[thrwawy283]

My understanding is that Intel boosts power so a single core can chew through a program quicker than being inherently energy efficient (performance-per-watt). Most of the time this benefits Intel, because a core will boost-up-then-down quicker over completion of the program than a more efficient AMD processor core.

(This is my layman understanding.)

I solidly believe AMD is the king for efficiency, but I wish I could find better benchmarks showing idle power use for AMD vs Intel (not peak power use). My understanding is that Intel has deeper power states its processors settle into.

I'm surprised someone doesn't artificially limit or undervolt their Intel proc to approach or surpass what we're seeing from AMD. Would it significantly lengthen the total execution time of the program? Would there still be a significant difference in "performance"?

Performance-per-watt is important, and the total amount of power to execute the program. Would this be in Kilowatt/hours?

I want to see how many Kilowatt/hours something like Cinebench consumes on similar AMD & Intel processors, so we can derive the "real computing efficiency".

[wmf]

Besides hybrid cores, Intel and AMD are using the same techniques. They both turbo and they have the same low-power modes. This year Intel is slightly ahead in performance and AMD has longer battery life but next year it will probably be different.

[rocqua]

I believe practical laptop benchmarks show and to have better real-world efficiency. But I haven't kept up very well.