Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's what I'm thinking - they make trade-offs to reach peak performance in desktop designs that don't translate optimally to laptops and when you start from mobile designs you probably made the opposite trade-offs - that would be my guess for the discrepancy.


Laptops vastly outsell desktops, so this tradeoff means hurting the majority of your customers to please a small minority. Servers also care about perf/watt a LOT and they are the highest profit margin segment.

Why would AMD choose a target that hurts the majority of their market unless there wasn't another good option available?


The architecture started in desktop space and data center/mobile was an afterthought up until Intel shitting the bed repeatedly. If they redesigned from ground up they could probably get better instructions/watt but that would look terrible if it wasn't accompanied by a perf boost over previous generation. Just like Apple doesn't seem to scale well with more power.


> Just like Apple doesn't seem to scale well with more power.

How do you know this? When has Apple ever given 400w to the M3 Max like the 14900KS can get up to?

PS. An M4 running at 7w is faster in ST than a 14900KS running in 250w+.


I'm pretty sure that M3 Max closely matches the 14900k in ST speeds but using something like 5 - 10% of the power.


Not sure - they had power/thermal envelope in desktop parts and no difference in performance AFAIK.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: