However it's probably the other way around.If you believe the .gb4 output it was running at ~4.7Ghz average for the single core load. Now obviously the result is horribly broken so that doesn't tell us much other than it possibly clocks quite well.
However it's probably the other way around.If you believe the .gb4 output it was running at ~4.7Ghz average for the single core load. Now obviously the result is horribly broken so that doesn't tell us much other than it possibly clocks quite well.
It scores worse on ST than Zen 3 at 800MHz.However it's probably the other way around.
Geez, do companies do this just to punk us? I get really annoyed with geek bench scores on a regular basis.It scores worse on ST than Zen 3 at 800MHz.
Ignore the scoring.
RIP Lakefield
So much for all the fancy graphs Intel showed us while talking about the advantages of hybrid configs in low power products. Hopefully Lakefield was a simple test vehicle, similar to Cannon Lake, and it was not market rejection that resulted in it's early demise.
No, I mean OEMs didn't bother with it. We had the Samsung Galaxy Book S at launch, a Levovo X1 Fold tablet, and a product from Microsoft that never made it to the market.By "market rejection" do you mean poor sales?
No, I mean OEMs didn't bother with it. We had the Samsung Galaxy Book S at launch, a Levovo X1 Fold tablet, and a product from Microsoft that never made it to the market.
RIP Lakefield
So much for all the fancy graphs Intel showed us while talking about the advantages of hybrid configs in low power products. Hopefully Lakefield was a simple test vehicle, similar to Cannon Lake, and it was not market rejection that resulted in it's early demise.
Imagine this chip on desktop with proper cooling. I think Alderlake is going to be a real beast.Efficency is defined by the required power to get a given score in say Cinebench, so far TGL is not as efficent as the competition, either due to uarch, wich is doubtfull, or to the process, or to both, and probably that the process is the main culprit.
www.techspot.com
13k+ even with the monitoring app and constant mouse movementIt's because Techspot didn't undervolt.
It's because Techspot didn't undervolt.
Back on TGL, this chip has a 160W PL2 but on a laptop it doesnt last long and it seems to hoover around 100W if the cooling apparatus is adequate for a 12700 score, wich validate Techspot measurements.
That isn't very good. A 3700x with PPT of 88W can do around 12200.
Of course, because undervolting is to eat on the stability margin, it can pass a few CB runs but it will crash with Linpack and other Prime 95.
FTR once minimal stability is achieved 20 to 30% excess power (depending of the part of the V/F curve) is necessary to achieve robust stability, for servers who are indeed processing critical tasks the margin is even higher and can get up to 40%.
Back on TGL, this chip has a 160W PL2 but on a laptop it doesnt last long and it seems to hoover around 100W if the cooling apparatus is adequate for a 12700 score, wich validate Techspot measurements.
Where do you get the 160W PL2 figure from? maybe for the 11900kb, but the last I checked, PL2 was much lower. I will give you a link when I get home in a few days.
Laptops also use tau and pl1/pl2 in a much more proper manner, with the laptops I have seen following Intel guidance. This means that they should follow TDP values pretty closely.
Note that the only issue with Intel’s PL1/PL2/PLx system is that motherboard OEMs are allowed to override it. Bursty performance that briefly consumes more power is a good thing because it allows work to be completed quicker and allows the chip to get back to sleep.
Also your comment about TGL-H consuming a constant 100W is false. Once tau expires the chip falls back to PL1. Don’t take my word for it: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16680/tiger-lake-h-performance-review/2
I posted the link above, here it is again, the 160W PL2 is mentionned in top of the article :
And it can be checked here in their pics :
![]()
CPU sustained power during CB runs can be deducted here :
![]()
Laptop total power for CPU loading is 172W for 30s and then it stabilise at 124W, now how much time to do a complete CB run.??.
Average CPU power during a run exceed 100W..
In all 3 of the images showing hwinfo, CPU package power was 65W or less with a peak of 103W including during the prime95 stress test. Given metrawatt directly contradicts hwinfo, I would take metrawatt numbers with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Metrawatt appears to measure full system power. That is where your confusion lies.
Performance is very good but not its perf/watt, they better improve their 10nm with ADL if they want to be competitive at the lower end of the power usage.
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2262/bench/27.png
![]()
Intel Core i7-11800H Review: Tiger Lake H45 Put to the Test
The Core i7-11800H is a substantial upgrade for Intel, bringing Tiger Lake designs up to 8 cores, suitable for gaming and mobile workstation systems which compete against...www.techspot.com
Edit : At 70W it does a little over 11000pts, so the guy at Reddit is misleading people, to get 14500pts it should be set at a constant 140W at least...
So that's "peak" power. And how much power does a 5800x have to itself during a CBR23 run, 142w? The fact that we're even comparing a laptop to a desktop is all you need to know about the performance of tigerlake. It's as if AMD have no laptop processors.Besides, duration of the 103W "peak" in HVinfo is 30 seconds according to the measurement at the main, how is that difficult to grasp.?.
