Intel is committed to providing better performance close to actual use scenarios

Nowadays, when buying PCs, users tend to choose products that are more suitable for them, rather than just pursuing “high performance”. For example, game players can choose desktop computers with super performance, but if you still need this PC to take into account certain “office and learning” needs, then the game is a better choice. < / P > < p > or if the professionals choose productivity tools, the sales department will prefer the light and light version with simple appearance and portable, while the design department needs high-performance PC. Even if the same notebook, due to the difference of the main use scenarios, the focus of each user will be different < / P > < p > no matter what the original intention of users to purchase PC is, the final experience they want to get is roughly the same – in their respective core application scenarios, PCs can output better performance. < / P > < p > because of this, there are all kinds of PC products manufactured around different processors in the market. Rich products can better meet the diversified needs of users, but relatively easy to make people “cross eyed”. If you are not specialized in homework, it seems that only comparing the hardware parameters, it is difficult to determine whether this product is really suitable for you. As a result, when purchasing, we often have several measurement dimensions – brand, first impression, evaluation, evaluation and sixth sense. One of the most comprehensive and systematic is product evaluation. When it comes to product evaluation, we can’t get around it. < / P > < p > some of these “test tools” can be used for more comprehensive scenario testing, some are for single scenario, load or game, and some are inclined to theoretical performance test. < / P > < p > in other words, some running scores can’t reflect the performance of PC in actual scenarios. Therefore, in many evaluation articles, we can see that in addition to the “theoretical performance test”, there will also be software testing, such as using Adobe “family bucket” for photo import and export, video rendering and playback, or professional modeling / rendering software project output and game testing, etc. < p > < p > compared with running score, this part of content is also more concerned by users. Recently, Intel shared its views on Benchmarking at a media conference, saying that Intel is committed to providing users with better performance in practical application scenarios. In terms of benchmarking, Intel is more in favor of better test programs based on real performance and application relevance. < p > < p > Intel listed sysmark25, mobilemark and other testing tools. According to Intel, the reasons for praising such software mainly include the following three aspects: first, the application scenarios of the test tool load have a wide range of users around the world, such as Microsoft’s office software and Adobe’s productivity software; second, the test content is based on real commercial applications; and; Third, it has been put into use for a long time in the industry, and is widely recognized and adopted by enterprises and institutions. Of course, for general users, the recognition of evaluation software such as sysmark25 is obviously lower than that of pcmark. There are many reasons, such as the cost of purchasing, the difficulty of testing, etc. However, in my opinion, with the focus of PC industry gradually turning to user experience and usage scenarios, this kind of benchmark test which is closer to practical application will have higher reference value. < / P > < p > in addition to sharing Intel’s views on benchmarking, Intel also introduces the performance of the lightweight and game books equipped with Intel platform in practical application scenarios. We’ve already shared Intel’s test results for game scenarios, so this time we’re going to focus on the lightweight version. < p > < p > according to Intel, HP envyx360 is the test platform. The comparison model has the same chassis and configuration, and the only difference is the processor model. At the same time, the test for the light version is divided into two scenarios – plug-in and no plug-in. < / P > < p > according to the test results released by Intel: in the benchmark test, the gap between core and sharp dragon platform is very small, basically equal; without plug-in, the performance of core platform is in the range of 20% – 75%. In the actual application scenario test, except for the “ppt saved as PDF” test, the sharp dragon platform has a small advantage, the other two tests are core leading; in the case of no plug-in, the results of light and thin version with core platform are better, with the leading range of 25% – 67%. < / P > < p > subsequently, Intel shared the power consumption and frequency of Core i7 and sharp dragon 7 under the conditions of plug-in and no plug-in, so that we can understand the reasons for the difference in test results. < / P > < p > according to the test results published by Intel, the power consumption of Intel Core i7 is about 13-14w when using the battery, and about 17-18w when it is plugged in; in the same test scenario, the power consumption of the sharp dragon 7 platform is basically between 5-8w when using the battery, and is maintained at about 16W under the plug-in condition. < / P > < p > in terms of frequency, under the same test scenario, Intel points out that core core Rui can reach the level of 3.8ghz, which is close to that of plug-in without power on. The frequency of the Ruilong platform can reach above 4.0ghz under the condition of plug-in, while the frequency of the platform can be reduced to about 2.5GHz without plug-in. < p > < p > through Intel’s sharing, we can see that due to the changes in the use scenarios, the actual output performance of PC is different from the theoretical score. Therefore, with the diversification of PC application scenarios, if users want to have a more comprehensive understanding of PC performance, the performance test of PC is particularly important in practical application scenarios. After all, for the users who only use office software, if you need to wait for a hundred pages of PPT to start up, then the rendering and game performance of PC will be no more significant. < / P > < p > of course, it doesn’t mean that theoretical scores are completely meaningless. First of all, these simple, easy-to-use and free “tools” can give users a general understanding of the performance of their PC; Secondly, compared with the actual workload, even professional testing software such as sysmark, the commonly used scoring software has an important advantage: it is convenient to compare the test results horizontally and vertically, although these run point software may only reflect the performance of the processor in a certain scenario. < / P > < p > What’s your opinion on PC performance evaluation and comparison? How do you view the score of running points when choosing and measuring products? Continue ReadingStraight screen S20! Samsung Galaxy S20 Fe exposure: 1Hz high brush + snapdragon 865