Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Skylake-U For Laptops Posts Solid Gains In Testing, Especially Graphics (hothardware.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the running-the-numbers dept.

MojoKid writes: Intel's 6th Generation Skylake family of Core processors has been available for some time now for desktops. However, the mobile variant of Skylake is perhaps Intel's most potent incarnation of the new architecture that has been power-optimized on 14nm technology with a beefier graphics engine for notebooks. In late Q3, Intel started rolling out Skylake-U versions of the chip in a 15 Watt TDP flavor. This is the power envelope that most "ultrabooks" are built with and it's likely to be Intel's highest volume SKU of the processor. The Lenovo Yoga 900 tested here was configured with an Intel Core i7-6500U dual-core processor that also supports Intel HyperThreading for 4 logical processing threads available. Its base frequency is 2.5GHz, but the chip will Turbo Boost to 3GHz and down clocks way down to 500MHz when idle. The chip also has 4MB of shared L3 cache and 512K of L2 and 128K of data cache, total. In the benchmarks, the new Skylake-U mobile chip is about 5 — 10 faster than Intel's previous generation Broadwell platform in CPU-intensive tasks and 20+ percent faster in graphics and gaming, at the same power envelope, likely with better battery life, depending on the device.

104 comments

  1. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Optimized code for Intel chips runs really well on Intel benchmarks

    1. Re: Well.... by mattcoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it matter when you're comparing Intel to Intel?

  2. Meh by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Less than 10% is a "solid improvement" these days?

    --
    thegodmovie.com - watch it
    1. Re:Meh by dshk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Less than 10% is a "solid improvement" these days?

      Sadly, yes. Since AMD does not put any pressure on Intel on the CPU front, 5-10% CPU performance increase per year become the norm.

    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're pretty close to atomic limits. Did you think growth was eternal?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

      We've also hit limits on air travel and internal combustion engines... Or did you not notice we don't even have the Concorde anymore?

    3. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humph. At this rate it seems I'll finally retire my Sandy Bridge i7 by 2020

    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The truth is, we're simply past the stage of low hanging fruit and easy gains for traditional silicon tech. That was obvious to me around over a dozen years back when clock frquencies stopped increasing that it was just a matter of time. And yes, yes, you can't compare clock frequencies ONLY to make a speed determination between two completely different CPUs... but it does greatly affect speed just like RPM in a motor. It was then I knew they'd work on other stuff to make up for lack of easy frequency ratcheting, and those areas would run dry even sooner.

      If computing speed will ever make exponential gains again, it will probably be from some revolutionary or hybrid system down the line and not just reducing die sizes and processes but changing up the materials themselves at the very least.

    5. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When comparing a processor from 2011 to one from 2012 (sandy bridge vs ivy bridge) as I recently did when purchasing a laptop, there was also a 10% difference in performance. So this isn't that new.

    6. Re:Meh by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      But hurr durr, Moore's law! Singularity!!!1!

      --
      thegodmovie.com - watch it
    7. Re:Meh by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since AMD does not put any pressure on Intel on the CPU front, 5-10% CPU performance increase per year become the norm.

      The Intel of 2015 still has a very solid competitor eating into its profits: the Intel of 2010-13. I am typing this on a 2600K I bought in 2011, and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. I have went from 8 GB of RAM to 16 GB, from a 128 GB SSD to a 480 GB SSD, and I upgraded my monitor setup. But my desktop processor is still more than twice as fast as my 4300U work laptop, which I never worry about being slow. I wouldn't be that surprised if this processor lasts me until 2020, unless it stops working before then.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Meh by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      We went into high-k, a revolution in cache silicone, and aspects of stacked processor design since then. IMO these are fairly fundamental differences.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    9. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but 3D printers and graphene in private space on Elon Musk's Mars (tm)!? Free market!!!

    10. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tired of this dumb shit concept you all subscribe to that slowness in cpu improvements are because of lack of competition.

      It's called physics. How much are gasoline engines improving year over year? It's not as easy to make huge leaps as you dumbasses seem to think it is.

    11. Re:Meh by Kjella · · Score: 2

      In a power-constrained scenario, then yes. Leakage is eating up any power efficiency you get from smaller features. Smaller chips are cheaper to produce - meaning we should get getting them cheaper or more of them if competition was good - but it still wouldn't make a processor do in 10W what last year's processor did with 15W. We're not quite at the end of the road yet but the fat lady is warming up, Intel missing their tick-tock with Kaby Lake is just the first sign.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Meh by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >The Intel of 2015 still has a very solid competitor eating into its profits: the Intel of 2010-13. I am typing this on a 2600K I bought in 2011, and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. I have went from 8 GB of RAM to 16 GB, from a 128 GB SSD to a 480 GB SSD, and I upgraded my monitor setup. But my desktop processor is still more than twice as fast as my 4300U work laptop, which I never worry about being slow. I wouldn't be that surprised if this processor lasts me until 2020, unless it stops working before then.

      Ditto. Last week, a nagging voice in the back of my head told me it couldn't be possible for my 2600K to still be a viable CPU and to look into upgrading. After checking out CPU benchmarks for the latest round of CPUs, I was sort of surprised to see there not being any significant improvement. I'll probably wait another generation or two before my next CPU upgrade.

    13. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The smaller chips aren't really even cheaper to produce anymore. There are reasons that companies aren't jumping down to new nodes as fast as they come out, and it's not just availability.

    14. Re:Meh by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's got nothing to do with AMD. Processor performance hit a brick wall in the early 2000s. Prior to then, most performance gains came from ramping up the clock speed.

      1985 - 2 MHz
      1990 - 33 MHz
      1995 - 300 MHz
      2000 - 1.2 GHz
      2005 - 3.5 GHz
      2010 - 3.7 GHz
      2015 - 4.0 GHz

      At about 3-4 GHz,we reached a point where power leakage made higher frequencies completely impractical. AMD used a more power-thrifty architecture at that time which allowed them to briefly take the CPU lead from Intel, who was completely committed to ramping up clock speed with Prescott. Intel had to abandon netburst and later Intel CPUs were based on the mobile Pentium M, which eschewed high clock speeds to instead concentrate on lower power consumption (it was designed for laptops).

      Ever since then, both Intel and AMD have kept clock speed about the same, and focused instead on redesigning CPUs for more efficient parallel processing, increasing the number of cores, and reducing power consumption. Unless there's some earthshattering technological breakthrough, the days of CPU performance increasing 10x every 5 years are over. 5%-10% a year (about 1.5x increase every 5 years, which is about the performance delta between Sandy Bridge and Skylake) is the new norm. Get used to it.

      Most of the CPU improvements are instead going into reducing power consumption (Skylake uses about 1/3 to 1/4 the power of Sandy Bridge). My phone is more powerful than the computer I was using in 2000 and lasts 36+ hours on a single charge of a battery smaller than a Kit Kat bar. That is mind-boggling if you think about it.

    15. Re:Meh by Kartu · · Score: 1

      AMD is stuck with 28nm fabs.
      AMD has much smaller budget.
      AMD is rapidly losing GPU market share despite having excellent products (both R9 380 and R9 390 rock).

      So yeah, shame on AMD.

    16. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Due to the lack of competition, Intel has a strict conservative policy to not use performance enhancing modifications unless the performance increases by more than 2% for every 1% increase in power consumption. There are still quite a lot of gains to be had in a desktop/server environment, but Intel are not using them so they can reuse the same architecture across their mobile and workstation markets.

    17. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the part where the P4 range hit over 3.8GHz in 2005, and then the clock speed dropped significantly to around 1.8GHz when the Core architecture replaced it. The clock speed has been steadily increasing back up since.

    18. Re:Meh by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      So people can wait 10 years instead of 5 years before they replace their computer?

      Sounds good to me.

    19. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 390 GPU is not a very good product, and the competitor (NVIDIA) is stuck on the same 28nm node.

    20. Re:Meh by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      AMD is rapidly losing GPU market share despite having excellent products (both R9 380 and R9 390 rock).

      What good is the hardware if the drivers suck and have virtually no settings? It would be so easy to fix and instead they make another wacky huge application with in-built social media, built-in advertisements and other nonsense. It seems to me that AMD don't understand and have never really understood what their buyers want.

    21. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even 10%, really - the benchmarks varied quite a bit, with 10% (and a little more) tending towards the optimistic end of the advantage).

      But then, these tests included things like sunspider (really? in 2015?) and sunspider *without the same browser* (ok, you're testing the browser, not the chip), and a battery test in which high scores probably correlate with poor optimization (non-stop full load) since the lower the max performance, the longer the battery will last.

      Really poor benchmarking.

    22. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      I don't do any gaming any more (getting old and boring I guess), and my E8400 from 2008 (with 4 GB of RAM and an SSD) can still open / view / edit / read any document, movie or web site I want, without any noticeable delay..

      When this machine finally dies I hope I can switch to an ARM64 platform. No need for Intel any more, really..

    23. Re:Meh by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

      The real improvement these days is low power, increased performance from ssd, faster i/o with new chip sets and faster memory with ddr4. Additionally, decent integrated graphics bring overall system cost down. Strictly looking at cpu benchmarks paints a darker picture that is really the case.

      That said, i agree Moore's law seems to be on the ropes...

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    24. Re: Meh by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      It will start overheating before then...

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    25. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't agree with one part of this.. " increasing the number of cores". Intel has backed off from this strategy lately and instead decided that everyone deserves an ultrabook cpu with 2 cores. If you go shopping for a new laptop and you want a fast CPU, you have trouble finding anything. Gamer laptops still ship with haswell chips because that's the last time they shipped anything with 4 cores and some speed. Apple's shipping a few fast dual core CPUs in the macbook pro models but everything else is a slow ultrabook chip. There isn't high end in intel's lineup anymore. Haswell is the end of the line. I have absolutely no idea what I'm going to do when my desktop wears out. As it is, I'm stuck on a 2012 mac mini desktop for my mac because there isn't anything faster at the same price point.

      I went to buy a new laptop in august. 90% of the laptops at best buy contained 5200u or 5500u slow intel chips. There were 2 gamer laptops that were overpriced, a macbook pro with a decent cpu but no disk space and the option to special order a dell or lenovo workstation laptop. Not very exciting. I get that the average user doesn't need power, but why bother making 100 different laptops with the same ram, disk space and cpu in them? That's what everyone is doing. Intel is the problem. The race to the bottom for ARM is killing us. I don't care about battery life for 8 hours. I care about CPU performance so it doesn't take 8 hours to get something done!

    26. Re: Meh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The P4 got very high clock rates by having a lot of very short pipeline stages. You can push clock rates a lot higher than they are today if you split your pipelines into more stages, each of which does less. The P4 had some piplelines that were over 30 stages long. A 30-stage pipeline means that if you put an operation in at one end, you get the result 30 cycles later. If you want to saturate the execution units, then you need to find 29 more operations to start that don't depend on the results of the first (or any of the others). This is incredibly rare. It's even more rare when you consider that a typical superscalar chip has half a dozen or so separate pipelines. The P4 could have up to 140 instructions in flight at any given time. To fully saturate the pipelines, you need to have code that has 140 totally independent operations at a time. This is why Intel added Hyperthreading: there were always a lot of pipeline slots that had nothing going into them.

      As to the lack of increase in clock frequency, that's due to the end of Dennard Scaling. Read the Wikipedia article for more information, but basically shrinking the die size stopped giving you a free power consumption reduction about 10 years ago. This is why Dark Silicon is the industry buzzword de jour: Moore's law still means that you can double the number of transistors on your chip from generation to generation, but you only get a small increase in the number that you can have powered at any given time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re: Meh by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      If that ever happens you change the thermal paste : wipe the old one and put like 10 cents worth of new one.
      You can also undervolt and/or underclock it.
      If the motherboard doesn't fail this should be usable or useful for way more than 10 years.

    28. Re: Meh by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      What I've noticed on the older processors that get hot is that the internal bond inside he device doesn't conduct heat as well and the processor goes into a death spiral of increasing temperature if it overheats. I've learned that monitoring the cpu temp and making sure it never gets too hot is critical. If you really want to milk a processor for 10 years (and I have servers older than that) an ounce of thermal prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    29. Re:Meh by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      The Intel of 2015 still has a very solid competitor eating into its profits: the Intel of 2010-13. I am typing this on a 2600K I bought in 2011, and I have no intention of upgrading any time soon. I have went from 8 GB of RAM to 16 GB, from a 128 GB SSD to a 480 GB SSD, and I upgraded my monitor setup. But my desktop processor is still more than twice as fast as my 4300U work laptop, which I never worry about being slow. I wouldn't be that surprised if this processor lasts me until 2020, unless it stops working before then.

      It can go back much further than that for most people.

      My computers that are still in use at least once a week...

      2006 - Mac Mini 1.66Ghz Core Duo 2GB of RAM - Apple abandoned it years ago but I installed Windows 7 on it and still runs Chrome and Office well enough for my parents.

      2006 - Sony Vaio Core Duo 2GB of RAM - upgraded to Windows 7, used by my son for Office, MineCraft and some simple Flash games.

      2008 - Dell Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz, 4GB of RAM, one of the last 1920x1200 displays, it's fast and runs a complete development stack relatively fast.

      2009 - Dell laptop Dual Core Pentium, 4GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive. The battery is crap, and it's heavy, but the screen resolution is 1600x900 and it's good enough for everything I need it for.

      2012 - Gateway 3.33Ghz Core i3 6Gb RAM. I don't see any reason for upgrading this for the foreseeable future. It''s mostly used for Plex, occasional personal development projects, and office.

    30. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am typing this on a 2600K

      That's mighty hot; check your cooling!

    31. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ati's latest gpus have been utter shit coupled with their shutastic drivers, crapalyst or would it be crapson now?

    32. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I have two Core 2 Quad PCs at home, from 2007 and 2008, each having 8GB RAM. One has dual 1600x1200 displays, the other has dual 1920x1080 displays. Both have a couple of TB of backed-up storage This is posted from a Dell M4400 laptop with a Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM and 300GB backed-up storage and a 1920x1200 display from 2009. All run Xubuntu, and I see no reason to upgrade them.

      I'll probably upgrade one of the Synology boxes first. We have 3 of them at home, but one is a DS207, which needs to be replaced.

    33. Re:Meh by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Try this:

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

      $800 for a true quad core Intel notebook, Skylake and all:

      Intel i5-6300HQ 2.3 GHz Quad-Core
      NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5
      8 GB DDR3L / 256 GB Solid-State Drive
      15.6-Inch FHD IPS, Wide-Angle, Anti Glare Screen

      I own one of these, preordered it the day I saw it on Amazon, it is fast and the screen is very nice.

    34. Re:Meh by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      You do realize there's more then just pure power improvements in processors nowadays right?

    35. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect? The entire U series has terrible performance.

      And $1400 for that laptop is way too expensive. I know it has a high res display, but the CPU and GPU are garbage.

  3. I want to see 11. by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

    the new Skylake-U mobile chip is about 5 â" 10 faster than Intel's previous generation Broadwell platform in CPU-intensive tasks...

    Yeah, well, I'll be impressed when it goes to 11.

  4. "about 5 — 10 faster"? 5-10 WHAT? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    Pounds or kilograms? Don't leave us hanging!

    If only Moore's Law described the cost and performance of competent editing.

    1. Re:"about 5 — 10 faster"? 5-10 WHAT? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      5-10 poems?

    2. Re:"about 5 — 10 faster"? 5-10 WHAT? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Five-to-ten poems.
      Haikus is what you know 'em's.
      And this is one too.

  5. Intel needs to simplify by Stonent1 · · Score: 2

    They've got over a dozen product lines going and numerous iterations underneath that. The overlap is insane. Aside from graphics speed, the chips don't get much faster. The performance of this cpu is still in the range of 5 year old i7 mobile processors. The only reason to upgrade to a newer computer is just features, speed isn't really there unless you have a celeron.

  6. Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/AMT by ad454 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For some reason I get very nervous with an out of band remote proprietary management system baked into recent Intel chips, which operates below the OS, and has not been independently audited and reviewed by trusted 3rd parties (such as those not associated with mass surveillance).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Note that AMT is also in all Intel chips with vPro:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    This posting from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) has a decent writeup about it:
    https://fsf.org/blogs/communit...

    It seems that we are now in the age of hardware backdoors.

    Maybe AMD which cannot seem to compete with Intel on performance and low-power, can make a niche for itself as a secure (backdoorless) alternative.

    These days, I would value my privacy over performance.

  7. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Processors run microcode anyway, and even if you allow that there's SMM on x86, even on AMD. AMD is also introducing ARM-ish TrustZone into their new CPUs for even more backdoors. There is no safe and fast hardware :)

  8. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by ad454 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes processors run microcode.

    But that is no reason to connect it to an antenna which allows a pc which is turned off to still be able to run wireless remote management commands.

    In security one of the most critical consideration is to reduce the attack surface.

    Intel vPro/AMT has such a large attack surface, that if we can assume there are no deliberate back doors, it is a safe bet that having it still introduces a wide range of new attack methods against us.

    And for what? Just to help make corporate IT's job a bit easier? And remember those extra gates to support it does increase the chip's die size, power consumption, and cost.

    Why not have AMT/vPro only in corporate PC's on request, and not have it in anything else.

  9. Sunrise Point (SPT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't tell you who I am, but I work on the PCH side of things, and if your SKL/SPT system is humming along with no problems? You're very welcome, we worked long and hard to make sure it does. :-)

    1. Re:Sunrise Point (SPT) by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      If only the previous microarch were done as well! Had a friend buy a new Asus laptop (one of those ridiculously light and thin ones, no discrete graphics) with a Broadwell-U i5. About 2 weeks after he got it, it randomly decided to permanently power down all of the sudden while being used (and while connected to the A/C charger). Attempts to make the system do *something at all* (including hours of googling and trying various things) yielded no results; the system instantaneously transitioned from being a functional computer to a flimsy doorstop.

      Not saying it's Intel's fault, but it can't be a software issue if the system won't even POST.

    2. Re:Sunrise Point (SPT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those (like me) who don't recognize the acronyms here, I did a little googling.

      PCH - Platform Controller Hub
      SKL - Apparently just an abbreviation for Skylake
      SPT - Sunrise Point (ok, it was in the subject line) - aka 100 Series chipsets for processors using LGA 1151 socket

  10. Re: Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a fucking dolt. Yes to make corporate it's job easier. Aka their customers.

    You paranoiacs are so fucking dreary.

  11. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And for what? Just to help make corporate IT's job a bit easier? And remember those extra gates to support it does increase the chip's die size, power consumption, and cost.

    Why not have AMT/vPro only in corporate PC's on request, and not have it in anything else.

    AMT is not enabled on most consumer hardware, however the underlying technology (Intel ME) is present in every chipset since it has other functions like *cough* DRM *cough* and fast-reacting power management. Basically the CPU can't function efficiently without it, but that's kind of beside the point. My point is that there are a lot of insecurities in the most popular architectures that are they are there by malicious (tinfoil hat NSA etc.) or performance-dictated (DMA in everything without IOMMU) reasons.

    Yes processors run microcode.

    But that is no reason to connect it to an antenna which allows a pc which is turned off to still be able to run wireless remote management commands.

    You are aware that even if your PC seems "off" there's still a lot going on? For example network card can listen to WoL. What is a network card nowadays? A high performance CPU with RAM, ROM and DMA. It has a full-blown TCP and UDP stacks (used for offloading the main CPU by almost every OS). There have been attacks on Broadcom NICs that *remotely* overwritten the internal OS and put a rootkit there with full host memory access.

    In security one of the most critical consideration is to reduce the attack surface.

    Intel vPro/AMT has such a large attack surface, that if we can assume there are no deliberate back doors, it is a safe bet that having it still introduces a wide range of new attack methods against us.

    Our computers have long since been a highly complex network of basically insecure parts stitched together over the years and bloated by backwards-compatibility. My UEFI "BIOS" can call it's manufacturer and update itself over the Internet for example. They are not secure, nor they will be in the foreseeable future. It's sad, I know...

  12. percent by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    >"In the benchmarks, the new Skylake-U mobile chip is about 5 - 10 faster than Intel's previous generation Broadwell platform in CPU-intensive tasks"

    That is 5 to 10 *PERCENT* faster. Not a huge whoop. Of course, any improvement is an improvement. (At first I was reading it as "5 to 10 times faster")

  13. Better Graphics by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Does anyone who cares about graphics use the Intel graphics card? Yes, the kids playing a flash game may see a difference, though they wouldn't care, but anyone who runs a game doesn't do so on an integrated card. Even the best integrated cards have trouble with modern games at relatively low levels. The latest generation had the i5/i7 difference be the mainly the integrated graphics. Worse generation "improvement" ever.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
    1. Re:Better Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's enough to drive 4K and to accelerate h264/265. High OpenGL and OpenCL has some uses as well. The GPU in the best config can even play new games at 1080p with very good results - http://media.bestofmicro.com/S/N/497399/original/14-IGP-Bioshock-Infinite.png

    2. Re:Better Graphics by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      running at 1080p.

      on low settings.

      a game that also runs on xbox 360.

      a game that you describe as 'new'

      sure, it'll run shovelknight etc.. but duh. the point is pretty much that it's as fast as a budget card from 3 years back.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Better Graphics by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      That's actually impressive for a graphics chip that doesn't require a PCIe card, a dedicated power connection and its own cooling.

    4. Re:Better Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. Actually, the (currently) most played videogame is able to run on the Intel integrated GPU just fine (on low settings, of course, but the graphics of the game do not matter that much for the enjoyment). And this is *huge* for their business.

    5. Re:Better Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is really impressive is how long it took Intel do start doing GPUs that don't suck completely... now they just suck.

    6. Re:Better Graphics by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Yes, at least for the desktop line. Because for my needs, the integrated graphics are more than enough. Very low power requirements and not having to have a bulky card keeping the overall volume of the case minimal are more important.

    7. Re:Better Graphics by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Intel GPUs used to not suck, actually. Seriously, stop laughing!

      The GMA945 was actually capable despite not having hardware T&L. What was Intel's fuck up was the original reference speed was 400 MHz, and when they shipped it, every single one was either 133 or 166 MHz, which killed its performance dramatically.

      I popped GMABooster on a machine with a GMA945 and cranked it back to reference speeds, and what do you know, despite not having hardware T&L, if your CPU was beefy enough you were hanging with the GeForce 5/6 series of GPUs instead of hanging with GeForce 2/3 series cards in GPU performance. OpenGL actually WORKED once you brought it back up to reference speeds.

      Intel just has a history of doing stupid things to their GPU design.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Better Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khyber we're actually laughing at you being bitch slapped down by apk here http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    9. Re:Better Graphics by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Ain't nobody bitchslapping me.

      Not in that thread, given APK thinks HOSTs works when it's constantly demonstrated that it's fucking useless with programs and OSes having their own hardcoded DNS bypasses.

      HOSTs is shit as my fiance learned. 5TB of dead data now on APK's ass, and counting.

      Real hardware solutions or GTFO, n00b.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re: Better Graphics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could gaff about some idiots gaming needs in regards to their pc purchase. What a fucking joke. Fuck you and fuck gamers.

  14. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    For some reason I get very nervous with an out of band remote proprietary management system baked into recent Intel chips, which operates below the OS, and has not been independently audited and reviewed by trusted 3rd parties (such as those not associated with mass surveillance).

    What is known isn't good either. All you need is a valid certificate purchasable from any CA in AMTs root list to totally own any system with default configuration if your ever in a position to broadcast DHCP...oh and the computer doesn't even need to be turned on to do it.

    It seems that we are now in the age of hardware backdoors.

    It can be disabled from bios in some systems and effectively nerf'd in others by disabling I/O virtualization needed to "share" hardware such as your NIC with the operating system.

    Maybe AMD which cannot seem to compete with Intel on performance and low-power, can make a niche for itself as a secure (backdoorless) alternative.

    These days, I would value my privacy over performance.

    It is a good idea to check with vendor to make sure AMT can be disabled before purchasing.

  15. "i7"-6500U dual-core by citizenr · · Score: 2

    mobile i7 = desktop i3, gotta love lack of competition :(

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    1. Re:"i7"-6500U dual-core by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Do you also love being a fucked-up idiot?

    2. Re:"i7"-6500U dual-core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      explain your comment, because he is correct in a way... i7's were 4c/8t... and a desktop i3 is the equivalent 2c/4t so he does have a valid point, in a way

  16. Anandtech says, Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minor gains of the 6U v 5U. Even a draw for most of the 'standard' benchmark and app tests it uses for this. Much more variability is in the implementation - the laptop it is used in, than from any Skylake v Broadwell Us from the same model (vis a vis, model updates of a brand).

  17. The end is nigh ! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    So now, after 18 months in development, a 15% gain is "solid". Not worth changing your laptop over this.

  18. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for what? Just to help make corporate IT's job a bit easier? And remember those extra gates to support it does increase the chip's die size, power consumption, and cost.

    Why not have AMT/vPro only in corporate PC's on request, and not have it in anything else.

    vPro is only intended for corporate purchases and use, if you don't want it then don't buy it, most laptops that have vPro also have the same exact model available without it. And its not enabled by default... in fact you have to enable it TWICE in two separate places!

    With regard to your question of why Intel spends die area (aka money) on the vPro feature... well according to Intel vPro earns them approximately an extra 1 billion USD per year... Turns out corporate IT pays good money for features that makes their job easier.

  19. Re: Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edward Snowden called. He wants the Republican's scorn given back to history.

  20. Re:Intel Processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spammer account posting above. Someone, please, disable that account.

  21. Intel software needs to get their shit together by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Oh, sure, the graphics on these chips is worlds better than previous generations, and the power savings is great. BUT, if you can run their drivers without constant crashes and kernel panics it's not really a step forward. Most of the U series laptops and tablets our there are having a myriad of problems - hue shifts, sleep power drain, failure to wake up, driver crash/restarts and - yes - straight up kernel panics/BSOD that require a reboot. It looks like they hires a bunch of amateurs to code this round of drivers.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Intel software needs to get their shit together by Kant_resistor · · Score: 1

      So true. Their X79 boards were plagued with UEFI and chipset driver problems, never fixed--they actually dropped their Mobo line completely after that boondoggle. Drivers for NUC have suffered years of neglect. Integrated products still have some kind of interference between USB 3 ports and ethernet, that you can't use a wireless keyboard more than two feet away from the NUC (same was true of the X79, never fixed). I couldn't believe it when I had to connect an extender to my NUC to use a wireless keyboard with it.

      And the forums...the patience of Intel customers facing the stone wall was impressive.

      I now try to avoid any Intel piece of hardware more complicated than a NIC. I'll buy chips from 2 years ago rather than deal with that nonsense at the chipset bleeding edge.

    2. Re:Intel software needs to get their shit together by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Everyone who bought a MS Surface Pro / Book at launch, especially those who switched from Macs, are collectively losing their shit all over the internet. Now that other Skylake U chips are showing up in other mfrs laptops, it's quickly becoming obvious that it's an Intel problem rather than a MS one.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  22. Better graphics is way more than FPS by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Not everyone plays games. The graphics matter because it means running every day applications with reasonable responsiveness on laptops which don't have space for a spare card. A 2 pound laptop running both an internal screen and an external desktop at 7680x2160 with a 60Hz refresh and it still gets 6 hours of useful battery life? Fucking fabulous, let me tell you. FPS in games doesn't even make the top ten in 90% of laptop users want lists.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  23. AMD Carrizo, ever heard of it? by Kartu · · Score: 1

    AMD does fine at low power, at least after Carrizo release:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

    E.g. in HP EliteBook 725 G3, 7+ hours on battery:
    http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/...

  24. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Maybe AMD which cannot seem to compete with Intel on performance and low-power, can make a niche for itself as a secure (backdoorless) alternative.

    Don't bet on it; I recall credible reports of backdoors in AMD chips over a decade ago...

  25. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh goodie, another unrealized abortion that technology somehow missed and chimp parents raised. Pull your head out of your ass you stupid motherfucker, we can still see you!

  26. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The i3 versions of these processors don't have AMT. And these days, the i3 version even has AES-NI, making it a good proposition.

  27. Why is this worth noting? by The+Eight-Bit+Link · · Score: 1

    I'm still rocking a Phenom II x6, and in Linux when I have the CPU governor set to 'conservative' or something similar, it'll drop to 800 Mhz like it's nothing, and shed 40 watts of power consumption. Stock clock for it is 2.4 Ghz, but it'll go up to 3.5 Ghz just fine if I don't put it into sleep mode. How, then, is this such a big deal? Just because it's mobile?

  28. The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    VirusTotal & NOD32 shows it COMPLETELY CLEAN

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    There's only 2 exe's & 5 text files in it - The exe's are proven clean as shown above in the 2 links from VirusTotal, the installer's a SFX rar (keeps it 2mb smaller on download) - that's NO virus!

    (Unless YOU know of a way that .txt files are "viruses")

    ---

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    My program doesn't transmit outward ONLY intake of data from 10 reputable sources in the security community!

    ---

    "APK is apparently too fucking stupid to do this at the ROUTER level where it's most effective" - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    You believe in "eggshell security" which fails per -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    A TRULY COMPETENT NETWORK ADMIN WOULD DO FAR MORE THAN MERE PERIMETER LEVEL SECURITY @ ROUTER LEVEL!

    Routers get bushwhacked ALL THE TIME in DNS hijacks lately too, lol!

    ---

    "Windows 10 has hardcoded IPs and bypasses HOSTs." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    Windows ONLY bypasses hosts files for Windows update (Win8 & below) & for the tracking "telemetry" in Windows 10 (this is going to KILL Windows 10, mark my words - nobody likes tracking -> http://localghost.org/posts/a-... - test it yourself.

    ---

    "Browsers can bypass HOSTs as well." - by Khyber (864651) on Saturday August 22, 2015 @01:02PM (#50370415)

    WTF? They'd be bypassing the IP stack itself, hosts are part of it - since that's impossible? You've proven yourself a moron, again.

    APK

    P.S.=> "EAT YOUR WORDS"... apk

    1. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Khyber · · Score: 2

      No, you eat your words at 5TB of lost data because your HOSTs doesn't protect against SHIT when a program bypasses HOSTs with its own hardcoded shit.

      You complete utter fucking out of date moron, with your insecure out of date almost TWO DECADES OLD USELESS JUNK.

      Get the fuck off here and go to Reddit where your bullshit is tolerated by the uneducated masses.

      And any AV company espousing your bullshit needs to be avoided as well. It's quite obvious they don't know the first thing about security.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khyber you don't satisfy your man. He disabled hosts to whack off to porn vs. screwing you! Can't blame him. He infected himself probably.

    3. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha R O T F L M A O and Khyber says NOD32 said apk's ware is a virus too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    4. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khyber stfu already! The best in the business' people host and recommend him. Proof's in his spanking of you post + you eat your words on NOD32 too. If anyone's undereducated it's you.

    5. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing DNS with the IP stack, which is not surprising, as you clearly have no idea what you're doing. I mean, no one would purposefully spam the ever-loving shit out of a website they regularly use, expecting anything positive to come out of it.

      Hint: Browsers can make requests to IP addresses. You really should know this.

    6. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    7. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the delightful sound of a simple yet thorough bitch-slap to the face.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex Mcquown of riverside california USA, known homosexual deviant, likes getting bitch slapped in jail. Amirite convict? Yes we all know you're a fucked up queer and jailbird.

    9. Re:The bitch slapping of Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p... hahahaha (I cut and pasted this from other responses beneath dave the schizo pot junkie's posts as it's up moderated funny there and made me laugh my ass off).

  29. "U" About as Fast as a 4-Year Old "M" by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Yes, the graphics are likely better, but sadly if you want a powerful dual-core, there isn't much to cheer about.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:"U" About as Fast as a 4-Year Old "M" by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

      Some Numbers: http://www.notebookcheck.net/I...

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  30. Khyber you're stupid, here's why... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1st of all it sounds as if you MIGHT have dns poisoning (99.999% of ISP DNS' aren't patched vs. the kaminsky redirect flaw & yes, reverse DNS pinging my program uses COULD BE ABUSED BY IT STUPID, especially as I see you & yours are PRONE to stupidity infecting yourselves). Don't use your ISP DNS on that note - use one like OpenDNS (they ARE patched vs. the kaminsky redirect poisoning security flaw @ DNS levels).

    2nd - I've shown 3 respected sources that say QUITE OTHERWISE as to hosts' efficacy currently & yes from the past too (from places like Symantec, ESET/NOD32 - the VERY PEOPLE YOU SAID HAD SAID MY WARE IS A "VIRUS" & STUPID, I PUT UP CURRENT PROOF THEY DO NOT & even a statement from Aryeh Goretsky to me in email that he considers hosts a valuable layer of security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ).

    3rd - It also could be a router hijacking (DNS settings & this happens a LOT lately), check your DNS settings there (but hosts SHOULD bypass that... & on that note? Check your OS' DNS settings, as those get hijacked too & then, even hosts won't help during the reverse DNS ping, since that depends on DNS settings not being hijacked at OS IP stack levels).

    LASTLY - what program is this you speak of that uses its own IP settings? Windows Update?? That's easy to get rid of... but if that's NOT it?? Which one is it???

    * I hope your dull brain registers all that... & why I am even BOTHERING to help the likes of you that troll me? Oh, I am just a hell of a good guy is why! :)

    Heck - it MIGHT be this http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which I found VERY FUNNY & VERY POSSIBLE considering YOUR ATTITUDE! Ever consider that? Do.

    APK

    P.S.=> I am actually willing to help you thru this & discuss it rationally - provided you can actually PROVE this happened (even if not, still am willing to help)... apk

  31. No I'm not (reverse DNS pings need DNS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject dimwit: If Khyber's DNS is hijacked before reverse DNS verification, my reverse DNS ping won't work right stupid (when my program does it) - this gets hijacked ALL THE TIME BY MALWARE & considering he/she gets his/her machine infected? They are probably infected (since she complains it's about the hardcodes being 'wrong')... plus, DNS itself has a 24 hr. turn-around time on updates (could have been stale) - THIS IS A "FAILING" OF DNS FOR UPDATES AROUND THE GLOBE - takes time.

    That's why I suggested Khyber check that (in the OS IP stack settings first & later possibly the router itself since those are being hijacked lately by malware like mad - but this is less likely since whatever's in the IP stack will work first, & if neither is hijacked, we move to the next step...)

    It's possible also the site they ALLEGEDLY FAILED ON (I say that since I have @ least 30x Khyber's failed vs. myself on hosts bookmarked, lol) CHANGED THEIR IP ADDRESS (by moving to another hosting provider) - GOOD SITES TELL YOU WHEN THEY'RE DOING IT, lousy ones don't.

    APK

    P.S.=> Damn YOU are stupid - & yes, I know a browser can make a request direct to IP address (shithead, I could program a browser myself, but I know a dumbass limited in skills in computing weasel like YOU couldn't)... apk

  32. Another bitchslapping of Khyber... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quote> "I know HOSTs is fucking useless in the first place" - by Khyber (864651) on Thursday October 29, 2015 @10:13AM (#50824745)

    See subject: Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "Actually, APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa (366380) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @11:40AM (#49705641)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ---

    Plus you're outnumbered by your peers on /. as shown as to my program + hosts efficacy as well as noted security pros above also... YOU FAIL as always.

    APK

    P.S.=> That's to go with this one too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    ...apk

  33. Re:Waiting for secure version without Intel vPro/A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Network cards have full blown TCP and UDP stacks ? Really ?

    I think you are confusing the PXE boot skills of the card with the UDP/TCP checksum offloading.

    There certainly are not many network chipsets that offload the "full-blown TCP and UDP stacks" to a chip. Just the checksumming part.