Intel May Drop Prices for Core i5 ULV to Push Ultrabooks

[lp231]

ULV are nice for their low TDP, but to achieve that, it runs at a slower clock.
Out of the 3 mentioned, the i5-3427U and i5-2557M are good choices as they have decent clock speed (1.8GHz and 1.7GHz) The i5-2537M not so much as it operates at 1.4GHz

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]ULV are nice for their low TDP, but to achieve that, it runs at a slower clock.Out of the 3 mentioned, the i5-3427U and i5-2557M are good choices as they have decent clock speed (1.8GHz and 1.7GHz) The i5-2537M not so much as it operates at 1.4GHz[/citation]

Good enough for regular work. A 2GHz P4 can do more than well enough for regular web browsing and I'm sure that even a 1.4GHz Sandy Bridge CPU can probably at least triple the performance of a 2GHz P4 per core, let alone with both cores in use. Then there's Hyper-Threading to consider that the P4 in question would probably lack or it would have a more rudimentary implementation of it. This would also all be while using far mroe power than the Sandy Bridge. Point is, these CPUs are definitely enough for most work. Sure, they don't hold up for high end gaming and such, but they do more than well enough for what they should be used for.

 

[lp231]

I used a notebook with a ULV cpu running at 1.3GHz and opening something simple like My Computer can feel a lag in responsiveness. This is why I mentioned if anyone wants a low TDP CPU, they will have to look at the speed as well. You don't want to save on power and loose performance along with it.
All of the 3 CPU mentioned in the article are rated with a TDP of 17W
http://ark.intel.com/compare/54619,54620,64903

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]I used a notebook with a ULV cpu running at 1.3GHz and opening something simple like My Computer can feel a lag in responsiveness. This is why I mentioned if anyone wants a low TDP CPU, they will have to look at the speed as well. You don't want to save on power and loose performance along with it.All of the 3 CPU mentioned in the article are rated with a TDP of 17Whttp://ark.intel.com/compare/54619,54620,64903[/citation]

What CPU do you have? Giving only the clock frequency is useless because the clock frequency does not define performance. Also, what hard drive does your system have? Most systems with lag problems simply have crap storage. For example, a computer with even a quad core i7 will usually be much less responsive than a computer with a Pentium 4 or D and a great SSD. The CPU is usually not really much of a factor in responsiveness anymore and the storage is the main problem. The graphics can also cause problems, although generally not as bad as the storage does unless you do graphically intensive workloads.

 

[lp231]

So a simple thing as opening My computer warrants the need for a SSD?!
Yes SSD makes a system a lot faster, but I don't see the point of doing so just to do a simple task even a Intel Atom is capable off. Anyway the system isn't mine, belongs to a person I know where he wants to know if it can be speed up. There was nothing in there, I took a look at the specs and it was a Intel CPU at 1.3GHz running Windows 7. I said he shouldn't have bought a notebook with a faster CPU.
My main point is if you or anyone want to save on power or be a "green" person, there it's not worth it scarafice it in terms of performance.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]So a simple thing as opening My computer warrants the need for a SSD?! Yes SSD makes a system a lot faster, but I don't see the point of doing so just to do a simple task even a Intel Atom is capable off. Anyway the system isn't mine, belongs to a person I know where he wants to know if it can be speed up. There was nothing in there, I took a look at the specs and it was a Intel CPU at 1.3GHz running Windows 7. I said he shouldn't have bought a notebook with a faster CPU. My main point is if you or anyone want to save on power or be a "green" person, there it's not worth it scarafice it in terms of performance.[/citation]

My point was that how snappy the system is depends more on the storage than on the CPU to an extreme extent. Furthermore, I never suggested that you get an SSD for that, only that it is what would help it, not a faster CPU.

 

[neoverdugo]

I've been telling this since the UB intro: Intel MUST drop its price tag! That's my only complain against Intel, good processors at somewhat big price tag. Intel can't force laptop makes to reduce its UBs price if the CPU maker won't do it on its own products (also its own SSD which makes it even expensive). The idiots of Intel finally decided to drop its price tag, only when someone is shaking their magic tree: AMD.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]i want a quad core ultrabook but everything is dual core. i need an ultrabook‬ that can run oracle, VMware, selenium, Komodo Edit, NetBeans & few other tools running in the background.[/citation]
So you want something that is both an ultrabook and not an ultrabook. Good luck with that.