porina

My concern here is that copyright law already abused by the holders. I still wonder why generative AI is held to a different standard than humans. As humans, we consume copyrighted content all the time, but we're not prevented from generating works in areas where we have seen copyrighted content, with or without royalties. It is inevitable that seeing those would have contributed however little. As long as the AI system doesn't have perfect memory, how is it any different? That is, it learns the concept of a cat rather than memorises a specific picture of a cat. Systems that require specific and exact knowledge it could make some sense.
 
I look forward to a chatbot not telling me "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

I don't feel we're past needing more than 16GB yet for gaming. Note there's two ways to look at it: 1, can you game at a good level with 16GB. Absolutely. 2, are there scenarios where having more than 16GB can provide a better experience, also yes. It is not a hard cutoff, but a gradual transition.
 
With that out of the way, I guess about 10 years seems a good figure between each shift in capacity. When were we asking is 8GB was enough? Around 2015 perhaps? I think the move to 32 for gaming systems is also driven in part driven by DDR5. If you care about performance, 16GB modules are much better than the 8GB ones, so 2x8GB is not a good option for DDR5.

My concern here is that copyright law already abused by the holders. I still wonder why generative AI is held to a different standard than humans. As humans, we consume copyrighted content all the time, but we're not prevented from generating works in areas where we have seen copyrighted content, with or without royalties. It is inevitable that seeing those would have contributed however little. As long as the AI system doesn't have perfect memory, how is it any different? That is, it learns the concept of a cat rather than memorises a specific picture of a cat. Systems that require specific and exact knowledge it could make some sense.
 
I look forward to a chatbot not telling me "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

My concern here is that copyright law already abused by the holders. I still wonder why generative AI is held to a different standard than humans. As humans, we consume copyrighted content all the time, but we're not prevented from generating works in areas where we have seen copyrighted content, with or without royalties. It is inevitable that seeing those would have contributed however little. As long as the AI system doesn't have perfect memory, how is it any different? That is, it learns the concept of a cat rather than memorises a specific picture of a cat. Systems that require specific and exact knowledge it could make some sense.
 
I look forward to a chatbot not telling me "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Definitely don't listen to me for legal advice! Get someone who knows what they're talking about. In quick Googling it looks like small claims court works a bit differently from higher ones so that may be the disconnect we have here.
 
Edit: given in small claims court each side pays own expenses, that may explain Asus' reported actions more.

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

I missed that it was PATA. That was workable over ribbon cables and the max interface speed was about 1/4 that of SATA.

That's a good point. With a big IANAL there are some factors that leave questions open. This is based on my limited understanding of UK law.
 
Do Asus sell directly? Generally a consumer contract is between a buyer and seller. If a product does not perform as claimed, you go back to the seller, which is not necessarily the manufacturer.
 
The loser of a case will pay the winners reasonable costs. So if Asus needed a lawyer, and they were confident of winning, they could claim the cost back. This might not cover all costs though, I'm not sure how it would work on indirect costs or things that are harder to quantify. So Asus settling could be for one or more of many possible reasons: 1, they were not confident of winning, 2, presumably the entity was Asus UK, and they might not be well set up to fight such a case and just want it to go away as quickly as possible. 3, they may have thought the publicity resulting from this would be worse than settling.
 
The article in OP said it sets a precedent. It doesn't, at least not in a legal sense of the term. I think a ruling from a higher court would be required. The Small Claims Court is probably the lowest tier, meant to be accessible and low cost for "small" disputes.

CrystalDiskInfo as a generic tool for checking drive SMART data. For hard disks, biggest warning signs are reallocated sectors and pending sectors.
 
However if you actually want to test a drive, then you can either go to the manufacturer's tools, or use HDDScan. I find that the easiest to use free tool to do a scan on any drive.
 
There's always a risk of bad areas on any storage device, which if the drive doesn't know about, it can't report it in SMART. If you suspect a disk at all, at a minimum do a full surface read then look at the SMART data again.

ASUS do have a UK store, but the article doesn't mention whether it was bought directly from there.
 
The fact that they settled doesn't set a *legal* precedent, but it does set a precedent - that they are likely to settle similar cases.
 
Unless they have thousands of people all trying to get refunds, I imagine ASUS will probably just do the same thing they did for this case.

That's a good point. With a big IANAL there are some factors that leave questions open. This is based on my limited understanding of UK law.
 
Do Asus sell directly? Generally a consumer contract is between a buyer and seller. If a product does not perform as claimed, you go back to the seller, which is not necessarily the manufacturer.
 
The loser of a case will pay the winners reasonable costs. So if Asus needed a lawyer, and they were confident of winning, they could claim the cost back. This might not cover all costs though, I'm not sure how it would work on indirect costs or things that are harder to quantify. So Asus settling could be for one or more of many possible reasons: 1, they were not confident of winning, 2, presumably the entity was Asus UK, and they might not be well set up to fight such a case and just want it to go away as quickly as possible. 3, they may have thought the publicity resulting from this would be worse than settling.
 
The article in OP said it sets a precedent. It doesn't, at least not in a legal sense of the term. I think a ruling from a higher court would be required. The Small Claims Court is probably the lowest tier, meant to be accessible and low cost for "small" disputes.

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.
 
I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.
Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

When it is faster/cheaper/more efficient/widely supported. Not all are required at the same time but the more boxes it ticks, the more possible it may become.
 
The question at the end of the day is what benefit is there to a user, and at what cost? Apple's M series chips are great - within their niche. Targeted wins are possible, but to truly take over it'll need a broad win without relying on specific areas to look good.

AI stuff? The 3090 could be from people who need big memory but can't afford 4090.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

If a game has a dedicated enough fan base, even if most of game code is server side, the fans can rebuild it from scratch if they have to, to keep it alive.
 
An old example from a simpler time it may be, but. Westwood Studios Earth & Beyond was/is a space based MMO, a spiritual predecessor to Eve Online.
It like games like Blizzards WoW, and D3, had the vast majority of its game code server side, the client was non functional without it.
When EA (fk EA !) bought out Westwood studios, for the sole purpose of owning the C&C franchise, they immediately shutdown Earth & Beyond.
it took many ..MANY years, but a small dedicated group of fans rebuilt the game from scratch using what little info they could get there hands on, and now you can play the fully functional game online again.
 
It would have been nice if this wasnt necessary as the player base most likely would have been much bigger in the years following the official servers demise.
And while games that are good enough and popular enough can always be 'resurrected' with enough dedication from talented fans, forcing publishers to release the code neccesery to maintain private servers or otherwise allow client side solo play is a much desired and needed thing, im all for this.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Financial market analysts don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to tech, even "tech focused" ones. Intel making a massive loss in the lead up to new technology and products is a huge sign of good potential and that's why I would be recommending to invest because you'll miss the boat otherwise. That is obviously not actual financial advice but if you actually know the sector and the technology developments happening then nobody knows better than yourself. I mean that is exactly how I 3x-5x my money on AMD stock, I knew Zen was coming soon, I knew it was tracking rather well and the only direction the stock was going to go was up. Intel is a little different since it's stock value isn't in the actual gutter heh.

I would have been more surprised if Intel announced profits for their Foundry division. They are investing heavily into catching up with TSMC manufacturing, which is fiendishly expensive, even with the generous USA and EU government handout they have been getting.
 
Intel says the 18A process is on track, which is really great news. Intel is leaving behind the notorious 10nm forever delay.
 
I'm more surprised that the investors have been caught by surprise by the news... Isn't the market supposed to "price in" expected news? That's like... their whole job!