Ryzen 6000 conflicting information from LTT

[gwynbleidd97]

Hi,

 

So I was looking up some Ryzen 6000 videos and found something interesting:

 

These are the specs from the two laptops tested by HardwareCanucks:

This looks a bit odd. How come is the battery life literally double in the H/HS/HX series going from 5000 to 6000 but insignificant in the U series?
Granted the 6000 model tested by HC has a higher res display but it also uses LPDDR5 as opposed to DDR4 on the 5000 model. The panel uses more power for sure but if we take into account the more efficient RAM, the 6000 model should still come up on top with a very clear win but it actually performs slightly worse.

 

Anyone knows what's going on here? who made a mistake with their charts? or am I missing something?

[lewdicrous]

The different tests might have something to do with it.

Battery life varies depending on the task begin performed, so you can't really compare between the two when the testing methodology is not the same.

 

Haven't watched the videos mentioned so this is purely based on what's written on the graphs.

[gwynbleidd97]

9 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Hi,

 

So I was looking up some Ryzen 6000 videos and found something interesting:

 

These are the specs from the two laptops tested by HardwareCanucks:

This looks a bit odd. How come is the battery life literally double in the H/HS/HX series going from 5000 to 6000 but insignificant in the U series?
Granted the 6000 model tested by HC has a higher res display but it also uses LPDDR5 as opposed to DDR4 on the 5000 model. The panel uses more power for sure but if we take into account the highly more efficient RAM, the 6000 model should still come up on top with a very clear win but it actually performs slightly worse.

 

Anyone knows what's going on here? who made a mistake with their charts? or am I missing something?

Found another source that agrees with HC and conflicts with LTT:

 

Not that big of a difference here as well (5900HX vs 6900HS), certainly not double.

[Light-Yagami]

In LTT's video, they're basically stressing the GPU chip on both 5000 and 6000 series, and the GPU chip in newer Ryzen CPU is like.. vastly superior. It wouldn't be hard to believe that it uses significantly less power to do the same job.

 

in Hardware Canucks video, he's stressing the idle CPU power draw and single core power draw, where both CPUs are pretty similar and the differences don't show as much.

 

What you can take away from this is the following  - 6000 series has a GPU that's way more efficient when doing regular daily tasks such as video playback, and power efficiency of CPUs for light usage (5000 vs 6000 series) is fairly similar. 

 

Each youtube channel got results that are objectively correct, though they tested different things. I think LTTs method provides more data than Hardware Canucks method, though I've watched both videos and this small snipped taken out of context does not fault any of them for in-proper testing.

[gwynbleidd97]

4 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

The different tests might have something to do with it.

Battery life varies depending on the task begin performed, so you can't really compare between the two when the testing methodology is not the same.

 

Haven't watched the videos mentioned so this is purely based on what's written on the graphs.

I agree but the 2X claim seems like black magic and I was highly skeptical when I saw that.

 

5 minutes ago, Light-Yagami said:

In LTT's video, they're basically stressing the GPU chip on both 5000 and 6000 series, and the GPU chip in newer Ryzen CPU is like.. vastly superior. It wouldn't be hard to believe that it uses significantly less power to do the same job.

 

in Hardware Canucks video, he's stressing the idle CPU power draw and single core power draw, where both CPUs are pretty similar and the differences don't show as much.

 

What you can take away from this is the following  - 6000 series has a GPU that's way more efficient when doing regular daily tasks such as video editing, and power efficiency of CPUs for light usage (5000 vs 6000 series) is fairly similar. 

 

Each youtube channel got results that are objectively correct, though they tested different things. I think LTTs method provides more data than Hardware Canucks method, though I've watched both videos and this small snipped taken out of context does not fault any of them for in-proper testing.

Fair point. I think they should either specify what's been tested exactly or switch to a better testing methodology. People will be like "OMG It's double the battery life!!!" and will think ryzen 6000 is the new M1 equivalent from AMD when that's not the case.
For a channel with 15M subs and so many staff members, they should do better.

[Light-Yagami]

Just now, gwynbleidd97 said:

I agree but the 2X claim seems like black magic and I was highly skeptical when I saw that.

 

Fair point. I think they should either specify what's been tested exactly or switch to a better testing methodology. People will be like "OMG It's double the battery life!!!" and will think ryzen 6000 is the new M1 equivalent from AMD when that's not the case.
For a channel with 15M subs and so many staff members, they should do better.

That's why I don't watch LTT for CPU reviews in general. For accurate data that might be dry but correct (not saying LTT's isn't, it's just very diluted) and will offer you a very good idea of the general CPU performance, efficiency in different workloads and value - watch Hardware Unboxed or Gamer's Nexus. There are others that also offer objective data in a clear manner, but I stick to there two for accuracy. 

 

And yes - they (LTT) should definitely state that battery life increase only holds true for video playback.. if they didn't state that and claimed double the battery life based on a YouTube playback test, then.. that's false info. 

 

At the end of the day, it's best to look at different information sources to make an educated opinion. Watch an analysis or two and so on.. Channels like TechTechPotato hosted by Dr. Ian Cutress and AdoredTV (technology vision) hosted by Jim, very good industry analyst.. LTT is for the masses. 

[xAcid9]

58 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

This looks a bit odd. How come is the battery life literally double in the H/HS/HX series going from 5000 to 6000 but insignificant in the U series?

I think on newer Zephyrus model (2022) Armoury Crate have this feature that totally turn off the dGPU when you're on battery power. This feature is absent on older model iinm, so the dGPU might not completely go to sleep hence poorer battery life. 

[gwynbleidd97]

19 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

I think on newer Zephyrus model (2022) Armoury Crate have this feature that totally turn off the dGPU when you're on battery power. This feature is absent on older model iinm, so the dGPU might not completely go to sleep hence poorer battery life. 

Could it be the MUX switch thingy? I'm not sure if the ryzen 5000 Zephyrus had it.

58 minutes ago, Light-Yagami said:

That's why I don't watch LTT for CPU reviews in general. For accurate data that might be dry but correct (not saying LTT's isn't, it's just very diluted) and will offer you a very good idea of the general CPU performance, efficiency in different workloads and value - watch Hardware Unboxed or Gamer's Nexus. There are others that also offer objective data in a clear manner, but I stick to there two for accuracy. 

 

And yes - they (LTT) should definitely state that battery life increase only holds true for video playback.. if they didn't state that and claimed double the battery life based on a YouTube playback test, then.. that's false info. 

 

At the end of the day, it's best to look at different information sources to make an educated opinion. Watch an analysis or two and so on.. Channels like TechTechPotato hosted by Dr. Ian Cutress and AdoredTV (technology vision) hosted by Jim, very good industry analyst.. LTT is for the masses. 

The results that I added later from Techtesters look a lot more reasonable and make more sense. There is indeed a not-insignificant difference in power consumption and that explains why AMD is using that in their advertisement material, but it's for sure not 2X lol. It would also explain the graphs from HC, the higher res screen brought the difference to zero.

 

I just wish Gamer's Nexus would do a video on Ryzen 6000. I wholeheartedly agree, Steve and his team are the guys to go to for in-depth reviews and solid testing.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

I agree but the 2X claim seems like black magic and I was highly skeptical when I saw that.

 

Fair point. I think they should either specify what's been tested exactly or switch to a better testing methodology. People will be like "OMG It's double the battery life!!!" and will think ryzen 6000 is the new M1 equivalent from AMD when that's not the case.
For a channel with 15M subs and so many staff members, they should do better.

I mean if you mainly use your laptop for watching YouTube and videos which I know quite a few people who do then yes the jump between the two gens is large. Its testing for video playback battery life which is what their results got and to alot of people it's valuable information. This is why looking at multiple reviews and test methodologies is a good idea to get the full picture. 

[gwynbleidd97]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean if you mainly use your laptop for watching YouTube and videos which I know quite a few people who do then yes the jump between the two gens is large. Its testing for video playback battery life which is what their results got and to alot of people it's valuable information. This is why looking at multiple reviews and test methodologies is a good idea to get the full picture. 

It's misleading information. The power consumption improvements are not 2X generally, they make it seem like it is. If this was Intel, Nvidia or AMD doing the same thing I'm sure Linus will be all over it.

[Brooksie359]

33 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

It's misleading information. The power consumption improvements are not 2X generally, they make it seem like it is. If this was Intel, Nvidia or AMD doing the same thing I'm sure Linus will be all over it.

Generally how? There are a ton of workloads that use the gpu and to say that a pure cpu workload would be a better representation completely disregards the improvement in the gpu with the new 6000 series cpus. You are looking way to far into this as again alot of people would like to know playback battery life is as a lot of people use their laptops to mainly watch videos. 

[gwynbleidd97]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Generally how? There are a ton of workloads that use the gpu

Not only is focusing purely on the iGPU misleading, they take only one part of the iGPU into consideration which is the video decoder. Even the iGPU in this case has more functions than just video decoding for youtube.

 

Quote

and to say that a pure cpu workload would be a better representation

I never said that. They should use something like PCMark to evaluate everything so it's fairer.

 

Quote

as a lot of people use their laptops to mainly watch videos.

I don't know about that one. Youtube and TikTok and all those services are mainly used on phones rather than laptops. Ask yourself why LTT videos are not 16:9.
A laptop is mostly for school/university/work and/or gaming. If you wanna talk about it in the context of gaming then use games benchmarks. If it's productivity use PCMark like I said or something equivalent.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Not only is focusing purely on the iGPU misleading, they take only one part of the iGPU into consideration which is the video decoder. Even the iGPU in this case has more functions than just video decoding for youtube.

 

I never said that. They should use something like PCMark to evaluate everything so it's fairer.

 

I don't know about that one. Youtube and TikTok and all those services are mainly used on phones rather than laptops. Ask yourself why LTT videos are not 16:9.
A laptop is mostly for school/university/work and/or gaming. If you wanna talk about it in the context of gaming then use games benchmarks. If it's productivity use PCMark like I said or something equivalent.

Let me be clear, this is a test of battery life of the machine for video playback. That is info alot of people would want to know and to simply say a PCMark test would have been better is not true as again it's a synthetic benchmark and doesn't really give my any idea of how long the machine would hold out for if it was used for video playback. Also there are plenty of people who watch videos on their laptop. I know tons of people who that is their primary thing they use to watch videos. Also again there are plenty of other reviews out their if you really wanted a pcmark benchmark results. You clearly are way to hung up on the fact that two testing methods can be correct at the same time. There are many different ways of measuring things and to say one is better than the other is hard as often you get different useful data that the other testing methodology wouldn't get. 

[gwynbleidd97]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Let me be clear, this is a test of battery life of the machine for video playback. That is info alot of people would want to know and to simply say a PCMark test would have been better is not true as again it's a synthetic benchmark and doesn't really give my any idea of how long the machine would hold out for if it was used for video playback. Also there are plenty of people who watch videos on their laptop. I know tons of people who that is their primary thing they use to watch videos. Also again there are plenty of other reviews out their if you really wanted a pcmark benchmark results. You clearly are way to hung up on the fact that two testing methods can be correct at the same time. There are many different ways of measuring things and to say one is better than the other is hard as often you get different useful data that the other testing methodology wouldn't get. 

I'd rather not keep going back and forth but you're not understanding my point. PCMark is not a synthetic benchmark like AIDA64 or Cinebench are, you should go try it or read about it for yourself. The whole point of PCMark is to simulate real use cases from a mix of various applications (Excel, a web browser, there's even GIMP...).

You're thinking in a biased manner, just because the people you know use their laptops for videos does not mean that the same applies for everyone. I will refer you again to my point about LTT not having their videos in 16:9.
"pcmark benchmark results" No, I want the PCMark battery life test results, not the benchmark. It's the same tasks but it keeps going until the thing dies and when you boot it back up it tells you how long the laptop lasted.
If I didn't convince you yet I don't think I ever will, so bye.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

I'd rather not keep going back and forth but you're not understanding my point. PCMark is not a synthetic benchmark like AIDA64 or Cinebench are, you should go try it or read about it for yourself. The whole point of PCMark is to simulate real use cases from a mix of various applications (Excel, a web browser, there's even GIMP...).

You're thinking in a biased manner, just because the people you know use their laptops for videos does not mean that the same applies for everyone. I will refer you again to my point about LTT not having their videos in 16:9.
"pcmark benchmark results" No, I want the PCMark battery life test results, not the benchmark. It's the same tasks but it keeps going until the thing dies and when you boot it back up it tells you how long the laptop lasted.
If I didn't convince you yet I don't think I'll ever will, so bye.

You aren't convincing me because you just proved my point. Not everyone uses their laptop the same way as I do or you do so that's what's great about having multiple reviews. Linus has a good video for those who want to know about the battery life is like while watching videos. You probably also complain when a gpu review doesn't include your favorite game as part of their gaming benchmarks as well. 

[Ydfhlx]

Just so you know - the bigger display will use more power, especially since it's OLED, compared to more efficient RAM. So the display likely drags the new Ryzen down in HC testing.

[Light-Yagami]

7 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

I just wish Gamer's Nexus would do a video on Ryzen 6000. I wholeheartedly agree, Steve and his team are the guys to go to for in-depth reviews and solid testing.

Gamers Nexus do not review mobile CPUs, because they can not guarantee consistent data across different notebooks, according to them. They deem that area of testing beyond their scope and won't touch it. 

 

Hardware Unboxed however - Tim does excellent mobile CPU analysis. I dropped some links of videos that will provide very good understanding of the 6000 series in general, high performance parts as well as efficiency parts. I'm surprised you're not familiar with them. 

 

[gwynbleidd97]

3 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

Just so you know - the bigger display will use more power, especially since it's OLED, compared to more efficient RAM. So the display likely drags the new Ryzen down in HC testing.

They're both OLED, one is 2.8K and the other is 1080p and yes ofc it will use more power but you wouldn't expect the display alone to bring a 2X gain down to 1X or more like 0.9X assuming the data from LTT is an accurate measurement for general use cases.

 

1 hour ago, Light-Yagami said:

Gamers Nexus do not review mobile CPUs, because they can not guarantee consistent data across different notebooks, according to them. They deem that area of testing beyond their scope and won't touch it. 

 

Hardware Unboxed however - Tim does excellent mobile CPU analysis. I dropped some links of videos that will provide very good understanding of the 6000 series in general, high performance parts as well as efficiency parts. I'm surprised you're not familiar with them. 

 

I sure know about HU they do an amazing job as well, but they didn't have the 6000 vs 5000 comparison that I wanted (unless I missed it).

[gwynbleidd97]

 

 

Here's even more battery life benchmarks.

Edited December 7, 2022 by gwynbleidd97
Edited to add a second screenshot.

[LogicalDrm]

On 12/3/2022 at 8:53 PM, gwynbleidd97 said:

I'd rather not keep going back and forth but you're not understanding my point. PCMark is not a synthetic benchmark like AIDA64 or Cinebench are, you should go try it or read about it for yourself. The whole point of PCMark is to simulate real use cases from a mix of various applications (Excel, a web browser, there's even GIMP...).

Simulation is not that far from synthetic. It may not be as pure number crunching as traditional stress tests and benchmarks are, but still. Its script that emulates something to make it as re-creatable as possible.

 

On 12/3/2022 at 8:53 PM, gwynbleidd97 said:

You're thinking in a biased manner, just because the people you know use their laptops for videos does not mean that the same applies for everyone. I will refer you again to my point about LTT not having their videos in 16:9.
"pcmark benchmark results" No, I want the PCMark battery life test results, not the benchmark. It's the same tasks but it keeps going until the thing dies and when you boot it back up it tells you how long the laptop lasted.
If I didn't convince you yet I don't think I ever will, so bye.

Why not both? Sure, there will be some inaccuracy, but so will any other testing. Which is why if you read reviews and their methodology, there's something about how many percentages results may vary across the testing scheme.

 

You are pretty much claiming here that LTT faked results to please sponsor, or just pocket some money to sell more of the new variant. But haven't really brought that solid evidence on it. Screenshots of variety of testing methods and laptops hardly shows anything.

 

On 12/6/2022 at 3:52 PM, gwynbleidd97 said:

 

 

Here's even more battery life benchmarks.

And in those 2, having different tests, difference in time is about 2 hours. Plus the top one doesn't have any generational laptops to compare and has different battery sizes, so it only compares different laptops, not hardware in them. Honestly don't know why you posted this pic. If PC Mark is only test you approve, none of these graphs comply.

[gwynbleidd97]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Simulation is not that far from synthetic. It may not be as pure number crunching as traditional stress tests and benchmarks are, but still. Its script that emulates something to make it as re-creatable as possible.

Any test is technically speaking a simulation as well, so by your definition there are no real tests out there because no test will cover absolutely every scenario. That's obviously being pedantic. PCMark is as close as you'll get to a general test that covers a wide range of real applications that stresses different parts of the system in different areas. If you have a better suggestion please do tell.

Quote

Why not both? Sure, there will be some inaccuracy, but so will any other testing. Which is why if you read reviews and their methodology, there's something about how many percentages results may vary across the testing scheme.

Both what? benchmark and battery life test? what's the point of the single-run benchmark if we're discussing battery life?
"some inaccuracy" I think that's a bit of an understatement. The 2X claim was reported by absolutely nobody else.

Quote

You are pretty much claiming here that LTT faked results to please sponsor, or just pocket some money to sell more of the new variant. But haven't really brought that solid evidence on it. Screenshots of variety of testing methods and laptops hardly shows anything.

Lol. Nice of you putting words in my mouth like that. When did I make any of those claims? when did I say they faked results for money? wow if that's not reaching idk what is.
Talk about fanboyism.

Quote

And in those 2, having different tests, difference in time is about 2 hours. Plus the top one doesn't have any generational laptops to compare and has different battery sizes, so it only compares different laptops, not hardware in them. Honestly don't know why you posted this pic. If PC Mark is only test you approve, none of these graphs comply.

Having different tests... yeah? what's your point exactly? the first graph is a test done by watching youtube, just like what LTT did and we never see a 2X anywhere. Compare laptops with the same battery size on that list but with a ryzen 5000 and 6000 CPUs, not exactly a hard task is it? If the 2X claim was true we would see the ryzen 6000 laptops on top of the chart even if they have lower capacity batteries because of the supposedly huge gains (+6 hours according to LTT), even if they win by a smaller margin they should still come out on top. But that's not the case.
The second graph is not watching youtube but it's comparing the exact same laptops from the LTT graph but with around 1 hour difference in battery life, again nowhere even close to a 2X mark.
No obviously I don't only trust PCMark that's ridiculous, I'm just saying it would make a much better test methodology than leaving youtube on. A more varied test with different kinds of load would surely be a better indicator than one specific task. Think about testing the longevity or durability of literally anything else, this should be common sense really.

[LogicalDrm]

3 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Any test is technically speaking a simulation as well, so by your definition there are no real tests out there because no test will cover absolutely every scenario. That's obviously being pedantic. PCMark is as close as you'll get to a general test that covers a wide range of real applications that stresses different parts of the system in different areas. If you have a better suggestion please do tell.

I didn't define anything...

 

3 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Both what? benchmark and battery life test? what's the point of the single-run benchmark if we're discussing battery life?
"some inaccuracy" I think that's a bit of an understatement. The 2X claim was reported by absolutely nobody else.

So. You are saying others are missing your point while either not wanting to understand or not caring about their points. Including mine. My point was, why not have several battery tests. One you think is superior and one that's easier to understand by anyone. Battery test is benchmark. It's benchmarking batter life.

 

3 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Lol. Nice of you putting words in my mouth like that. When did I make any of those claims? when did I say they faked results for money? wow if that's not reaching idk what is.
Talk about fanboyism.

Sorry, I really don't know why else you would be so hung over this. You are claiming they did fake results. But didn't specify on why. My bad.

 

3 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Having different tests... yeah? what's your point exactly? the first graph is a test done by watching youtube, just like what LTT did and we never see a 2X anywhere. Compare laptops with the same battery size on that list but with a ryzen 5000 and 6000 CPUs, not exactly a hard task is it? If the 2X claim was true we would see the ryzen 6000 laptops on top of the chart even if they have lower capacity batteries because of the supposedly huge gains (+6 hours according to LTT), even if they win by a smaller margin they should still come out on top. But that's not the case.
The second graph is not watching youtube but it's comparing the exact same laptops from the LTT graph but with around 1 hour difference in battery life, again nowhere even close to a 2X mark.

The point is that everything matters. But seems like you have made your decision and don't want to have actual discussion. I don't argue that LTT is perfect, and without official response, we won't know whether this was single run or multiple, or whether they do multiple tests, but pick one for the video.

 

Actually, I checked the video. Turns out, it's preview and they do address the results in full review

6:15 mark

Spoiler, GPU matters.

 

My point is that in the longer list there are no good comparison to be made for just which parts have effect on battery life since there's too much variation in the device configs.

 

3 hours ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

No obviously I don't only trust PCMark that's ridiculous, I'm just saying it would make a much better test methodology than leaving youtube on. A more varied test with different kinds of load would surely be a better indicator than one specific task. Think about testing the longevity or durability of literally anything else, this should be common sense really.

I'm trying to find good explanation on how PC Mark works. So far I've come into conclusion that it runs timed test and calculates total life from battery drained during test. AFAIK the way using video or pure gaming is to disconnect dc and continue running until hibernation/shutdown. Also AFAIK LTT films the process with timer to get results.

 

Imo best practice would be to have both.

[gwynbleidd97]

6 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

So. You are saying others are missing your point while either not wanting to understand or not caring about their points. Including mine. My point was, why not have several battery tests. One you think is superior and one that's easier to understand by anyone. Battery test is benchmark. It's benchmarking batter life.

You're not making yourself clear. You said "both" and I asked both what? You didn't actually clarify what you meant still.
By all means have different battery tests, but the way they presented theirs is misleading and like I said people will come to the conclusion that ryzen 6000 will last twice as long in general which is obviously not correct. I even doubt their numbers because the 2X claim, once again, was not reported by any other reviewer (that I'm aware of).
How about you do a youtube test, but also PCMark? or something else as well? do that and people will get a better idea of where the battery life improvements are.

Quote

Sorry, I really don't know why else you would be so hung over this. You are claiming they did fake results. But didn't specify on why. My bad.

I'm not hung over anything. I'm a little bit shocked that a channel as big as LTT would make such a mistake and not recognize it.

Quote

But seems like you have made your decision and don't want to have actual discussion.

That's rich, coming from someone who went all tinfoil hat on me lol.
I'm only presenting a counter argument supported by tests done by other youtubers and there are many. You haven't come up with a strong argument against the numbers from the other channels to be honest. It was semantics and semiotics mixed in with a couple of cheap remarks.

Quote

Actually, I checked the video. Turns out, it's preview and they do address the results in full review

Finally, a good point.

I didn't see that video, so it looks like the AV1 encoder is responsible for that. It's great that they finally gave an explanation for it, cool so 2 points: Why didn't Jarrod's Tech experience the same battery life improvements in his "watching youtube" test as well? (see the first screenshot in the last comment I posted with screenshots)
Alex said that the iGPU is responsible for the hardware encoding so the dedicated GPU by implication seems to be irrelevant here (especially considering they included that result in the Ryzen 6000 dedicated video, it would be weird if the 6800S was responsible for those gains).

Second point, why not preface the 2X claim in the Ryzen 6000 video with "this is not really representative of general battery life" like he did in that video you linked? I found the second video much fairer because they included results from other youtubers and said 11 hours is unreasonable (and it is). If they said that in the first video I wouldn't have made this post. I do believe they should've just scrapped the battery life part in the first video all together and just said "we'll talk about battery life in the in-depth review of the G14". I still stand by my point, which Alex from LTT confirmed in the video you linked. That graph was and still is misleading and should've never been included in the first place.
Since you give me similar vibes to Brooksie in this thead (arguing just for the sake of arguing), I'm just gonna stop it here. Have a good one.

[LogicalDrm]

42 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

You're not making yourself clear. You said "both" and I asked both what? You didn't actually clarify what you meant still.

Both simulated one's since that's what I was responding to. PC Mark and something else.

 

42 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

 

By all means have different battery tests, but the way they presented theirs is misleading and like I said people will come to the conclusion that ryzen 6000 will last twice as long in general which is obviously not correct. I even doubt their numbers because the 2X claim, once again, was not reported by any other reviewer (that I'm aware of).
How about you do a youtube test, but also PCMark? or something else as well? do that and people will get a better idea of where the battery life improvements are.

- -
I'm only presenting a counter argument supported by tests done by other youtubers and there are many. You haven't come up with a strong argument against the numbers from the other channels to be honest. It was semantics and semiotics mixed in with a couple of cheap remarks.

I checked Notebookchecks reviews on Zephyr with 5900HS and 6900HS. They don't use PC Mark either, but in their testing battery life difference is between 10 minutes and 5 hours. Otherwise the configs were close, same sized cell, almost same GPU. So from just that, I still feel like you are blowing this bit out of porpotion.

 

42 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

Finally, a good point.

I didn't see that video, so it looks like the AV1 encoder is responsible for that. It's great that they finally gave an explanation for it, cool so 2 points: Why didn't Jarrod's Tech experience the same battery life improvements in his "watching youtube" test as well? (see the first screenshot in the last comment I posted with screenshots)
Alex said that the iGPU is responsible for the hardware encoding so the dedicated GPU by implication seems to be irrelevant here (especially considering they included that result in the Ryzen 6000 dedicated video, it would be weird if the 6800S was responsible for those gains).

Second point, why not preface the 2X claim in the Ryzen 6000 video with "this is not really representative of general battery life" like he did in that video you linked? I found the second video much fairer because they included results from other youtubers and said 11 hours is unreasonable (and it is). If they said that in the first video I wouldn't have made this post. I do believe they should've just scrapped the battery life part in the first video all together and just said "we'll talk about battery life in the in-depth review of the G14". I still stand by my point, which Alex from LTT confirmed in the video you linked. That graph was and still is misleading and should've never been included in the first place.

First video is preview, he states they have had laptop for 26h at the point of filming A-roll. Why they didn't redo tests, I can't say. But from what I've seen, I don't think results would have been that different.

 

There are several variables with any battery life tests. With PC Mark 8 vs 10 being huge, but that's more beside the point.

 

42 minutes ago, gwynbleidd97 said:

 

Since you give me similar vibes to Brooksie in this thead (arguing just for the sake of arguing), I'm just gonna stop it here. Have a good one.

Maybe. I mainly came to poke holes on your weaker arguments and general misconceptions on testing methods.