I’m personally very interested in the “Low Power Island” and it’s efficiency cores for it’s efficiency cores.
S0 standby is pretty rough on high end high power laptops like my Thinkpad with it’s 11th gen i9. I sometimes have power drain higher in standby than just normally on. If Windows is smart it could turn off all cores but the E E-cores and maybe make modern standby not so much worse than S1-3 standby.
The Low Power Island also has DLVR finally, but sadly the rest of the CPU doesn’t.
Or maybe we could just maintain good old traditional sleep? Not like you want your laptop to be a phone with push notifications and alike
Don’t you? Instant wake is hella useful, especially if you are using a laptop as a laptop and moving between meeting rooms etc, constantly bumping between sleep and wake.
S1 sleep was as fast to resume as S0 standby.
Instead I get 30+ seconds to wake from sleep, 1% battery drain per minute, and the random chance that it just overheats in my bag and crashes. At least on my Surface Pro and Intel U series laptops it’s tolerable, but I’d much rather S1 standby for 30 minutes, S3 standby for 4 hours, before finally hibernating. Instead I currently get buggy S0 for 15 minutes, and hopefully it makes it to complete hibernation after that.
Yeah windows standby sucks. On platforms where the equivalent of s0 doesn’t suck, it’s awesome.
Oof, felt that, my thinkpad overheated in my backpack while i was dualbooting, it was that hot so my backpack almost combusted
Man, this is why my work laptop does that. It is an all around POS so I chalked this problem up to that. I didn’t know that MS deliberately broke sleep. With this knowledge I’ve learned how to go back to regular sleep.
Exactly, with modern CPUs and ssd there shouldn’t be the need to have PCs that sleep with an eye open.
This is because it’s the first client processor to be made using chiplets instead of a monolithic design.
Wasn’t AMD already using chiplets for their CPUs?
Amd’s chiplets are different from Intel’s.
AMD’s chipltets are discrete “modules” that are physically separate from each other.
Intel is trying to make an almost monolithic die, but using distinct chips sitting directly next to each other with (I believe) an almost direct link.
AMD’s chiplet design isn’t very good for low power low load uses (like laptops) while Intel’s approach should be much better for laptops. Sapphire rapids is closer to AMD’s chiplet design, but dear god do those CPUs use a lot of power.
Honestly I see little difference, the parts of the cpu are divided differently and Intel’s are closer and designed to have more modularity overall, but still declaring it to be the first made using chiplets is basically not true.
I’m not bieng an AMD fanboy here, I just don’t like when company boast/hyping goes too far.Who’s saying it’s the first attempt at chiplets? It’s not even Intel’s first attempt, that would be sapphire rapids more recently, or those old awful pentium extreme dual “cores” that were almost literally two CPUs glued together.
In the article, the bit I quoted in my top post.
deleted by creator
