Video summary

Why 3 different core types in this laptop computer

Main summary

Key takeaways

Technology

Laptop Reviewed (Sponsored by Geekom)

  • Model: Geekom Geekbook M16
  • CPU: Intel Core Ultra 9 185H (with “three core types” behavior)
  • Chassis & basics:
    • Aluminum chassis
    • 16-inch display at 1080×1200
    • 16GB RAM
    • 512GB SSD
    • Upgrades available (RAM/SSD/display) for an additional cost

Key Technological Concept: Intel “Three Core Types” Behavior

The Intel Ultra 9 185H uses:

  • Performance cores
  • Efficiency cores
  • Low power cores

Windows core scheduling quirks (important finding)

  • The reviewer couldn’t reliably force tasks onto logical core 0; Windows treated it more generically.
  • Low power cores (two of them) were basically not used unless explicitly targeted (e.g., by specifying core numbers such as 20 or 21).
  • This suggests Windows is not fully adapted to this heterogeneous core setup.

Benchmark Methodology & Results (Core-by-Core Analysis)

Integer benchmark (forcing workload onto specific cores/logical cores)

  • Windows showed a progression of observed speeds:
    1. First “fast” cores
    2. Slower efficiency cores
    3. Two very slow low power cores
  • Hyperthreading effects were noted as part of how cores were grouped in the test.

CRC benchmark (computing CRCs on multiple buffers concurrently)

  • Single buffer:
    • Performance difference between performance vs efficiency cores was only ~10%.
  • Multiple buffers in parallel (more “pipeline friendly”):
    • Performance cores pulled ahead more than efficiency cores.
    • Efficiency cores remained ~half as fast as performance cores at best.
    • The reviewer notes this gap is smaller than in an older Intel i9 Ultra comparison (previous generation had a larger efficiency gap).
  • Hyperthreading was disabled in these comparisons (one task per physical core).
  • Two tasks sharing hyperthreads together could reduce performance slightly.

“All-core” Performance Comparisons

  • Compared against another Geekom model mentioned: IT13 with M16
    • ~13% faster using all cores
    • Low-power cores were excluded due to scheduling limitations
  • Single-core performance still favors the M16, but direct comparison is limited because the other CPU context may differ (power limits/thermals).

Potential upside from low-power cores

  • If Windows could use the two low-power cores effectively, the reviewer estimates up to ~5% net improvement.
  • However, it doesn’t appear to happen automatically.

Why Low-Power Cores Weren’t Used (Interpretation)

Based on the reviewer’s research, the conclusion is:

  • Low-power cores may be on a separate chiplet/die
  • When idle, the system can run on the low-power die
  • When background tasks occur (example given: Program Manager updates), the scheduler tends to move work to the main cores
  • Possible cache behavior:
    • Low-power cores may share Layer 3 cache with the main CPU
    • When enabled, that could involve slower cache operation
    • The reviewer didn’t see clear cache effects in simple benchmarks, likely because those tests didn’t stress L3 heavily

Process Node / Efficiency Discussion

The reviewer compares Intel lithography nodes across devices:

  • One system uses 10nm lithography
  • Another uses Intel 4, described as ~7nm
  • A competitor CPU was mentioned with 4nm, but the reviewer notes it isn’t focused on efficiency

Overall takeaway:

  • Smaller nodes are presumed to improve efficiency
  • The reviewer finds the Ultra 9 remains competitive efficiency-wise versus some older/larger-node comparisons

Practical Performance & Workflow Tests

Daily use + video editing/rendering

  • Workload: Kdenlive
  • Comparison target: reviewer’s fastest desktop (A9 Max)
  • Result:
    • Laptop rendering took about 15% longer
    • Described as “not bad”
  • Noise perception:
    • Fans were less noisy than on the desktop during that workload

Connectivity & Expansion

Ports

  • Two USB-C (one used for charging)
  • HDMI
  • Two USB-A

Missing

  • No built-in SD card reader (external required)

Included accessory

  • A dock-like multi-port adapter enabling:
    • charger + device connections
    • fewer cables

Power Use, Battery, and Battery-Life Estimates

Power measurement method

  • Measured using a TP-Link smart plug on the power adapter
  • Adapter efficiency estimated around ~90%

Measured approximate power draw:

  • Idle / “sitting around”: ~7.8W
  • Kdenlive workload: ~20W

Battery claim vs observed behavior

  • Laptop battery: 100Wh (flight-legal threshold)
  • Reviewer expectation:
    • ~10 hours for normal use
    • ~5 hours for video editing (claims may be optimistic)

More realistic estimate (measured at the laptop level)

External monitor/peripherals disconnected:

  • Reading: 3.5–4W
  • Typing: ~7W
  • Watching video (VCL player): ~7W
  • YouTube: ~12W
  • Video editing: ~20W

Battery life conclusion

  • A very low-power “reading” scenario could last for many hours
    • Reviewer cites a theoretical ~24 hours reading-only possibility
  • Realistic work scenarios draw more power, reducing total runtime

User Experience Notes

  • Keyboard preference:
    • Reviewer dislikes very thin keyboards
    • Prefers deeper key travel (doesn’t want a “flat keyboard” feel for daily work)
  • Touchpad:
    • Improved
    • Supports multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-zoom
  • Fingerprint sensor:
    • Present
    • Reviewer needed to configure it for their preferred finger

Hardware Serviceability / Internals

Back panel removal

  • Held by 19 tiny star screws plus snap tabs

Material feel

  • Back cover feels light
  • Likely stamped aluminum sheet rather than machined

Upgrade access

  • No obvious RAM slot → RAM likely soldered
  • PCIe SSD underneath tape
  • Extra M.2 slot available for an additional SSD
  • Possible larger battery mod mentioned, but:
    • flight legality suggests staying under 100Wh

Overall Review Stance (Evaluation)

  • The reviewer’s impression:
    • Exciting less due to novelty, more due to practical performance/power behavior
  • Value argument:
    • Offers more value than a similar Dell model
    • Cited differences include:
      • CPU performance
      • battery size
      • Dell using Windows 11 Home vs this laptop using Windows Pro

Main Speakers / Sources

  • Primary speaker/source: The video reviewer (first-person), reviewing the Geekom Geekbook M16
  • Company source mentioned: Geekom (sponsorship and product origin)
  • OS/benchmark context: Windows (scheduler behavior discussed)

Original video