On package memory is claimed to be a 40% reduction in power consumption. To beat actual LL by 30%, it means the PL chip must actually be ~58% more efficient in an apples-to-apples non-SoC configuration.
Possible if they doped PL’s silicon with magic pixie dust.
> On package memory is claimed to be a 40% reduction in power consumption.
40% reduction in what power consumption? I don't think memory is usually responsible for even 40% of the total SoC + memory power, and bringing memory on-package doesn't make it consume negative power.
Lunar Lake had a 40% reduction in PHY power use by using memory directly onto the processor packaging (MoP)...roughly going from 3-4 Watts to 2 Watts...
Do you have more information on that? I have a meteor lake laptop (pre-Lunar Lake) and the entire machine averages ~4W most of the time, including screen, wifi, storage and everything else. So, I dont see how the CPU memory controller can use 3-4W unless it is for irrelevantly brief periods of time.
That's peak usage. I don't know how reduced the PHY power usage is when there aren't any memory accesses. For comparison, the peak wattage of Meteor Lake is something like 30-60 Watts.
Intel called it a “one-off mistake”, it’s the best mistake Intel ever made.