9 ms·
Rather than the Hackaday article, which doesn't add anything to the original, here's Jeff's actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B7oI0FYqo https://w
by anticorporate 1mo ago
Rather than the Hackaday article, which doesn't add anything to the original, here's Jeff's actual video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B7oI0FYqo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B7oI0FYqo
and post:
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/excited-for-intel-efficiency/ https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/excited-for-intel-eff...
- e12e 1mo agoThank you - especially for linking the article.
- xnx 1mo agoSounds like a good option. Still having fans keeps it way behind the Neo in my mind.
- ben-schaaf 1mo agoGiven how appalling the thermal throttling behaviour is on the Neo - sustained workloads can lose up to 50% performance, making it substantially slower than an M1 Air - you should instead be asking for a fan in the Neo.
- xnx 1mo agoFans are a good addition if they only activate during peak load, but my experience with Dell is that the hardware and firmware design is so poor that the fans always operate at near full speed.
- aurareturn 1mo agoDid Jeff Geerling get paid to post misleading headlines and reviews on Intel vs Apple? He's basing this on his own "super computing benchmark" measuring only FP64 performance. Meanwhile, any normal person using these $600 laptops will never run FP64 supercomputing tasks on the CPU. He also only showed perf/watt in this one benchmark but skipped the fact that Apple Silicon is significantly faster. Obviously, all this efficiency is on the low end—the laptop only achieves a little over 120 Gflops, while Apple's faster M3 and M4 Macs are pushing through up to 1.2 Teraflops. I can't believe this crap is getting upvoted. Hopefully this guy loses all his credibility going forward. This kind of post is seriously misleading and smells like like an undisclosed sponsor review.
- shuwix 1mo agoIf the result isn't what you want it to be ... it's undisclosed sponsor review. If it's utter Apple shill bullcrap like Geekbench, caught 100x rewriting results in favor of Apple (for what rea$on it'$ not hard to figure out), it's perfectly OK because it supports what you believe in.
- mmcnl 1mo agoYou're completely right. Power draw scales non-linearly with clock frequency. Therefore one can easily increase perf/W by lowering the clock frequency, at the expense of performance. This is not new information, this is basic physics. The Apple M-chips were not revolutionary because of their efficiency, but because they were (and still are) efficient AND fast. In fact the fastest consumer chips on the market. So agreed, this is extremely misleading.
- wasfgwp 1mo ago> faster M3 and M4 Macs are pushing through up to 1.2 Teraflops. That Intel chip is competing against the A series in the Neo. To get to M you need to spend at least 50% more (and there are considerably better Intel chip in laptops at that price range as well) Also benchmark performance hardly matters for people buying laptops like this. It just has to be fast enough and not lag when running a handful of apps and have decent battery life (which presumably is the case here)
- aurareturn 1mo agoAlso benchmark performance hardly matters for people buying laptops like this. It just has to be fast enough and not lag when running a handful of apps and have decent battery life (which presumably is the case here) Even you're fooled. The A18 Pro is 50% faster in ST and maintains the ST while being fanless. The Intel chip will throttle almost immediately. The difference in efficiency is 3-4x.
- denismi 1mo ago> This is like saying my Intel Pentium 3 matches Apple M5 in perf/watt ... if it was within orders of magnitude of being true, perhaps.