Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Core M Performance Is Erratic Between Devices
An anonymous reader writes: AnandTech noticed some odd performance disparities with Intel's Core M CPU, a chip designed to bring high-powered processing to thin, fan-less devices. After investigating, they found that how OEMs build their laptops and tablets has a far greater effect on Core M performance than it does for other chips. "When an OEM designs a device for Core M, or any SoC for that matter, they have to consider construction and industrial design as well as overriding performance. ... This, broadly speaking, gives the OEM control over several components that are out of the hands of the processor designers. Screen size, thickness, industrial design, and skin temperature all have their limits, and adjusting those knobs opens the door to slower or faster Core M units, depending on what the company decides to target.
In the Core M units that we have tested at AnandTech so far this year, we have seen a variety of implementations with and without fans and in a variety of form factors. But the critical point of all of this comes down to how the OEM defines the SoC/skin temperature limitations of the device, and this ends up being why the low-end Core M-5Y10 can beat the high-end Core M-5Y71, and is a poignant part of our tests. Simply put, if the system with 5Y10 has a higher SoC/skin temperature, it can stay in its turbo mode for longer and can end up outperforming a 5Y71, leading to some of the unusual results we've seen so far."
In the Core M units that we have tested at AnandTech so far this year, we have seen a variety of implementations with and without fans and in a variety of form factors. But the critical point of all of this comes down to how the OEM defines the SoC/skin temperature limitations of the device, and this ends up being why the low-end Core M-5Y10 can beat the high-end Core M-5Y71, and is a poignant part of our tests. Simply put, if the system with 5Y10 has a higher SoC/skin temperature, it can stay in its turbo mode for longer and can end up outperforming a 5Y71, leading to some of the unusual results we've seen so far."
It's something some of us Apple fans have long figured out is that individual specs sometimes are completely meaningless.
Having a Core i7 will not actually feel more responsive in everyday tasks compared to a Core M if the i7 is paired with a spinning rust disk and the Core M has a PCI E SSD.
Similarly, just looking at the chip in the machine might not tell us everything if we don't know anything about how it's handling cooling or what specific design choices were made.
We're on the verge of reaching the 150HP car of computing. Don't really need much more for most tasks unless you're doing heavy lifting or looking to have fun, and even a lot of good clean fun can be had at 150HP.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
This has been the case for Intel CPUs for many years. Back in the Core 2 days they were already letting laptop manufacturers customize the power profiles (and therefore performance) of their mobile CPUs to suit the thermal load handling ability of their machines.
If you have one of those old Core 2 machines and don't install the Intel chipset driver for it (or install the generic one) it will get hot and loud pretty quickly. The only real difference now is that the CPU has better management built in and works okay without the driver giving it hints.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I can't see any problem with that.
Just read a few reviews before buying to make sure you get a device that is properly designed.
Intel model numbering has often been a bit cryptic, and worse more recently as they've spawned new product lines and taken advantage of their lead over AMD by market-segmenting with incredible precision, producing parts that differ by a single feature enabled or disabled, or have the same clock speed but different 'turbo' speeds, or any number of similar permutations.
As though that isn't enough fun, now even expert level knowledge of the model numbers won't tell you how fast it is because the OEM can gimp it to suit their chassis design. It's a good thing that basically all modern CPUs are really fast, or this would be downright depressing.
There, I fixed the headline for you.
Once notebook computers became a fashion accessory that happens to compute, this result was inevitable.
Of the two systems that performed best with the bottom of the line Core M, one used a cooling fan while the other had an aluminum shell that acted as a heat sink. The machine with faster processor had a plastic shell with no active cooling. It throttled back when it got warm and would not run at full speed due to heat buildup. Hence the reason why a lower power CPU outperformed a higher powered one. Shell design is everything when it comes to quickly venting heat. Don't use enclosed plastic if you need to cool a CPU that is designed to run at 65C. Use a metal shell, or an active cooling system if the shell is plastic.
[...] early Apple III computers where heat would cause chips to expand out of their sockets, [...]
“It’s not wise to upset an Apple III.”
“But sir...no one worries about upsetting a Droid.”
“That’s ’cause a Droid don’t cause people’s chips to expand out of their sockets. Apple IIIs have been known to do that.”
“I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Apple III win.”