Intel Discloses Core M Broadwell Speeds, Feeds and Performance Expectations

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Discloses Core M Broadwell Speeds, Feeds and Performance Expectations

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 5, 2014 @06:29AM from the core-m-will-go-with-your-model-m dept.

MojoKid writes: Intel's next-generation Broadwell Y (now known as the Core M processor) is set to ship on schedule for the end of the year. The company, occasionally flagged with criticism of its delays on the chip and with its IDF show rampingup next week, is sharing more detail on the upcoming speeds, feeds, features and performance characteristics of its new 14nm mobile platform. Intel's Broadwell-Y lineup initially consists of three chips with apparently very little difference, except for clock speed. Base idle frequencies tip-toe along at 800MHz to 1.1GHz, with max turbo frequencies up to 2.6GHz for the dual-core chips that Intel is announcing today. All parts are able to hit a very low 4.5 Watt TDP (Thermal Design Power) power envelope. Intel is also claiming clock-for-clock gains at the CPU level but also a 40 percent gain in graphics performance, versus the previous generation low power Haswell architecture. Larger, premium tablets and 2-in-1 devices are expect to start shipping at a trickle in Q4, with a larger volume ramp in Q1.

32 of 60 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes it does Run Linux by CajunArson · 2014-09-05 06:41 · Score: 3, Informative

and the GPU drivers have been mainlined in the Kernel for everyone to see for several months already.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
MOAR GPU by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-05 06:45 · Score: 1

It looks like Intel is making the GPU larger and more powerful with each iteration.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
1. Re:MOAR GPU by MojoKid · 2014-09-05 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, indeed they are. And fortunately capability and drivers are getting slightly better with each revision as well.
2. Re:MOAR GPU by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-05 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  It is at the point now where I can comfortably recommend to people that unless they are gaming, they don't need a separate video card whether it is Intel or AMD that they select as their CPU.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:MOAR GPU by lucm · 2014-09-05 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get comfortable quick... Over the last 10 years the only time I've decided to upgrade a mobo videocard was during a drunken weekend when for some reason I felt ashamed of having an item with a 4.5 score on the Windows Experience Index utility - I went out and bought a pair of high-end Radeon (with the SLI thing). About $600 to get a 9.1 score.
  Fans were noisy and I was annoyed each time I had to move the computer because I could never tell in which card I should plug the main monitor. But Youtube videos sure looked good.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
4. Re:MOAR GPU by Kjella · 2014-09-05 10:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It looks like Intel is making the GPU larger and more powerful with each iteration.
  Well, these chips are primarily for tablets. Fanless tablets. Pretty much the exact opposite of where you'd like to do any serious computing. The CPU is these things mostly exists to support it as a presentation device. I think many people haven't realized how much Intel has moved into the GPU space though, simply because they still think of it as a CPU with integrated graphics. True, they're not competing in the high end discrete graphics cards but they're eating away at the dGPU chips that used to be in all laptops, now you just find them at the very high end. If they took their EUs, put them on a separate chip and multiplied it up to a 250W power budget I wonder how far up the totem pole they'd reach.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re: MOAR GPU by lucm · 2014-09-05 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well I also believe that SLI is a Nvidia technology, I just checked and on ATI cards the equivalent was crossfire. I can't tell for sure which one it was, but this is more evidence to the fact that I've been using onboard vga adapters for quite a long time :-)
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
6. Re: MOAR GPU by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-05 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you overclock you overclock your Windows kernel and add some extra voltage to your control panels.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:MOAR GPU by lucm · 2014-09-06 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  You have to try something.
  1) Get drunk on dark liquor
  2) Put on the song "Pick up the pieces" by Candy Dulfer. Loud.
  3) Wear your 3D glasses
  4) Play Supaplex
  This will change your life forever.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
8. Re:MOAR GPU by Blaskowicz · 2014-09-07 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you realize the performance level of a latest Intel dual core CPU that scales between 1.0 and 2.6GHz. It's fucking good enough. Better than Pentium 4, Atom and slightly old ARM, which is what people often are actually using. If you're doing video encoding or RAW photo importing and don't give a fuck whether it takes 5 or 15 minutes, one or two hours.. Good enough, can use AVX/AVX2 for that and you can still use the computer while background processing is occuring anyway.
Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by JoeyRox · 2014-09-05 06:51 · Score: 1

As in no discernible improvement in performance even across multiple generations. Intel's process-reduction strategy made sense in the past for improving battery life but now that notebooks are pushing 8+ hours on reasonably-sized batteries I don't think it's enough anymore.
1. Re:Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The gimmick with these chips is that they will enable "fanless" (maximum temperature of 41C, not much more than body temperature) and thin form factors with plenty of performance (hoping for a Surface revival or that people will cool on tablets and get 2-in-1s for "productivity"). TDP nearing that of Atom, but with much better performance. Much of that might be from this huge gulf between the base and turbo frequencies. I can't recall seeing such a large difference between them before. That also means that the power reductions will disappear if you are gaming or doing something else intensive with the chips.
  Intel is apparently still reducing costs per transistor with these ticks. Compare that to TSMC and others who are struggling to make cost effective transistors under 28nm.
  I'd say hold out until your laptop is broken or 5 years, whichever comes first, before replacing it. Eventually Optalysys will release their supercomputers and the cloud will eat everything.
2. Re:Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by Kjella · 2014-09-05 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you look at their power distribution graphics it's now primarily screen, then CPU and then SoC. Even though Intel is improving the last two it seems that to take anything to the "next level" we need more power efficient screens.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by Bengie · 2014-09-05 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Many data centers are entirely limited by power and cooling. Advances in power savings indirectly increases speeds. Not to mention smaller batteries.
4. Re:Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by rrohbeck · 2014-09-05 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well as long they have little competition why should they push anything?
  I can only hope that AMD and TSMC or GloFo will do something about that.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
5. Re:Tick/Tock has become NOP/NOP by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-09-05 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  At one point, the absence of (trans)reflective screens will start limiting you.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Pricing by symbolset · 2014-09-05 06:51 · Score: 1

I hear these are headed for the premium end of the tablet market, with the usual unsat display resolution. I.E. not going to move units.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:BORING!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-05 07:14 · Score: 1

You're looking for the Core i7 5960X.
Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by Iamthecheese · 2014-09-05 07:14 · Score: 1

Why just tablets? This sounds like a full powered, full featured processor for smart phones and a serious attack against AMD's mobile market share.
Their marketing promises are largely useless (productivity up to 19% better? 3-D graphics up to 47% better? What does that even mean?) but with graphics, wireless, and fast processing in a low power chip they're already there.
When I saw a mention of a "small L3 cache" I looked at Intel's site (warning: PDF) which also didn't five actual L3 cache sizes. By the way you'll find more technical information about the chip there than in the article. L2 is 256k per core. Cache aside in general it's a solid midrange processor at mobile level power usage. Here's hoping to see them in a phone soon.

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
1. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by Bengie · 2014-09-05 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Smartphones CPUs use more along the lines of 0.2watt max with below 0.01watt idle.
2. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-05 08:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  For fun, a Casio F91-W watch uses a 2016 lithium battery with 90mAh@3V or 0.27Wh, and runs for at least 7 years (~61320 hours), so the entire watch runs at about 4 uW... woa.
3. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by TheRealMindChild · 2014-09-05 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  So they can run on a potato?
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
4. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by Kjella · 2014-09-05 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds low, here's a test of the iPhone 5 and at maximum power draw they killed a 6000 mWh battery in two hours meaning a power draw of ~3W. Of course that includes the screen and the whole SoC, but if you can put a 5W processor in a tablet I'm thinking 1W in a smartphone seems reasonable. P.S. My Google-fu says that <10 mW is only if the CPU is in suspend/standby mode, basically it's off and waiting for the network or user input to wake it up again. Idle but active draw seems to be more like 30-50 mW which is the target Intel would need to reach. Not Core M territory though, they'll still make Atoms for that.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by rrohbeck · 2014-09-05 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  "Up to x% better" means the same as "less than x% better."
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
6. Re:Imagine, a Beowulf cluster of these! by Nikker · 2014-09-05 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Until the birds come along and eat the potato.
  
  --
  A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Re:BORING!!! by mister_playboy · 2014-09-05 07:39 · Score: 1

5960X has worse single-core clockspeeds than a 4770K or 4790K.
It's rather disappointing in that regard.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
4.5 watts is still way too much by ArcadeMan · 2014-09-05 08:44 · Score: 1

The bookBook requires a lot less than that.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
MOBILE by fnj · 2014-09-05 09:10 · Score: 2

It's pretty clear that both the summary and the article are only concerned about mobile Broadwells, and only a very few models at that. But good luck finding that specified anywhere in the verbiage. Myself, I couldn't care less about mobile. For god's sake, throw us a bone about what to expect from Broadwell DESKTOP.
1. Re:MOBILE by drinkypoo · 2014-09-06 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Myself, I couldn't care less about mobile. For god's sake, throw us a bone about what to expect from Broadwell DESKTOP.
  Myself, I couldn't care less about desktop, since my hexacore AMD chip is still serving my needs and I therefore have no plans to buy a desktop chip any time soon. I care only about server and mobile. SERVE ME, AND IGNORE ALL OTHER USERS OF THIS SITE.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Watts at idle? by lucm · 2014-09-05 09:17 · Score: 1

Most recent operating systems will take care of saving power when the machine is idle, it won't make a noticeable difference what cpu you pick. Look instead at storage: SSD use between 1/3 or 1/4 of the power used by spinners.
Also if you look at energy efficiency buy one of those smart powerbars that will turn off power in groups (e.g. switching off the speakers when the tv is powered off). Something like a LCG5. This will have a much higher impact on your power bill than cherry-picking computer components.

--
lucm, indeed.
Perhaps several years ago... by ciroknight · 2014-09-05 09:44 · Score: 1

These days phone chips have TDPs running around 8-10W, like Exynos 5250's 8W max TDP. If you look at perf/watt at the top end, Intel's chips are still very securely in the lead.

Yeah, the ARM chips can still clock down way lower, but throwing around numbers like 0.2W max is just being disingenuous.

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:Watts at idle? by Blaskowicz · 2014-09-07 08:39 · Score: 1

Those CPU power states the operating system uses are provided by the CPU, and the supporting chipset and power circuitry on the motherboard do determine the power use at idle too. E.g. Haswell CPU have significantly lower idle power use than Ivy Bridge/Sandy Bridge, and introduce another idle power state on top of that.
Good hardware reviews sites do tell you about that. Likewise if you use a dedicated graphics card : e.g. Radeon 4870 wastes a shit ton of power even when you use it as a dummy 2D buffer (idling on the desktop in Vista/7 Basic or a 2D linux desktop) while Radeon HD 7000 or 6000 and up uses a handful of watts for that.