Unhealthy food. Motorcycles. All kinds of dangerous hobbies. And alcohol of course. The list is long.
I don’t think it has much to do with wanting to help or protect anyone, or else you would see more consistency in the things people want to make illegal. It’s more akin to religious people who think they know the “right” way to live and want to impose those values on everyone.
Many people just have an emotional dislike of cannabis for whatever reason—seeing its effect on others makes them uncomfortable, so they want to stop everyone from doing it. Soda and motorcycles don’t make them uncomfortable, so they don’t care about those.
Not convinced. Look at Singapore. I doubt they would care what the US does. Anyway, after the US legalizes everything for “freedom”, I’m not sure that many countries will follow suit.
With all due respect, I was a responsible user for the first year too. Good luck to you and I hope you never get addicted.
Unlike alcohol addiction, which can come on fast, weed grabs a hold of you over a longer period. It starts out as only beneficial with little to no downside. You won't notice you're addicted until much later.
Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.
I first smoked marijuana 20 years ago. Since then there have been years where I haven’t had it at all, to smoking daily for months, to going back to not having it for months at a time. I have never had any issue stopping. No withdrawal. For me it’s even easier to quit than coffee. Not that I ever said to myself I need to “quit” smoking marijuana, because it isn’t an addiction. Sometimes I’m more busy than other times and want to focus on work, so I don’t get the time. Other times I’m in a more recreational period of my life and I find it is a lot more preferable than alcohol. Did you know some people casually are able to smoke cigarettes too without getting addicted?
> Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.
Seeing the diversity of opinions and experiences here I am inclined to believe there is an interaction between the genetics of the strain, and your own genetics that determine whether your particular habit become something which is addictive for you.
This is highly fascinating, and opens the door towards in nuanced manipulation of marijuana plant genetics in order to create strains with the benefits, but without the addictive side effects and tailoring that genetic strain manipulation to the genetics of the individual user where they could undergo a kind of a genetic test, and then the strain could be tailored to meet their exact desired profile without any addictive qualities.
That would be great. I have a friend who get severe panic attack if he uses the wrong strain. Any other strain and he has a great night. I forgot whether it was sativa or Indica that does it
Plants are so fascinating. Yeah it's weird how diverse the experiences can be...and how it's about the whole of plant chemistry, not just a single compound.
Marijuana can be highly addictive, it depends on the person. I’ve been addicted for over 20 years, completely unable to stop for more then a week and I know a lot of people in the same situation. Not saying it should be illegal because of this, just saying that because it’s not addictive to you doesn’t mean it can’t be for other people. That is why it’s important not to advertise marijuana as a risk free substance.
> Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.
The other posters here have a point. If one is vocal against cannabis while mostly giving alcohol a pass - it makes it harder to respect warnings of harm.
After 5 generations of lying drug war PR and ridiculous propaganda, this deeply incredulous debate needs a lot to be worth considering.
Just because alcohol is bad for you, doesn't mean weed is good for you.
I believe it's easier to get addicted to weed than alcohol. I think time will prove me right.
Think of it this way. Let's say there are 100 people in a society. Without weed, 5 are addicted to alcohol. With weed, 20 are addicted to weed and 3 are addicted to alcohol. Yes, there will be fewer alcohol addicts, but we added 20 weed addicts. Is this better for society? I don't believe so.
Being addicted to alcohol is easily an order of magnitude more destructive to a person and the people around them than chronic marijuana use. It’s not even close.
I’ve been to inpatient chemical dependency treatment twice, once for opiate addiction and once for alcohol addiction. There were 0 people that were inpatient for marijuana use.
But the problem is the ADDICTION, not the substance itself. People are trying to point out that if you are against marijuana legalization (because people become addicts), then you must also be against legal alcohol, as it is a much more destructive and addictive substance. And you haven't answered with anything except "weed is bad for you!"
I dont think its fair to just pull those number out of your bottocks and use them as argument. The same way I could argue "100 people, 20 addicted to alcohol, with weed 5 are addicted to weed and 5 to alcohol, while 30 begun to use alcohol/weed responsibly after broadening their views on how substances affect their mind.
Now the argument looks completely different, yet still holds 0 value.
It seems to me you are scared of weed now, and with your honest good will want to save others from it as well. That's nice and all, but please don't presume you know better than everyone, or even better than "those who haven't tried it yet".
I have had my fair share of experiences with weed, and while I agree that mindless consumption will bring harm (ask me how I know), I also believe that just landing hard in this case helped me discern this pattern in other areas of my life too - so (in my subjective experience) even this harm it brought me _directly_ improved my life in the long run. And that's before I start talking about effect it had outside its most obvious harm.
I advocate for education, and responsible trials for anyone curious, and I believe it can bring many positive changes into ones life. One just have not to abuse it.
Yes, I pulled the numbers out of my ass - just like you did. It's just my opinion and I was just trying to make a point with an example - not hard facts. I never presented it as hard facts.
So don’t be. What you’re saying is that nobody should be able to be in that room, because you know better than they what’s best for them.
You don’t seem to recognize that, at its enactment, drug prohibition had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of literal harm drugs caused to their users. Look up the horrifically racist excuse that was used for making cannabis illegal.
I watched the documentary on blacks and weed on Netflix. I'm not an expert. I have some idea.
I do not care about racism in weed or the past. I'm speaking purely from my own experience. I'm also speaking on weed's influence on my future children. Weed does not exist on a vacuum. It doesn't exist for only users and not at all for non-users.
I don’t think kids having easy access to lots of things is a good idea. However, I think adults having easy access to those same things is fine.
Why would you bring up that straw-man unless you think that you should still be able to control your children’s choices after they become adults? They may be your descendants, but when they are no longer children, you don’t get more than an advisory role in their choices.
Well, I wouldn't have been strongly anti recreational use if I didn't go through what I did.
Extremely high THC products coupled with professional marketing agencies? Yikes. We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.
If we have a weed epidemic then we certainly have an alcohol epidemic too, as well as an obesity epidemic, as well as a traffic accident epidemic, and so on.
Making everything that can be harmful to some subset of the population illegal is not the way to deal with these issues. It's reductio ad absurdum into a totalitarian nanny state that literally controls your diet and makes you drive 25 mph on the highway.
It's not the government's job to make everything that could possibly hurt you if you overdo it unavailable to you.
I agree with you that cannabis can be very harmful to some people, and that the risks are often understated. But if you want to help people who are susceptible in this way, the solution is to help them realize they have a problem, develop self-discipline, and understand that while cannabis may be harmless to many people, for them it is not, and what works for many others (occasional moderate use) won't work for them.
In short, people with this issue should take responsibility, join a 12 step program, and fix the problem in themselves rather than expecting all of society to adapt itself to not trigger their addiction. That you can't use it in moderation doesn't mean no one can, just like there are probably many things you can do in moderation that other people aren't able to.
1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.
2. It's much harder to realize that you're addicted to weed - unlike alcohol. Alcohol addiction is obvious to people around you as well. Not weed. Many weed addicts do not have the self awareness.
3. Weed can be significantly cheaper than alcohol per session - thus consuming more is economical for many. A few drinks at a bar could cost you $100 vs eat a weed gummy for $2 and then go out.
4. Weed addiction takes place over a long period of time. It could take years before you realize the negative effects. It's obvious for alcohol immediately.
> 1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.
Maybe this is a US/Canada thing, but it is deeply untrue in the UK. Cannabis has a terrible image here, as opposed to alcohol. Someone who drinks a bottle of wine a night would not be frowned upon.
I never tell people at work that I consume cannabis, not even people I am friends with, as it leads to all kinds of assumptions and prejudices.
Many millions of people are able to use cannabis moderately and responsibly. If for whatever reason you can't, that's up to you to deal with--there are many resources available that can help. Taking it away from everyone because you have a problem is not a reasonable solution.
I'm against drug prohibition in general. I think it has been an abject failure. Strong regulation makes sense for the most dangerous drugs (cannabis certainly isn't one of them), but I don't think any drug should be illegal. I don't believe it's the government's job to save you from yourself.
Making a habit of driving 100mph on a motorcycle will probably kill you about as quickly on average as either of those drugs, and is more dangerous to other people to boot. Should motorcycles therefore also be illegal? If not, why not? If the goal is to stop people from hurting themselves, why are you only focused on one particular way that people can hurt themselves?
We have laws preventing 100mpg speeds on any vehicle. We also have laws that govern how a motorcycle should be driven.
The government can't ban everything that has a risk of death. You could die if a tree falls on you randomly. The government isn't going to ban trees. It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US.
Are you a software developer or work in tech? There are millions of things you can do to improve your product but you always prioritize the most important ones first, right? Best bang for the buck. And you'll likely never reach the improvements at the bottom of the list.
A law against 100mph speeds on a vehicle is not a corollary to drug prohibition--it's banning the use of vehicles completely.
"It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US."
Considering that cannabis kills exactly no one, you seem to be arguing against your own point here.
At 75% of the US population obese and a cost to society in the billions, that's no longer "some subset of the population".
It's long past the point of "people with this issue should take responsibility".
If you enjoy weed, and I think that's fine if you do, you should be able to forsee a future where the weed industry in a capitalist system with few regulations ends up in the same position as the food industry: having created highly addictive and unhealthy products to the point of causing massive and lasting damage to society.
It would be better to smartly regulate early on and avoid the disaster and the predictable overreaction as a result. It is hard to smartly regulate. But worth the investment if you want to continue enjoying something.
And smart regulations don't require a nanny state as you implied. You can still choose to smoke cigarettes. But smoking has declined from 20.9% of adults in 2005 to 11.5% in 2021. Thanks in part to smart regulations and higher taxes.
At the very least we should be willing to tax harmful substances at the same rate at which they cost society.
That's not a nanny state. That's just fair. Why should I pay a part of your choice to smoke cigarettes?
> We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.
Whatever it is, it's been underway for long enough for the pot-parade of horribles to manifest itself. Heavy weed smokers are all over - but we aren't surrounded by ruin that is clearly attributable to pot.
If you have extra concern to invest, may I suggest one of our most pressing psychological catastrophe?
The criminalization of childhood growth (adult-free time) and the erasure of critical free range land. We've brought complete ruin to childhood and parenting in just two generations. Whatever you think pot is doing, this is actually far, far worse.
Track the timeline of your personal evolution on this topic as you progress in your journey. I'm a bit more than a week ahead of you, and I'm coming to see the problem as high THC content. Low THC (<10%) and high CBD may mitigate your (justified) concerns about recreational use. Of course as it's become legal in more places, Big Industry is showing its perpetual tendency to create higher potency strains with more addictive potential. Stay tuned..
Nvidia never went into cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies went into Nvidia. Nvidia actively tried to sell GPUs to gamers instead of crypto people because crypto people will flood the used GPU market when the bubble inevitably pops every single time.
Nvidia isn't abandoning the consumer GPU market. They're still the leader by far. The consumer GPU market has actually been declining for nearly 20 years now.[0] They should not invest more into a declining market.
>Nvidia sold dedicated crypto mining cards. It definitely did went into crypto.
They crippled normal GPUs and sold them to miners. They did this because once the crypto bubble pops, the used GPU market won't be flooded.
>They are charging non-competitive prices for their consumer GPU market. This is opening the door to more competition.
Ok, so what? All companies do this when they're the leader.
>The desktop discrete video market is not the same thing as the consumer GPU market. You are ignoring a huge sector of integrated GPUs and mobile GPUs.
Nvidia does focus on laptop GPUs. It's much bigger than desktop discrete GPUs. Nvidia doesn't have a way to get into phone GPUs because they're tightly controlled by Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek. That's why they tried to buy ARM.
They usually sell crippled GPUs to the low end of the market. That's a segment of the market they no longer really serve. They also didn't do anything to hide the fact that their GPUs were really being sold to miners and not gamers, something they got fined doing.
Their leadership is going to be transitory since they are not being competitive. Intel would never had entered the discrete GPU market if nVidia keep prices low. Lack of mobile GPUs and integrated GPUs is a red flag that they're charging too much money. Discrete laptop GPUs is a niche of the market. It is not what most laptops use.
>They usually sell crippled GPUs to the low end of the market. That's a segment of the market they no longer really serve. They also didn't do anything to hide the fact that their GPUs were really being sold to miners and not gamers, something they got fined doing.
1. Low end GPUs have extremely small profit margins. It's smart business decision to not lower prices in a declining discrete GPU market. Business 101.
2. Nvidia did not sell GPUs directly to miners. They had no control/no way of verifying what the GPUs will be used for. And who cares if they sold to miners? It's just business at the end of the day - free market.
>Their leadership is going to be transitory since they are not being competitive. Intel would never had entered the discrete GPU market if nVidia keep prices low.
Their leadership is extremely competitive.
Nvidia prices GPUs at the price the market is willing to pay. It has nothing to do with "greed" that you seem to be suggesting. Business 101.
Intel needs to enter the GPU market because AI runs on GPUs as well. It's both gaming and AI. Intel needs to be in the AI market or they're toast.
>Lack of mobile GPUs and integrated GPUs is a red flag that they're charging too much money. Discrete laptop GPUs is a niche of the market. It is not what most laptops use.
No clue what you're talking about. Cite the source for lack of mobile GPUs? You mean laptop GPUs right? Nvidia doesn't make SoCs for phones or laptops.
Discrete laptop GPUs outsell discrete desktop GPUs. While it's not what most laptops use, it's still a much bigger than desktop GPUs.
1) That's the point. A cheap GPU for low-end gamers. Pursuing profits over expanding your business is a bad idea in the long-run.
2) They did, and more importantly did not try to stop it from happening. They could have banned bulk sales or whatever. Through inaction, they created huge shortages.
At the end of the day, their advantage is really via a few things: software support and somewhat more advanced technology. Few people really cares about the actual hardware behind their gaming rigs. In places like game consoles, nVidia already lost a lot of ground because they weren't willing to cut costs.
I think Airbnb has gone way beyond its original intended mission. I live in a fairly luxurious large condo building. On my floor, there are about 12 apartments. At least 9 of them are Airbnbs. I feel like I'm living in a hotel with constant tourists and locals booking to throw parties.
The crazy thing is, I suspect that a lot of landlords don't actually know that people who rent the apartments are using it as Airbnbs.
"Nah we were on it just trusting in the growth plan which hasn't come through. It's all good I know how to grow this business. But gotta get costs in line first."
Cinebench R24 ST[0]:
* M3: 12.7 points/watt, 141 score
* X Elite: 9.3 points/watt, 123 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 5.36 points/watt, 120 score
* AMD HX 370: 3.74 points/watt, 116 score
* AMD 8845HS: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
* Intel 155H: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
Cinebench R24 MT[0]:
* M3: 28.3 points/watt, 598 score
* X Elite: 22.6 points/watt, 1033 score
* AMD HX 370: 19.7 points/watt, 1213 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 17.7 points/watt, 602 score
* AMD 8845HS: 14.8 points/watt, 912 score
* Intel 155H: 14.5 points/watt, 752 score
PCMark did a battery life comparison using identical Dell XPS 13s[1]:
* X Elite: 1,168 minutes, performance of 204,333 in Procyon Office
* Intel Ultra 7 256V (new): 1,253 minutes, performance of 123,000 in Procyon Office
* Meteor Lake 155H: 956 minutes, performance of 129,000 in Procyon Office
Basically, Intel's new chip has 7% more battery life than X Elite but the X Elite is 66% faster while on battery. In other words, Intel's new chip throttles heavily to get that battery life.
Intel's new chip is using TSMC's N3B in the compute tile, same as M3 and better than X Elite's N4P. I'm still here.------
[0]Data for M3, X Elite, AMD, Meteor Lake taken from the best scores available here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
[0]Data for Core Ultra 7 taken from here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-14-UX5406-lapto...
[1]https://youtu.be/QB1u4mjpBQI?si=0Wyf-sohY9ZytQYK&t=2648