Slashdot Mirror


Intel Unveils 10-Watt Haswell Chip

adeelarshad82 writes "At IDF, Intel announced the company's fourth-generation Core processor code-named Haswell. The chip is based off of the same 22nm process used in the current third-generation Core products. What makes this chip remarkably different from the third-generation chips is its ability to product twice the graphic capabilities at a much lower power consumption, which Intel has achieved by making use of a number of tactics." HotHardware has video of Haswell running a 3D benchmark.

10 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Closing in on Atom by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intel's top Atom chips have a 10W TDP. Of course the chipset/RAM also play a large factor, but still -- this is an amazingly frugal CPU

    1. Re:Closing in on Atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The part I was impressed with was how they did it...
      "[...] which Intel has acheived by making use of a number of tactics."
      +5 Informative!

    2. Re:Closing in on Atom by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best part is that, unlike Atom, these things are usably fast. I have a 2x1.3Ghz core2 process shrunk or something with a TDP of 12W (total system is about 26W ... under full load). I mostly live in Emacs but I like a compositing window manager (wobbly windows are fun alright) and GL screen hacks... the thing does great and can handle my regular abuse of PostgreSQL/SBCL/mlton/... all while getting about 8-9 hours of realistic use (ok, closer to 7 now that the battery is down to 72Wh from its 84Wh theoretical max when it was new) and all under 10W generally. Sign me up for something that uses about the same power and is just a bit slower than the current Ivybridge processors... (come on laptop, don't die until next summer).

      And it all Just Works (tm) with Debian testing (it even worked with Squeeze, but GL was a bit slow since it predated the existence of the graphics hardware and all). Now, if only someone would make one of these low voltage things with a danged Pixel Qi display or whatever Qualcomm has so that I can use it outside... not having to worry about finding power every 2 to 3 hours is great, but if you're still stuck indoors it's not half as great as it could be.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    3. Re:Closing in on Atom by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> 5W

      How the hell am I supposed to reheat pizza on that?

    4. Re:Closing in on Atom by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Funny

      The part I was impressed with was how they did it...
      "[...] which Intel has acheived by making use of a number of tactics."
      +5 Informative!

      Welcome to the internet. We have these thing called hyperlinks. Anytime you see underlined text of a different color, you should consider clicking on it. I you had clicked on the phrase "number of tactics", you would have been taken to view another article which would have explained many of these tactics.

  2. Re:Compared to ARM by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you consider that the x86 uses 3x the power, but can run a benchmark such as multithreaded linpack 1000x faster, it suddenly seems like we're getting ripped off by these ARM processors.

    In reality, this processor consumes 20x less (I assume that means 1/20th) power of the current Ivy Bridges. I presume that's under normal use. It's a huge win for laptops.

  3. Re:Graphic Capabilities by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Using integrated graphics for gaming if you are concerned about framerates is just dumb.
    2) 1/3 the TDP is the difference between a battery with power and one without.

    --
    -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
  4. Re:Compared to ARM by Wallslide · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to anandtech.com, the '20x lower power' statistic is only a reference to the chip's idle power state, not while it's under any sort of processing load.

  5. Re:Graphic Capabilities by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's official. Intel on-board video is all you'll ever need for home and general office use. I'm not talking about "getting by" performance. I'm talking about full 2D hyper smooth animation, fading, and alpha blending. I've seen both Ubuntu, Windows 7, and Windows 8 using on-board. It doesn't bat an eyelash. No pausing or hiccups. Flash animation couldn't be more smooth too.

    About the only reason you wouldn't use on-board video is if you must run Adobe product that calls for GPU acceleration or you're a gamer.

    nVidia knows this too. As you can see, they've been focusing in on advanced 3D gaming and super computing. It won't be long before nVidia turns into the next "SGI" where only high-end is their focus. To the point where even they start losing the consumer market and only focus on business-to-business solutions and other vertical market applications.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  6. Re:Graphic Capabilities by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    My 2-year old laptop has an nVidia GT 330M. At the time it was a mid-range dedicated mobile 3D video card.

    Ivy Bridge's HD4000 comes very close to matching its performance while burning a helluva lot less power. So the delta between mid-grade dedicated video and integrated video performance is down to a little over 2 years now. Intel claims Haswell's 3D video is twice as fast as HD4000. If true, that would put it near the performance of the GT 640M, and lower the delta to a bit over 1 year.

    This is all the more impressive if you remember that integrated video is hobbled by having to mooch off of system memory. If there were some way to give the HD4000 dedicated VRAM, then you'd have a fairer apples to apples comparison of just how good the chipset's engineering and design are compared to the dedicated offerings of nVidia and AMD.

    I used to be a hardcore gamer in my youth, but life and work have caught up and I only game casually now. If Haswell pans out, its integrated 3D should be plenty enough for my needs. It may be "crap" to the hardcore gamer, but they haven't figured out yet that in the grand scheme of things, being able to play video games with all the graphics on max is a pretty low priority.