Same behavior from Intel, using MBA tricks instead of innovating.
[1] Intel "'Forgot' to Mention 28-Core, 5-GHz CPU Demo Was Overclocked to such an extreme that it required a one-horsepower industrial water chiller" https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-cpu-5ghz,372...
[2] Intel decides Cinebench "which has a really niche usefulness" in their Tiger Lake presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHBgb9SY1Y
[3] Intel allegedly paid manufacturers "rebates" to limit their purchases of AMD, ended up paying $1.25B to AMD and $1.45B more to the EU for the antitrust practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
From the article:
Intel’s explanation for why AMD CPUs lose so much performance
on battery is that the systems wait for 7-10 seconds before
engaging turbo mode
... the settings that control the amount of time before turbo
modes engage and the overall performance delta between AC and
DC power are settings that the OEM controls, not AMD.
... Intel’s five comparison systems for itself came from MSI,
Lenovo, Intel itself (in the form of a laptop kit), and two
from HP. Intel is drawing on a much wider range of manufacturers
for its own systems. I don’t know anything about the NUC laptop
kit - haven't had the opportunity to test one - but I would have
preferred the fifth system be a standard commercial comparison,
and the AMD systems should have been drawn from an equally diverse
pool of hardware as the Intel ones were. There are four
manufacturers represented for Intel, and two for AMD.
...
When Intel gave its presentation, it made a point of calling
out the fact that Cinebench R20 doesn’t show the same behavior
as the other benchmarks it had chosen to highlight.
The "oddly" is straight-up FUD. Cinebench R23 also doesn’t
show the 30-48 percent pattern of decline Intel claims. Neither
does Corona Render. Neither does Handbrake. Neither does
JetStream 2. Neither does Blender 2.90. Neither does the
Blender 1.0Beta2 benchmark (not shown, but I ran it).