Intel Preps New Ultrabook Processor i7-3537U

[Guest]

Product pages for the HP SpectreXT TouchSmart and the Dell XPS 14 leaked a previously unknown low power processor that Intel is apparently preparing for launch in the second quarter.

Intel Preps New Ultrabook Processor i7-3537U : Read more

 

[amdwilliam1985]

"currently priced at $346 in 1000-unit quantities"
Man, that's about 10x the price of an average ARM cpu with 2x to 5x power? There's definitely a market for ARM.

 

[nurgletheunclean]

[citation][nom]amdwilliam1985[/nom]"currently priced at $346 in 1000-unit quantities"Man, that's about 10x the price of an average ARM cpu with 2x to 5x power? There's definitely a market for ARM.[/citation]
This is not an ARM competitor. At 17w this is clearly a notebook part, and that's stated in the article. It's an x86 with high clocks and a high transistor count. It's probably more like 20x as fast an ARM processor, with far more functionality.

 

[jaber2]

Are we getting closer to replacing SoC's on tablets with x86?

 

[Guest]

Haswell will have an SoC part if I recall... one that is 8-10W. While it won't compete with ATOM and ARM on the battery life end, the performance would be considerably better and produce far more compelling products because of that.

AMDWilliam, 2x to 5x? Are you kidding me? Current Atom beats its S4 and Tegra 3 on Windows tablets according to AnandTech, yet you could perform Adobe CS5 in 2 minutes what would take 24 minutes on an Atom. So, no, it is not 2x to 5x... more like 10 to 20x. It is a whole nother universe than ARM CPUs right now.

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]jaber2[/nom]Are we getting closer to replacing SoC's on tablets with x86?[/citation]
Right now, there aren't enough fully-fledged and well-adapted productivity applications on Android for this to happen and I think most devices currently out there having only 1GB RAM (or less) is getting in the way. 2GB looks to be sweet spot for popular devices shipping in 2013 and the bar will likely rise to 4GB in 2015. That's where I believe mobile platforms will start making a serious dent in PCs for light-gaming and non-specialized stuff.

As for the CPU announcement itself, I /facepalm myself every time I see Intel (or anyone else) split hairs with die binning. Two CPU models binned only 100MHz apart (less than 3%) does not justify much if any price premium (they often carry the same retail/OEM MSRPs) so they aren't achieving much more than SKU confusion... other than giving Dell an opportunity to charge $150 extra for something that costs them closer to $0 I suppose.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]jaber2[/nom]Are we getting closer to replacing SoC's on tablets with x86?[/citation]
Amd is already doing that, their CES presentations show some of their new APU's for tablets

 

[zeratul600]

I remeber running XP with a 450MHZ pc with 128 ram and beung able to use almost every program on earth... but i wonder, why phones need so much power for such stupid games like angry birds? i dont remember ghost recon hanging or warcraft 3 and they are way heavier than those phone apps? could someone explain me why smartphones are so slow unless they cost +500 $?

 

[luis30]

@Zeratul600. The hardware is much more different. Your 450Mhz CPU was probably a Pentium 4 class; which I am sure still more powerful than any ARM. Moreover, programmers do not optimize the code as before because we are use to the available computing power.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]amdwilliam1985[/nom]"currently priced at $346 in 1000-unit quantities"Man, that's about 10x the price of an average ARM cpu with 2x to 5x power? There's definitely a market for ARM.[/citation]
Yeah?
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6535/52388.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6535/52396.png

[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]This is not an ARM competitor. At 17w this is clearly a notebook part, and that's stated in the article. It's an x86 with high clocks and a high transistor count. It's probably more like 20x as fast an ARM processor, with far more functionality.[/citation]
20x might be best case, but 10x at least (see charts above).

[citation][nom]jaber2[/nom]Are we getting closer to replacing SoC's on tablets with x86?[/citation]
Most probably yes. Atom (despite being x86 based, though i assume you meant the Core/Pentium/Celeron's version of x86) processors will perhaps service the sub-4w sector and mainly smartphones, and the rest will be dealt with by x86 proper. Though it's only a matter of time before Atom is essentially Core + a baseband component, since the Core series are essentially SoCs in a way...though they're more accurately APUs, by AMD's marketing definition.

[citation][nom]AndyDick2[/nom]Haswell will have an SoC part if I recall... one that is 8-10W. While it won't compete with ATOM and ARM on the battery life end, the performance would be considerably better and produce far more compelling products because of that.[/citation]
Nope, more like Atom (Bay Trail, specifically) will have certain similarities with Haswell like the 22nm tri-gate transistors and an intel IGP, but it won't be the same.

Haswell based Core/Pentium/Celeron processors will dip down to the 5 to 10w range, Ivy bridge already has sub 13w parts.

Haswell and Atom are slightly different ways of implementing the x86 ISA, i.e. different microarchitectures.

[citation][nom]athulajp[/nom]Amd is already doing that, their CES presentations show some of their new APU's for tablets[/citation]
Yup, AMD's at it too. Excited to see their stuff as much as Intel's.

[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]I remeber running XP with a 450MHZ pc with 128 ram and beung able to use almost every program on earth... but i wonder, why phones need so much power for such stupid games like angry birds? i dont remember ghost recon hanging or warcraft 3 and they are way heavier than those phone apps? could someone explain me why smartphones are so slow unless they cost +500 $?[/citation]
Haven't been able to figure out either, though as luis30 says, it's probably about programmers not bothering with optimization as obsessively as they used to...even on the PC side. I've read about how in the old days, there used to be competitions between programmers on how to make the best use of 64KB of RAM and so on. Not any more, sadly.

 

[rflynn88]

[citation][nom]luis30[/nom]@Zeratul600. The hardware is much more different. Your 450Mhz CPU was probably a Pentium 4 class; which I am sure still more powerful than any ARM. Moreover, programmers do not optimize the code as before because we are use to the available computing power.[/citation]

450MHz Pentium 4? Try high-end Pentium II or low-end Pentium III.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]I remeber running XP with a 450MHZ pc with 128 ram and beung able to use almost every program on earth... but i wonder, why phones need so much power for such stupid games like angry birds? i dont remember ghost recon hanging or warcraft 3 and they are way heavier than those phone apps? could someone explain me why smartphones are so slow unless they cost +500 $?[/citation]

Even P4 has far higher performance per Hz than modern phone CPUs IIRC and if you had a P2 or P3, then it may have had more performance per Hz than any P4 had. Mobile phones also mostly use ARM, a RISC ISA, and that increases their dependence on memory capacity compared to using CISC ISAs IIRC (that was supposedly one of the main advantages of CISC versus RISC for general computing a long time ago, granted very old CISC implementations were probably less complex than modern RISC implementations).

Beyond all of that, current phone OSes are probably much more complicated than old desktop/laptop OSes due to needing support for many modern features as well as higher-performance interfaces (how many 56K dial-up modems would it take to match the performance of even some weak 3G services?) and much more.

Then there's also the need for many mobile operating systems and programs, especially with Android, to be designed to run well on multiple very different platforms.