I am curious how the Iris Pro favors against the AMD. Intel is obviously better w/ cpu. The Iris Pro is the best intel has to offer for gpu.
I am curious how the Iris Pro favors against the AMD. Intel is obviously better w/ cpu. The Iris Pro is the best intel has to offer for gpu.
I guess the correct formula to use depends on what performance means. If you only care about the power spent to finish some workload, then the formula would be workload/(total power used). Because the workload is the same, you can use 1/(total power used) (larger is better).
If by performance you mean the rate at which the workload is completed, you can use workload/time. Again, because the workload is the same, you can use the inverse of the time (again, larger is better). This just for the "performance" part. Divided by total power used, you get (1/time)/(total power used), which is equivalent to (total power used)/time.
So the charts are fine if they used it, as ua=42 says they do.
Last edited by cataphract; 01-18-2014 at 02:01 PM.
Well done, tuke81 !
The confusion comes from the term "power consumption". Many people think "power consumption" to be equal to "energy consumption". In fact, the energy consumption is the integral of power consumption over time. Therefore your complaint is more about the fact that you would like to see a conclusion about "energy consumption". On the other hand, the problem with energy consumption comes with workloads that usually run "forever" or at least not with a fixed amount of time e.g., playing a computer game. For the latter, power consumption can be treated equivalent to energy consumption.
Anyhow, it can't be repeated often enough: consuming a little bit more power over a much shorter duration still holds a lower energy consumption.