Intel to Launch 10W and 13W Ivy Bridge CPUs in 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.

bavman

Distinguished
May 19, 2010
1,006
0
19,360
46
My su3700 from 3 years ago does 1.3ghz stock and 1.6ghz overclocked still at 10W TDP. I realize that the IB architecture is better than core2duos but couldn't that have bumped up clock speed a little bit?

Still this is pretty cool. We might start getting affordable ultrabooks at do 10+ hours
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
How interesting that in just one architectural and die shrink upgrade (about 2-3 years), a 13W i7-3689-Y has only about half as much computing power as my laptop's 45W i7-720qm (1.6 GHz, quad core), and sips about one fourth less power.
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]My su3700 from 3 years ago does 1.3ghz stock and 1.6ghz overclocked still at 10W TDP. I realize that the IB architecture is better than core2duos but couldn't that have bumped up clock speed a little bit?Still this is pretty cool. We might start getting affordable ultrabooks at do 10+ hours[/citation]


The difference is your Core2Duo didn't have Intel's integrated GPU. That sucker will be sucking on most of the power as well as taking up most the die real-estate and any advantages from the smaller node process.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]The difference is your Core2Duo didn't have Intel's integrated GPU. That sucker will be sucking on most of the power as well as taking up most the die real-estate and any advantages from the smaller node process.[/citation]

You can always set BF3 in software rendering mode...

Oh wait, it's not the early 2000's anymore.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
1,613
0
19,780
0
i wish mobile arm manufacturers would make improvements in this same direction. All I see is arm chips becoming faster and faster each gen, but the battery chugging stays the same, which is often horrid.
 

nitroexplosion

Honorable
Jun 1, 2012
65
0
10,640
1
Well looks like the SoC future chip rumors are true, look at the packaging BGA, i hope Intel keeps the high-performance chips on LGA for us Computer Gamers if not looks like AMD will finally catch up
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]hydac7[/nom]the performance on those CPUs will suck ultra bad and not many will want those[/citation]

I think a 2500K would be a tad overkill for mobile word processing, email checking and movie watching, right?
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
why cant they just drop the Atom desktop board and release Ivy bridge on these area? 1.1GHz Ivy is still gonna smoke Atom no matter what.
 

bustapr

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
1,613
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]hydac7[/nom]the performance on those CPUs will suck ultra bad and not many will want those[/citation]
performance isnt the market. battery life is. and this is aimed for the common person who hates heavy ass laptops and love long lasting batteries.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]I wonder how these will compare to my E-450 system (CPU-Side) and the newer E2-1800's.[/citation]

They'll crush those processors. No comparison. I have an E-450, and it's a dog compared to these chips.

E2-1800s are only very slightly improved, they'll also get absolutely crushed.

The question is immaterial anyway, in most respects. The E-450 and E2-1800 are obsolete, and will be replaced soon. The Jaguar will be out, and will have roughly 25-30% more processing power, use less power, and in some configurations have four cores. That's what these processors will be competing against, and considering the small size of the Jaguar, competing on price as well as performance should not be terribly easy.
 

whyso

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2012
689
0
19,060
27
[citation][nom]piesquared[/nom]Why does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell??[/citation]

I think this is intel's testing grounds for ULV 10-13 watt chips. Get everything worked out so that when 10 watt haswell comes out, everything is working fine.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]piesquared[/nom]Why does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell??[/citation]

What's wrong with trying to expand the mobile sector market-share?
 

madjimms

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2011
448
0
18,780
0
I can't wait for 10-watt high-performance chips! In 10 years gaming PC's will be super efficient & (hopefully) not suck up 500-1200watts of juice$$$
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]I can't wait for 10-watt high-performance chips! In 10 years gaming PC's will be super efficient & (hopefully) not suck up 500-1200watts of juice$$$[/citation]

In 10 years, at least one developer would've released another Crysis-like game, utilizing all of the latest computing power hungry mechanics and stuff.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"Don't expect performance monsters with clock speeds between 1.1 GHz and 1.5 GHz"

Thank you for being honest about that one. Some people act like these ULV chips provide great performance, which they don't. My standard TDP Ivy Bridge laptop at twice the clock speed isn't a performance monster, and cutting the clocks in half isn't going to help that very much.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]How interesting that in just one architectural and die shrink upgrade (about 2-3 years), a 13W i7-3689-Y has only about half as much computing power as my laptop's 45W i7-720qm (1.6 GHz, quad core), and sips about one fourth less power.[/citation]

More than half the CPU performance (frequency and core count aren't everything) and has a decent IGP too. Power consumption and TDP also aren't the same thing. Chances are that it's closer to one fifth or one sixth the power most of the time.
 
[citation][nom]hydac7[/nom]the performance on those CPUs will suck ultra bad and not many will want those[/citation]

One of my laptops has a Turion 64 X2 TL-60 CPU. That's basically an Athlon 64 X2 at 2GHz with reduced cache. It can handle average usage and some beyond average usage with ease. Even the slowest of the CPUs in the article beats my CPU and the fastest one beats it by a lot. These CPUs will not have bad performance at all for regular usage; they will be great for regular usage. These are exactly what the vast majority of computer users would want nowadays.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]i wish mobile arm manufacturers would make improvements in this same direction. All I see is arm chips becoming faster and faster each gen, but the battery chugging stays the same, which is often horrid.[/citation]
On most devices, the lion's share of "battery chugging" comes courtesy of the LCD backlight.

On my Nexus 7, the backlight ends up accounting for 80% of battery usage while streaming 720p h264 video over WiFi even with brightness set to minimum. The simplest solution to improve efficiency here would be to use OLED display: stop wasting power backlighting dark pixels and stop wasting another half of the light on polarizing filters.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
Don't expect performance monsters with clock speeds between 1.1 GHz and 1.5 GHz, but there are clearly interesting opportunities for innovative Ultrabook designs and we would be surprised if those CPUs did not end up in a microserver design, which calls for CPUs that consume less than 15 watts. These specific Ivy Bridge processors will also come with a technology that will allow system vendors to limit the TDP of the CPUs even further (cTDP). The i-series will then run at 10 watts, and the Pentium at 7 watts.
The fail is strong here. Let me help you read the slide.

1) The i5s and i7s have Turbo clocks of between 2 and 2.6GHz and they'll hit that clock speed while remaining under 13w

2) The "typical" power usage (during which they'll operate at base frequencies) is going to be 7w

3) Current ULV chips hardly ever hit 17W. they usually top out at around 15w.

4) As blazorthon points out, TDP != power consumption. Read the little footnote on the slide, TDP is defined at Tjmax, i.e. 105*C.

5) What really worries me is that the "scenario design power" is defined at 80*C, so...how hot will these things get? Not very hot i would hope, seeing that current ULV chips hit 75*C at sustained full load.

6) The pentium won't get QuickSync, but the rest of them will. The i5s and i7s also get the rest of the stuff specific to them like hardware AES acceleration.

7) Clock speeds for the IGPs are the same. (blazorthon: Remember my prediction when IVB launched? That they'll have to pair lower end chips with tier top-tier graphics solution more frequently to stay competitive? Not talking about the Pentium here, of course).

[citation][nom]piesquared[/nom]Why does inetl need to bring ivy brdgie so low, having problems with hasntwell??[/citation]
Haswell isn't due till May-June. I'm guessing May based on Otellini's retirement, though it could be June-July if the Ivy launch was anything to go by.
So till then, is Intel supposed to shove higher wattage chips into tablet PCs and listen to us bitch about battery life? I don't think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS