Intel To Expand Core M Broadwell Line With Faster Dual-Core Processors

MojoKid writes: Intel didn't waste much time following-up on its initial Core M lineup launch. The company has added 4 more Core M models to its roster. Like the launch chips, these four are dual-core designs that support HyperThreading to enable an effective four logical threads for processing. Also like those earlier chips, these are spec'd with a TDP of 4.5W. These new chips, however, are generally faster than the launch models, with a new top-end processor called the M-5Y71. This chip has a base clock speed of 1.2GHz, but is burstable through Turbo up to 2.9GHz. What really sets these chips apart from the initial Core M models is that their TDP is scalable, based on what the builder is looking to do with it. If the chip is set to be used in a notebook with very little free space, the OEM could opt to drop the chip down to 3.5W and lose 600MHz in the process. By contrast, a bulkier notebook could handle a hotter chip better, so a higher TDP could be decided upon. If that route's taken, any one of these new chips could peak at 6W and add 200MHz to the base and top-end clocks.

Comments

Re:Intel's new Tock-Tick release cycle ...

[chmod a x mojo]

What jobs do Joe and Jane Average have that won't be well served by a C2Q or Phenom X4 from 7 years ago? None, not a damned thing, in fact many can get by just fine on a C2D or Athlon X2 and never notice any difference because they just aren't stressing the chips.

Bullshit. Maybe, MAYBE they are not stressing the C2D / C2Q chips if they only browse the net / read and reply to emails. Otherwise stuff like watching 1080P, and to a lesser extent 720P H.264 10bit videos ( or even 8bit, without GPU acceleration ), which more and more videos are in now, pushes a C2D into the 80-90% utilization range. Then they can't do any background tasks on the CPU when watching movies.

Even if it does do everything you need, the thermal profile is horrid... I moved away from my Prescott that did everything I needed to a C2D simply because I didn't want the thermal profile of the throat of an active volcano on my motherboard anymore, or the fans that sounded like jet engines that cooled it. The benefits of less heat output and less power input by far outweighed the performance gains ( those had been only a bonus ).
No one can know if we are going to hit a thermal wall anytime soon, the next breakthrough could be happening right as we discuss. Add that to the fact that Intel is reaching ARM power profiles with similar, or higher, clocks, and that x86 / x86_64 vastly outperforms ARM on a per clock-cycle basis and Intel has nothing to fear.

And congratulations on being an AMD only shop, heaven forbid your customers have any kind of choice in the matter. AMD hasn't made anything more than an "adequate" chip since the K6. Can you name one x86 based laptop / net-top / tablet that uses AMD chips and boasts long battery life made in the last few years? I've seen quite a few Intel based ones that boast 6-7+ hours VS. the AMDs that are usually rated at ~5+.
You may think I'm "trolling" asking that, but I am actually quite serious, if there is some AMD chip out there that is really power efficient I would like to know, it's just that the only really efficient stuff I have seen recently was all Intel.