Just to humor you I looked it up - your Xeon W-11955M is the same chip as a consumer 11980HK, which is one of the processors in Anandtech’s benchmark. Same cores, same cache, same clocks, slightly lower TDP limit - the consumer one has a 65W boost configuration. It is the same TGL-H die with (very slight) variations in what feature fuses are blown.
So based on Anandtech’s benchmark you can pretty much extrapolate how that is going to go - slightly lower performance and slightly higher efficiency due to TDP limiting clocks a bit, but same cache, same core configuration, etc mean that it’ll be identical to if you went into bios on a 11980HK and set a lower power limit.
By the way the 11980HK is specifically the chip they called out the M1 Max as being a factor-of-6 more power efficient than. And in fact they said exactly what I just said - that limiting TDP will reduce performance on the 11955M and the perf/W gap will close a bit, but the performance gap will get even wider.
> In multi-threaded tests, the 11980HK is clearly allowed to go to much higher power levels than the M1 Max, reaching package power levels of 80W, for 105-110W active wall power, significantly more than what the MacBook Pro here is drawing. The performance levels of the M1 Max are significantly higher than the Intel chip here, due to the much better scalability of the cores. The perf/W differences here are 4-6x in favour of the M1 Max, all whilst posting significantly better performance, meaning the perf/W at ISO-perf would be even higher than this.
> The m1 max TDP is projected to be 90W. The Xeon is 45W.
That article says that the M1 Max CPU TDP will be ~30W. The 90W figure is for the whole chip, which includes the GPU. The Xeon is just the CPU.
> here's that Xeon beating that 11090HK.
The CPUmark figure is 24092 for the Xeon, versus 23549 for the i9. That's a difference of about 2%. I suspect it's mostly down to statistical error. (Maybe it's also true that the Xeons tend to be put in systems whose other hardware is faster; I can see that going either way.)
Looking at the data in your second link, the performances differ by less than 3%. Looks like paulmd’s assertion that both are the same cpu core is fairly well supported by the data.
We've banned the other account, but you broke the site guidelines badly yourself in this thread, by feeding the flamewar and generally ignoring the rules. It's not ok to do that, regardless of how badly anyone else is behaving. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future. Note this one:
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
And a Porshe is the same as a Kia, just with a few racing features.
>You don’t understand what you’re talking about
So you look at the graph I linked that shows the Xeon model is faster than the consumer I9 chip. And your brain says "the Xeon is slower." Then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Tell me, do you ever stand in a lake and tell people you're dry? Are you in the lake to hide the pee? Do you tell people about the wonders of horse dewormer?
See, the only way your argument works is to compare the M1 to the I9. And despite the Xeon being faster than the I9, as literally and plainly shown in the tests I linked, you keep saying it's slower. ... But then you keep saying they're the same. Reality: it's faster, literally look at the numbers. Your mental gymnastics are amazing. I am not hostile. I have been getting great laughs and relaxation out of you. Yes, that comes at your expense.
> person who tried to explain it to you
By saying wet is dry. I get your explanation. I just see what my eyes tell me. You see blue, your brain says "nah, it's orange."
