either it’s a fan curve tuned for quiet rather than cool, or the thermal is indeed insufficient.
on a sufficiently cooled system like GPD I don’t think you will ever see temps past 90. Like, ever. And during performance-demanding tasks the cores will be around 70, if I remember correctly.
I’m kinda disappointed. However, I have to say that it’s at least better than XPS 9360, which is a plus.
Did you do this plugged in?
Plugged in with battery at 100%.
Huh. I guess there is, I’m way down the list?
The only thing I did that might impact performance was install TLP, but that should get out of the way on line power.
I’ll delete the Geekbench results from this thread then. I’m inclined to delete the rest since they may not be valid, but they seem to make sense and I have no way of knowing.
Sorry for this.
True, and I’m using a really weird kernel, “5.14.0-1004-oem” which is so new that it’s untested, untuned and unproven.
Momentarily spiking to 100 before settling in to the low 80s is expected design for this chip set.
nm is a meaningless number I’m afraid
The transistor density between the 2 processes actually favors 10nm
I’ve really screwed up this thread and reached all sorts of incorrect conclusions.
I’ve requested it be deleted.
I mean, based upon the other benchmarks I remember seeing at tiger like launch, 1165g7 is the king in single threaded performance compared to any laptop sku
So that’s on the money, and given the clocks and IPC are higher than 4th gen, I don’t see why it would be unreasonable to suggest it’s a more performant CPU than 4790k
I really just skimmed the thread, where did you screw up?
https://community.frame.work/t/framework-intel-core-i7-1165g7-benchmarks/9629/10?u=user1209
Some of those geekbench results you see here were from when I was testing an issue I was having with the cpu throttling.
The post in question with links to many of those geekbench scores. What I found out was that the performance of the CPU is heavily dependent on having a powerful enough power supply plugged into the laptop. Those 1650 single core, 5700 multicore scores were from when I had a 90W power adapter plugged into the laptop.
I would be interested in the results of your test if you redid them with a stronger power supply.
There is some anomalous performance behavior going on when the laptop is plugged in and charging with a less powerful power supply. In fact, my on-battery performance was better than the geekbench results you have above there, and using the framework power adapter my scores were inline with what you got. It’s all detailed in that thread I linked above. This might explain your benchmarking results.
There is actually a meaning here.
The smaller the transistors, the less amount of power it uses (at least, to my knowledge), and the less heat it generates.
The density is completely irrelevant. You can stack transistors, even layers. It just doesnt make a lot of sense in the end.
And thus, the 7nm will beat 10nm because it generate less heat and use less power, and therefore pound for pound, 7nm wins. And yes, if you put a refrigerator on top of the 10nm, it also wins.
The nm in the process name don’t relate to any real world measurements anymore. Its just a marketing name at this point. There is nothing in a 7nm transistor that is 7nm long. A 10nm process can be better than a 7nm process from another manufacturer. Its just a name and says nothing about how good or efficient the process is. The fact that tsmc 7nm is more efficient than intel 10nm is nothing to do with its name. It could also be the other way around
Btw smaller transitors a higher heat density. If you decrease the size of your transitor by lets say 50% and double the efficieny you also increase the transitor density by a factor of 4 (size of the transitor squared). In other words you chip only consumes half the power but has double the heat density as before. Things would only get worse if you add more layers and build 3 dimensional. As a result your chip with a higher transitor density is way more difficult to cool at the same total power consumption. Thats one of the reasons why the heat density and total power consumption of modern processors is now way higher than lets say 10 years ago despite being more efficient
Excuse me lol, how exactly do you think we have managed to get such giant core counts in such little packages
You think a modern CPU core count can be constructed on a process node from the early 2000’s and still be the same size package? Nope, not gonna happen, regardless of power draw or heat output(although that also would balloon) the physical size of the chip would be much larger
To demonstrate how meaningless the “nm” is a meaningless number
Do you know the difference between TSMC’s 16nm and 12nm process node? Not much-it’s more akin to intel adding another + to the end of their 14nm process than a true evolution or die shrink
As @_Asic was saying, you cannot compare process technologies between manufacturers
The number can be manipulated in any number of ways and is more akin to a guesstimate than a true measurement
Tons of articles to read on this subject if you care to look
I suggest AnandTech or AdoredTV if you’d like to learn more-TechTechPotato is another good resource(Dr. Ian Cutress of AnandTech runs that channel)
I’m not going to suggest that Intel is god tier or that AMD is god tier, both are great imho-I’m glad Intel is finally moving off of 14nm tho, it was a workhorse but it was time to move on
Another benchmarking point regarding graphics, Unigine Heaven run on the Phoronix Test Suite. Same systems as the glmark2 benchmark but different results…
The Iris Xe defeats even discrete cards here.
My i7-1165 score on PC UserBenchmark
UserBenchmarks: Game 27%, Desk 97%, Work 24%
CPU: Intel Core i7-1165G7 - 82.3%
GPU: Intel Iris Xe - 21.4%
SSD: WDC PC SN730 SDBQNTY-512G 512GB - 203.5%
RAM: Hynix HMA81GS6DJR8N-XN 2x8GB - 95.1%
MBD: Framework Laptop
@Bob_Hollis Seriously dude, throw out those results
User benchmark is complete trash, not a slight against you-just the site
If you want to benchmark your laptop that’s cool, just use reputable tools is all
That’s very solid. I didn’t run it on the 1135G7 but I think the results are somewhat similar.
it is not complete trash. especially since it gives percentiles of the same components you have, so you don’t need a special program to see if your CPU is throttling or whatever. Or, grind away layer by layer the motherboard to see how the optimizations, connections and components they use. (e.g., cheaping out with PCIe 3.0 2 lane instead of 4 lane)
Either that all benchmark is trash, or that none of them are trash. Each benchmark has their specific algorithm and some bench might benefit from certain aspects while some might suffer. The point is to have some common metric to compare to.
Yes…yes it is. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you…UserBenchmark
Find me a reputable reviewer that uses it as a tool
Anandtech doesn’t, LTT doesn’t, GamersNexus doesn’t, HardwareUnboxed actually created a video discussing the weighting changes-this one
Seriously, UserBenchmark IS terrible, the results in no way align with any other reviewer, so either UserBenchmark is the lone voice of reason or its results are badly out of alignment with reality
Here’s another result that is completely unhinged
It would be great to see side by side comparison between i7-11800H and i7-1185G7. Some of the other companies are using i7-11800H.
The 11800H is a 35-45W cpu, the Framework’s heatsink almost certainly couldn’t handle it for any sustained workload- its designed for 28W max.
The i7-1185G7 (as well as i7-1165G7) have much better graphics capabilities, at the cost of more moderate performances on traditional CPU tasks. They are more rounded, better for a wider variety of use cases.
