competes???? in what universe?

have looked at perf per W?

Anecdotal evidence, but I do know that my 12th gen Intel can burn through 10% of battery in 10 minutes. That is to say that Intel is doing really poorly in power consumption.

> power consumption

It really depends on the model. I see, for example, Kaby Lake Y models with a TDP of 4.5W . Though, in general, yes, many report that Intel is not taking power consumption as a priority (which does not mean that they do not offer niche "ultra/extremely-low power" products).

Will the renegade snipers make their point explicit.

I can't explain the downvotes, but for what it's worth both Apple and AMD offer far more power for the same TDP when talking about low-wattage parts, do they not? Thats the whole benefit of TSMC's process advantage (and also why Nvidia also moved to them from Samsung this generation). In practice of course, to get the performance uplift consumers expect, AMD and Intel and Nvidia are all pushing TDPs to the limit where they can, but for products that want performance-per-watt, the TSMC-based ones are king, from what I've seen.

That said, it's all a moving target, and anyone who thinks Intel isn't producing good parts today is wrong -- they are.

> AMD

I don't know: if you check graphs such as

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html

there is intersuccession of Intel and AMD. AMD seems to offer more models, but a proper analysis of their stand-outs and similarities is required to get a proper picture.

TDP is not a good metric to normalize against because it's a thermal design target only tangentially related to power limits. Power limits are generally much higher. For example the AMD stock limits result in a power target that is generally ~40 % higher than the specified TDP. Lots of motherboards will disable that limit automatically though and let the CPU draw as much power as it likes. I don't know how current AMD mobile platforms work, Intel Alder Lake has four or five different power limits. There's an instantaneous power limit, that's like 100 W. Then there's PL2, the short-term power limit (for a few seconds), which is like 30-40 W. PL1 is the sustained limit and depends on the laptop and is set to match the capabilities of the cooling system (or lack thereof) in an Intel-specified range (like 6-25 W). That's typically marketed as the TDP for laptops. There's an additional power limit for the iGPU and something somewhere is doing the divvying up of the currently available package power into iGPU power and CPU power (which doesn't seem to work that well under Linux).

In the current desktop generation AMD and Intel are much closer than in Intel 12th vs AMD Zen 3. That's mostly because 13th gen has pretty much the same limits as before, but is more efficient, while Zen 4 has massively increased the power targets throughout the stack - by 60 to 90 % - to keep up with Intel (plus the marketing advantage of getting through the 5 GHz wall)

E.g. a 5600X had a PPT of 76 W, a 7600X has a PPT of 142 W. A 5950X was 142 W, a 7950X is 230 W.

While they may be powerful, and they definitely are, they’re pushing out quite a bit more heat and requiring a decent amount more power to get there.

Though it’s impressive how much efficiency they’ve squeezed out of that node regardless.

But to say that TSMCs process doesn’t confer large advantages is silly. Intel even uses them for their new discrete graphics cards — they wouldn’t have been able to compete otherwise (among other less interesting business reasons)