D13H4RD

I think I've heard of that before

Same here. I can actually reduce Intel's penchant for chugging down watts by messing with the power plans, but I think what makes this complicated is that many Windows laptops actually have TWO places where you can toggle power settings; the slider and whatever is inside the OEM-provided utility (if it isn't in Power Plans in the Control Panel). The latter might actually have more of an impact in performance/battery life. On my Lenovo for example, setting the Vantage power plan to "Intelligent Cooling" and the Windows slider to "Better Battery" net me an average of 4-5 hours off the charger. Plopping it to "Power Saving" in Vantage extended it to 6-7, sometimes 8.

I think that just downloads the driver on its own, but doesn't install them without user consent.

The power plans look like this on my end Meanwhile, on Vantage...

Same for me with my desktop. I once updated my chipset driver and I've been getting BSODs about 1-2 times a month out of the blue for seemingly no reason. After failing to fix with known culprits, I went on ASUS' website and downloaded the latest certified chipset driver for the TUF X570, which was older. Low and behold, it fixed it. So I'm staying on this chipset driver probably forever.

So it's the same as my Slim 7i 13, especially if they're all in Vantage. Makes sense considering that every Windows laptop I've seen so far from the major manufacturers have some sort of OEM-provided utility integrated into the system. I think the heaviest load one can reasonably expect to run on battery is probably photo-editing via Photoshop or Lightroom. I think their nature of being rather bursty just so happens to fit with Intel's boost philosophy. Video-editing, rendering and whatnot, I feel like either would probably be done when it is hooked up to external power, regardless of platform due to their nature of being sustained, and the battery probably wouldn't last for longer than an hour regardless. I thought I'd mention this as it's interesting. I'm using my S7i 13 right now to type and read all of this, and the power plan is set to conserve energy as much as possible without adversely affecting perceived performance. The 1135G7 hovers around 1.1-1.6GHz and average power consumption seems to be about 10W or lower. I honestly didn't notice any perceived dip in performance to a degree where I may go "This is unusable".

To answer one of the questions that one of the source posed, in what should be done moving forward...I think the answer is obvious? Test laptop performance both plugged and unplugged. Who knows? Might be useful to some people.

I'm actually quite interested to know how my system properly fares in real-world photo editing. I've mostly been using my desktop because I never had an opportunity to use my laptop for photo-editing much outside of some real-estate stuff, where it fared pretty well. The benchmarks seem to indicate that it should fare pretty well even on battery due to its nature of being quite bursty, but I'd like to test it out for myself.

Which is why I find it perplexing how people like Linus continue to vouch for them even though the community seems to have agreed that they aren't very good laptops on the long run. Funnily enough, I picked the Slim 7i 13 specifically for a few metrics, notably the performance in Photoshop and the QHD screen plus the small size. It's a nice laptop, all things considered, if a little plain.

Wouldn't surprise me. I find Razer laptops overhyped and riddled with issues.

It's definitely very situational. The only time where I can see this being beneficial is for my specific use-case, which is on-the-go photo editing on Lightroom and Photoshop. For most situations, I think the performance drop isn't that significant when it comes to perceived performance, although some have complained that the Razer Blade 14 drops performance off to the point where Windows felt sluggish, but I doubt this is the case for the majority of laptops out there. Could be specific to Razer.

I actually did a test on my Lenovo after I read about it. it's not very detailed, though, as it just involves a single GB5 run, but I did find some interesting, yet expected results. This was on "Intelligent Cooling" (Balanced) with the Power Mode set to "Better Battery'. There is definitely a small drop off in performance when unplugged, although interestingly, the delta doesn't change that much when the Power Mode is set to "Best Performance".

Yeah, same thing on my Ryzen desktop. Came with the chipset driver. IIRC, I think those plans are better tailored for the way Precision Boost works, at least on the desktop. Might differ on a laptop. I could test on 2 identical laptops, one on AMD Cezanne, and one on intel Tiger Lake, if possible.

I'm actually curious about whether these power plans exist on a Ryzen laptop. On my Lenovo Slim 7i 13, the only Power Plan in Windows is Balanced. My best guess is that the power plans are relegated to Vantage, where the power plans are there, albeit in different names ("Extreme Performance" for high-performance, "Intelligent Cooling" for balanced, and "Battery Saving" for power-saver). I'm not exactly sure how much the Ryzen laptop differs in that regard.

Don't use Avast

With Ryzen 4000? I think there was several months ago. This one's about 5000

Pretty much. I don't think either philosophy is wrong, necessarily, just a bit perplexed as to why there isn't much information on this until recently. Especially the SSD throttling as that bit is new.

If you've been keeping track of Intel's notoriously petty and face-on-ground marketing, especially for Tiger Lake-based systems (especially when it came to the "Evo" branding), you'd probably see a slide not unlike the one below, where Intel was claiming AMD gets its battery performance claims because it's putting a muzzle on how fast it can go when away from the charger. This was on a Zen 2-based Renoir APU, and Intel rather cheekily (and quite obviously) left out the fact that its boost behavior does result in higher battery drain during such periods. Now though, with a brand-new lineup of Zen 3-based Cezanne APUs and lots of high-end designs that utilize the best of AMD, one question that some have is whether boosting behavior has been tweaked? Well, it hasn't, not by much anyway. Tests by Gordon Ung noted that while the Ryzen 5800U has shown to smoke the Intel Core i7 1185G7 in many tasks, many of which were while the laptop is connected to AC power. When running on battery, the script does flip, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. The delta isn't massive when in the "Best Performance" preset, with around a 20-25%-ish performance delta between plugged and unplugged, though the delta between plugged and unplugged when on the "Better Battery" preset is quite significant, though perhaps not entirely unexpected. It's also worth noting that the Intel machine doesn't keep that performance for nothing, as it does chug down quite a lot more watts in bursts in order to maintain that level of performance when off the charger. Interestingly, Daniel Rubino of Windows Central noted that the SSD is also throttled when on battery, due to a feature called PCIe Speed Power Policy (PCPP). My thoughts (this is going to be a long one, but you all need to read this!) The big question that I'm sure many would be asking right now is "Is AMD wrong in doing this?" And the answer is a big straight-up no. What AMD is doing is effectively not that much different from many older laptops, where off-charger performance is significantly hampered in an effort to conserve energy, particularly as processors of that era have not reached the level of performance-per-watt that current-generation designs have managed to achieve. In fact, some of the bench graphs show that Intel does also throttle performance a bit when off the charger, particularly in lightened workloads. And it is definitely worth noting that while these charts do indeed show a drastic drop-off especially in the "Better Battery" mode, it is important to note the context, in which these involve ultra-portable low-wattage laptops. It's more likely that a user would be doing tasks like browsing the web or doing document work on such a machine, where the additional responsiveness of Intel's boost behavior may not be as apparent, but battery saving measures, even at the cost of performance, may be more appreciated. Even Gordon makes that case in his article. Neither AMD and Intel have a straight up "wrong" strategy here, moreso that they are very different. Intel is very clearly focused on responsiveness at the expense of outright efficiency, whilst AMD is perfectly happy to ease off the pedal significantly in order to gain more work-per-watt. Depending on your priorities, you might find one or the other more appealing. With that said, here is where I get a bit more opiniated and personal. While I perfectly understand each company's reasoning for what they're doing, I am disappointed that there is no real way to fully adjust the way they behave through Windows' power settings. Intel's power consumption spikes are significantly calmer when in "Better Battery", but not usually by a big amount, whilst AMD's performance improves in "Best Performance", there's no real way to fully lift off the muzzle if, for whatever reason, you need all the CPU performance off-the-charger to finish off some work, such as editing photos on Lightroom. While neither philosophies are straight-up wrong, I'm disappointed that I can't really have the option of straight up gimping performance significantly when I need to conserve my watts, or going full-ham on battery when I need to finish off that landscape photograph on Lightroom. Sources Tested: Is Ryzen 5000 battery performance really that bad? Some AMD laptops reduce system performance for better battery life, but is that OK?

I did, mostly because I've lost interest in gaming as a whole. It's got a lot to do with the commercialization of the gaming industry. Many of the newer games just don't seem as fun or engaging as before. Robert Kotick and Andrew Wilson might as well be the Robert Iger of videogames, in the sense that their respective companies have experienced such major financial growth during their tenure but at the expense of sheer creativity and wanting to take risks. Of course, it's much more than just Kotick and Wilson as it's the entire corporate structure of the company and their studios that has led to this.

The problem with this argument is that managing a Fortune 500 level corporation isn't a single person task. It's a heavily team-driven effort, along with several sprinkles of corporate structuring and whatever. Dr. Su has made a number of clever decisions during her tenure, that much can't be denied. But it is silly to credit AMD's comeback just down to her. For one thing, their team of engineers have managed to release a product that was by far and away much more competitive than the dismal Bulldozer and could iterate on it to deliver gains every generation. External forces are also at play, such as Intel's 10nm stumbles. The tech community has an unhealthy habit of crediting or discrediting an entire company's efforts to just a single individual. Ryzen isn't the product of Dr. Su. It is the product of a engineering team that we never really hear much of.

2019 is over there Which is also where you'll find the gravestone for this shitty meme