The "170%" number is bogus.

Reducing the power of 890M to 17 W, the same as quoted for M3, would reduce the performance much less than the reduction in power consumption, improving the energy efficiency.

For a valid comparison of the energy efficiency, both systems must be configured for the same power consumption.

Moreover, by themselves those performance values do not prove that AMD is behind Apple in GPU architecture.

The better performance of the Apple GPU could be entirely caused by the much higher memory bandwidth and by the better CMOS process used for the Apple GPU.

For any conclusions about architecture, much more detailed tests would be needed, to separate the effects of the other differences that exist between these systems.

>The "170%" number is bogus.

Actually, it's 253%. I made a mistake assuming the 890M was limited to 35w. It was actually 46w as measured by Notebookcheck.[0]

>Reducing the power of 890M to 17 W, the same as quoted for M3, would reduce the performance much less than the reduction in power consumption, improving the energy efficiency.

That depends. Sure, give almost any chip less power and it will be more efficient. I'm not arguing against that.

The problem with reducing power for the 890M is that it's already slower than the M3 by 26% while using 2.7x the power.

If you give the 890M 17w, yes, it will be more efficient than 46w. It just just be even slower than the M3.

>The better performance of the Apple GPU could be entirely caused by the much higher memory bandwidth

M3's bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s. AMD Strix Point uses LPDDR5X-7500 in dual channel mode so it should be around 120GB/s.

>and by the better CMOS process used for the Apple GPU.

AMD's Strix Point is manufactured on TSMC's N4P. M3 is on N3B, which is roughly 10% more power efficient than N4P. It doesn't explain the huge discrepancy in efficiency.

[0]https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-iGPU-ana...