forum thread
acer Aspire 14 AI Copilot+, 14" WUXGA Display, Intel Ultra 7 256V, Intel ARC 140V, 16GB LPDDR5X, 1TB SSD, Wi-Fi 6E, A14-52M-72S0 $664.99
$665
$980
32% off
Amazon
AmazonDeal Details
Community Notes
About the Poster
Deal Details
Community Notes
About the Poster
Community Voting
Deal
Score
+4
Good Deal
Bad Deal
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
9 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
IMO, this is a much better deal than either if you can live with a refurb. I purchased this and it was like new.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/26756539...eff4
IMO, this is a much better deal than either if you can live with a refurb. I purchased this and it was like new.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/26756539...eff4
And (not trying to talk down to you) but if you had to google it, you probably wouldn't know (and again not blaming you) that even the slightest reduction in something as simple as '1% lows' can be the make or break a game being playable....especially with the razor thin margins an iGPU offers. 40-50 FPS average is meaningless if you keep dropping into the teens. The 15-20% in extra power can mean those 1%'s aren't in the teens but maybe the high 20's or even the low 30's. Slide show turns into jitters, or even just not a smooth. So certainly "playable" vs not.
And no, "15-20%" power doesn't scale with frames per second x1.15 or x1.20, a common misunderstanding. Not to mention, now the CPU has 15-20% less overhead to attempt to make up for. Imagine adding 15% more horsepower to your car....would be a HUGE step up.
FWIW, one of the main reasons people jump from a U5 to a U7 or U9....is because of the 140V. Just like why the AMD 780M and 880M are so sought after.
P.S. And yes, the 32GB is even more icing on the cake.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
And (not trying to talk down to you) but if you had to google it, you probably wouldn't know (and again not blaming you) that even the slightest reduction in something as simple as '1% lows' can be the make or break a game being playable....especially with the razor thin margins an iGPU offers. 40-50 FPS average is meaningless if you keep dropping into the teens. The 15-20% in extra power can mean those 1%'s aren't in the teens but maybe the high 20's or even the low 30's. Slide show turns into jitters, or even just not a smooth. So certainly "playable" vs not.
And no, "15-20%" power doesn't scale with frames per second x1.15 or x1.20, a common misunderstanding. Not to mention, now the CPU has 15-20% less overhead to attempt to make up for. Imagine adding 15% more horsepower to your car....would be a HUGE step up.
FWIW, one of the main reasons people jump from a U5 to a U7 or U9....is because of the 140V. Just like why the AMD 780M and 880M are so sought after.
P.S. And yes, the 32GB is even more icing on the cake.
15-20% on a GPU is pretty poor scaling for a generation. That was also the FPS difference from benchmarks, not some theoretical improvement based on cores/frequency. That is the ballpark of the difference between a 5060 and a 5060ti so not even a full tier up in GPUs or the difference between a 4060 and a 5060. The 50's series was a pretty meh generation being on the same node as the 40 series. On GPU's there's a lot more scaling in performance between the bottom tiers and the higher tiers because you can just throw more at it and get more performance. A 5080 is over 200% of the performance of a 5060 so no, 20% more GPU performance isn't a big leap.
There's also no good reason why a 15 or 20% scaling would cause a teens 1% low to see something close to a double performance increase to be in the high 20's or 30's. Assuming it was gpu, bound the 15-20% performance would get you a couple of FPS from the teens to maybe the low 20's. If you saw teens to 30+ fps in a specific benchmark it's 100% a memory issue with the 16gbs of ram not being enough for the system memory and for the GPU. Not really surprising if you look at benchmarks comparing a 8gb vs 16gb versions of a card like a 5060ti.
Also the gpu power scaling for integrated graphics typically scales worse in terms of FPS than you'd expect from increases in core counts/clock speed, not better. They are frequently memory bandwidth limited and that typically doesn't improve at all between the chips. The GPU being more capable doesn't mean less overhead for the cpu it means more overhead and more likely to be CPU limited because the GPU can render a higher FPS. The CPU can't "make up" for being GPU limited and CPU performance impacts will be minimal to 0 on GPU limited situations even when talking about massive differences in CPU performance.
15-20% on a GPU is pretty poor scaling for a generation. That was also the FPS difference from benchmarks, not some theoretical improvement based on cores/frequency. That is the ballpark of the difference between a 5060 and a 5060ti so not even a full tier up in GPUs or the difference between a 4060 and a 5060. The 50's series was a pretty meh generation being on the same node as the 40 series. On GPU's there's a lot more scaling in performance between the bottom tiers and the higher tiers because you can just throw more at it and get more performance. A 5080 is over 200% of the performance of a 5060 so no, 20% more GPU performance isn't a big leap.
There's also no good reason why a 15 or 20% scaling would cause a teens 1% low to see something close to a double performance increase to be in the high 20's or 30's. Assuming it was gpu, bound the 15-20% performance would get you a couple of FPS from the teens to maybe the low 20's. If you saw teens to 30+ fps in a specific benchmark it's 100% a memory issue with the 16gbs of ram not being enough for the system memory and for the GPU. Not really surprising if you look at benchmarks comparing a 8gb vs 16gb versions of a card like a 5060ti.
Also the gpu power scaling for integrated graphics typically scales worse in terms of FPS than you'd expect from increases in core counts/clock speed, not better. They are frequently memory bandwidth limited and that typically doesn't improve at all between the chips. The GPU being more capable doesn't mean less overhead for the cpu it means more overhead and more likely to be CPU limited because the GPU can render a higher FPS. The CPU can't "make up" for being GPU limited and CPU performance impacts will be minimal to 0 on GPU limited situations even when talking about massive differences in CPU performance.
The rest of novel speaks volumes....you are suddenly diagnosing ram bottlenecks without knowing the games, hardware, thinking changes to 1% lows are "double performance increases?" Do I also need to fill my blinker fluid?
Feel free to continue this without me.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!