this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
408 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59474 readers
3041 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Why does desktops lag behind servers which is at 50%??

[–] [email protected] 1 points 36 minutes ago

Businesses make decisions based on money. People make decisions based on vibes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's taken this long for Intel to lose gamer trust.

Intel also have lower power consumption iirc, which is useful for laptops etc.

AMD have the best server chips: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

You have to remember that most people aren't "choosing a CPU" as much as buying a PC. If the majority of pre-build retail PCs have Intel, then the majority of purchases will be Intel.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think Intel is more efficient if their desktops and this one link is anything to go by

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cpu_performance_per_watt

But I'm not up to date on laptop stuff at all so might be wrong

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That's under load. At Idle (which is where your average home PC will spend most of it's time) I think Intel has the edge still.

It's certainly a consideration for a battery device. Watching a video reading emails or staring at a spreadsheet will likely have better battery life than a similar spec AMD device.

We've reached a point where most everyday computing tasks can be handled by a cheapo N100 mini PC.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 34 minutes ago

Actually AMDs mobile parts are pretty good at idle power consumption and so are their desktop APUs. Their normal CPUs, which use the chiplet design are rather poor when it comes to idle power consumption. Intel isn't really any better when compared to the monolithic parts at idle and Intel CPUs have horrible power consumption under load. Their newest CPUs are better when it comes to efficiency than 13th and 14th gen CPU, bus still don't match or even exceed AMD.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I would have to ask for a source on that. I can't really find anything comparing many cpus.

However this video compares top end models on otherwise pretty much identical laptops and amd definitely wins in YouTube playback on battery https://youtu.be/X_I8kPlHJ3M

But if you've got anything to better compare I'm all ears

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

It may well be the case that they're similar or even swapped now. I can see that the N100 is pretty low power compared to the newest low end AMD chips, but then the AMD chips are better in terms of what they can do.

This one reckons they're pretty similar.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10evt0z/ryzen_vs_intels_idle_power_consumption_whole/

This one reckons Intel are better.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32809852

I doubt there's much in it either way. Even if AMD are ahead now, laptops don't get replaced right away, normies replace shit when it fails or is too slow to run whatever shit Google shoehorned into Chrome this year, and the most popular laptops are probably the ones with the lowest sticker price.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

Not entirely sure but afaik their EPYC cpus are good.