Specifications of Intel's Mobile Haswell CPUs Leaked

[Guest]

Following on the heels of the desktop Haswell processor specifications, information about the mobile CPUs has been leaked as well.

Specifications of Intel's Mobile Haswell CPUs Leaked : Read more

 

[yialanliu]

It worries me that the TDP is being raised even though it's supposed to be more efficient. I feel like it's a step backwards rather than forward especially as they try to converge onto ARM's power efficiency and the long term goal is to become super low TDP, not stay the same TDP.

 

[Shin-san]

The HD4600 might be as fast as current consoles

 

[victorintelr]

sucks that besides the 49xx and 48xx series the rest will have HD4000 graphics. should been the other way. In the end the computer with the most expensive processors will probably have dedicated graphics. Not that the graphic chips from Intel are the best in class but the get better little by little. Won't jugde more until I see actual benchmarks.

 

[victorintelr]

damn it, my bad. didn't read everything. All haswell processors have HD4600. still between discrete and integrated there is a difference.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]It worries me that the TDP is being raised even though it's supposed to be more efficient. I feel like it's a step backwards rather than forward especially as they try to converge onto ARM's power efficiency and the long term goal is to become super low TDP, not stay the same TDP.[/citation]
I believe they are trying to get power efficiency down to ARM levels, only on their Atom line. The Atom is what is competing with ARM, for now.

 

[jonjonjon]

i though i read somewhere that certain mobile haswell chips will have a tdp under 10.

 

[sa1nt]

tom's pictures just 3 clicks away...

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]jonjonjon[/nom]i though i read somewhere that certain mobile haswell chips will have a tdp under 10.[/citation]
The leaked specs are about the performance (QM) and extreme (XM, the mobile equivalent of desktop K-chips - complete with unlocked multipliers) Haswell mobile i7.

ULV variants of Haswell i3/5/7 are those that will be in the 7-20W range.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]sa1nt[/nom]tom's pictures just 3 clicks away...[/citation]

Yeah really. . . what kind of inbred software engineer is employed to create this site? No edit on the comments, you have to click 3 times just to see a full-sized picture, and let's not forget that wonderful mountain of ads with viruii embedded in them along both sides of the page.

 

[dgingeri]

While Intel is increasing the performance of their integrated graphics (it's hard to go anywhere but up when you're at the bottom) I still wouldn't use it. Their support for their graphics drivers SUCKS.

Their drivers in general have always been a problem. Their first gen 10Gb chip, the 82598, had issues with Linux. Did they fix it? No. They told everyone else how to fix it themselves. (It was just a matter of increasing the software buffers.) Some versions of Linux added an adjustment if it found that card, but Intel still, after more than three years, refuses to just write that into the Linux driver and correct the problem. There have been problems with their older 100Mb NICs, but they don't correct those, and now there's a major problem with their new X540 server 10Gb card, and I haven't seen a fix for that in over a month.

There's still a bunch of problems with all the older generations of integrated graphics. They just flat out said they wouldn't support the 900 series graphics in Vista and the Areo interface, causing a lot of people to get mad and a bunch of laptop makers to get sued. My current work machine uses the G45 chipset, and I have a ton of problems with it: Chrome and IE freezing, Outlook 2010 display problems, the laptop screen won't come back up after being in hibernation and hooking to a dock with a monitor. Intel just won't update the drivers to correct them.

I don't like companies who won't support their drivers properly. Increasing performance isn't as important as supporting the drivers and making them work.

 

[aicom]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]There's still a bunch of problems with all the older generations of integrated graphics. They just flat out said they wouldn't support the 900 series graphics in Vista and the Areo interface, causing a lot of people to get mad and a bunch of laptop makers to get sued. My current work machine uses the G45 chipset, and I have a ton of problems with it: Chrome and IE freezing, Outlook 2010 display problems, the laptop screen won't come back up after being in hibernation and hooking to a dock with a monitor. Intel just won't update the drivers to correct them. I don't like companies who won't support their drivers properly. Increasing performance isn't as important as supporting the drivers and making them work.[/citation]
Not sure what the network driver have to do with integrated graphics (they're done by different driver teams). Intel did have some trouble in the past, but you probably haven't tried Intel's current hardware (3000/4000) in Linux recently. 3D and 2D acceleration works flawlessly, even power management. Intel's on the forefront of open-source GPU driver support on Linux. They push their changes to the Linux kernel even before the hardware hits the shelves.

 

[ojas]

Aha! Interesting, though here it's pretty straight forward, the higher TDP should be to accommodate for the IGP, but i wonder why TjMax has come down?

[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]The HD4600 might be as fast as current consoles[/citation]
doubt it.

[citation][nom]victorintelr[/nom]sucks that besides the 49xx and 48xx series the rest will have HD4000 graphics. should been the other way. In the end the computer with the most expensive processors will probably have dedicated graphics. Not that the graphic chips from Intel are the best in class but the get better little by little. Won't jugde more until I see actual benchmarks.[/citation]
The HD4000 ones are IVB chips, if the desktop processors are an indication, then all Haswell chips get HD4600. BUT, there may be subdivisions within HD4600.

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I believe they are trying to get power efficiency down to ARM levels, only on their Atom line. The Atom is what is competing with ARM, for now.[/citation]
Atom is their (eventual) phone only solution, they seem to be driving Core to sub-10 TDPs (recent leak/announcement sub 13w IVB chips, for example), so maybe tablets will get those (surface pro and others already have Core i5s and i even remember reading a celeron based Win8 tablet).
So it's kind of mixed, though the only place they're at par with ARM on the power front is Atom.

[citation][nom]jonjonjon[/nom]i though i read somewhere that certain mobile haswell chips will have a tdp under 10.[/citation]
AnandTech, most probably? At least that's where i read it.

[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom]The leaked specs are about the performance (QM) and extreme (XM, the mobile equivalent of desktop K-chips - complete with unlocked multipliers) Haswell mobile i7.ULV variants of Haswell i3/5/7 are those that will be in the 7-20W range.[/citation]
+1

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]It worries me that the TDP is being raised even though it's supposed to be more efficient. I feel like it's a step backwards rather than forward especially as they try to converge onto ARM's power efficiency and the long term goal is to become super low TDP, not stay the same TDP.[/citation]
Efficiency is word done divided by power consumed. Efficient does not mean or imply lower power usage overall.

Besides that, the CPU cores do in fact take less power than Ivy Bridge, but these are also paired with iGPUs that are 2-4x larger than Ivy Bridge, so the slight power increase is more than understandable.

Also keep in mind that the TDP is the supposed max power consumption. With the new power saving tech in Haswell that lets it 'race to sleep' faster, combined with the win8 workload scheduling we ought to see mobile battery life get a nice big boost on light to moderate workloads. The higher TDP only means that you will have less battery life if you are pushing your deice to the max, which rarely anyone does, and those gamers and content creators who do are typically ted to the wall while doing ther thing anyways.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]While Intel is increasing the performance of their integrated graphics (it's hard to go anywhere but up when you're at the bottom) I still wouldn't use it. Their support for their graphics drivers SUCKS. Their drivers in general have always been a problem. Their first gen 10Gb chip, the 82598, had issues with Linux. Did they fix it? No. They told everyone else how to fix it themselves. (It was just a matter of increasing the software buffers.) Some versions of Linux added an adjustment if it found that card, but Intel still, after more than three years, refuses to just write that into the Linux driver and correct the problem. There have been problems with their older 100Mb NICs, but they don't correct those, and now there's a major problem with their new X540 server 10Gb card, and I haven't seen a fix for that in over a month. There's still a bunch of problems with all the older generations of integrated graphics. They just flat out said they wouldn't support the 900 series graphics in Vista and the Areo interface, causing a lot of people to get mad and a bunch of laptop makers to get sued. My current work machine uses the G45 chipset, and I have a ton of problems with it: Chrome and IE freezing, Outlook 2010 display problems, the laptop screen won't come back up after being in hibernation and hooking to a dock with a monitor. Intel just won't update the drivers to correct them. I don't like companies who won't support their drivers properly. Increasing performance isn't as important as supporting the drivers and making them work.[/citation]
thats funny, I have never had a problem with an intel driver in Windows who is more than wlling to help Intel make their drivers work with their platform. Meanwhile Linux has issues with most GPU manufacturers. Why? Because Linux devs do not support the hardware manufacturers with much of any help in making their drivers for their platforms.

Linux may be free, but $100 is a small price to pay to get software that largely just works out of the box.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]jonjonjon[/nom]i though i read somewhere that certain mobile haswell chips will have a tdp under 10.[/citation]
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I believe they are trying to get power efficiency down to ARM levels, only on their Atom line. The Atom is what is competing with ARM, for now.[/citation]
The sub 10W CPUs will be limited edition chips for embedded applications (tablets), and will likely not be release with the initial product launch. Intel talked a little about it during the last IDF, and Anandtech has talked about it a bit in their podcasts (They have the most interesting podcast I have ever listened to).

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]The sub 10W CPUs will be limited edition chips for embedded applications (tablets), and will likely not be release with the initial product launch. Intel talked a little about it during the last IDF, and Anandtech has talked about it a bit in their podcasts (They have the most interesting podcast I have ever listened to).[/citation]
Hmmm read this as well, if you haven't already:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/1

 

[hannibal]

So i3 and so on mobile haswel versions will have cut down GPU? Hmmm... so same situation as with mobile Ivys. Interesting to see how close AMD APU they can get with these in GPU part.
They don't be faster but get nearer until AMD makes new version too... IN CPU there is now even bigger winner until AMD can somehow get someone to make better production node to them at desent price...

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]yialanliu[/nom]It worries me that the TDP is being raised even though it's supposed to be more efficient. I feel like it's a step backwards rather than forward especially as they try to converge onto ARM's power efficiency and the long term goal is to become super low TDP, not stay the same TDP.[/citation]
Wait for the 14nm shrink
Looks like all Haswell chips will have HD4600

 

[natoco]

If you increased the ARM cpu watts up to 47w i wonder how the benchmarks would look. I would guess intel would mop the floor with them plus be able to support everything and more, but thats only a guess. And since the screens on laptops/tablets are way to small for gaming plus uncomfortable to use, the gpu will be good for whats required of it really.

 

[russian_newyorker]

Can someone explain something to me? How powerful is a new phone processor running at 1.5Ghz compared to an intel mobile processor running at that frequency? I see laptops advertised running Ivy Bridge a dual-core at 1.8Ghz, meanwhile the next Samsung Galaxy S4 is expected to have a quad-core 2.0Ghz processor. I understand that fundamentally these processors are extremely different... but my ignorance makes me upset at the illusion that phone processors are almost as strong as laptop processors. Feel free to get as detailed as you like with your answers, thanks guys.