The INQUIRER - nibbling the toes of the people who have hands to bite
|
|
|
Intel makes fantastic claims for 2010 Cores
IF A 15 PER CENT REDUCTION in power consumption means to you that a microchip is low voltage then Intel's latest 2010 Core processors will be just your cup of tea.
The only evidence Intel offers to justify its description of "low voltage" and reduced power consumption for its four 2010 Core processors is the company's own vague "average power targets for Q3 '10'".
Designed for notebooks, the chips have a U suffix to denote their alleged "low voltage" characteristics and an M for mobile computing applications. Available from June, the processors are expected to feature in Acer, Asus, Lenovo and MSI products. Of the existing Core product lines the 2010 models are two Core i5 chips, the 540UM and the 430UM, then there are the Core i7-660UM and the Core i3-330UM. Intel also has Pentium and Celeron variants to confuse us all.
Manufactured at 32nm scale, these chips from Intel boast 32 per cent "better performance", but it is in the small print that we find that is a comparison between the Core 2 Duo SU3700 and the Core i5-430UM.
To cap off Intel's run of slightly tenuous claims about its Core processors for 2010, they are said to enable 32 per cent slimmer laptops, by which it means the ultra portable end of the market. µ
Share this:
Share
I beg to differ.
I find my Core 2 Quad simply a beauty to run. I can dedicate a task on a core and use others for everyday tasks.
And there are many games that work a lot better with 2 or more cores now - not to mention that even if they do not make use of more than one core, you can still play on one core and have the system stuff be taken care of by the other cores.
There is, however, one drawback to this situation under Windows : XP does not know how to keep core attributions from one boot to the next.
In other words, every time I reboot, I have to go and reassign tasks to specific cores if I want the seperation to be done the way I want.
Maybe Win7 does better, if so I'd like to know. That would indeed be quite an incentive for me to upgrade my license.
And yes, I know that Linux can do that - but you don't game on Linux (no you don't, I'll think otherwise the day new games come out with a Linux version as SOP - we're far, far from that at the moment).
No, it says clearly the "power consumption", not voltage. This advertisement is about "ultra low voltage", yes ?
And before you tell me that's the same thing, no it's not. Even if P = V*I. When we talk about specs, Average power is a function of many things. These are 32nm parts ? Guess what. Lower power than 45nm parts even if the voltage was exactly the same. Also there are many different power states and average power depends upon how much time is spent in the different states. Intel introduced power gating technology which can virtually shut off sections not used. So, lower average power. And in spite of all this, there can be a wide distribution of power from lot to lot --- even if they are all the same part type with the same voltage.
Mobile parts, for example, are typically screened for the lower power. A manufacturer can create a lower power segment simply by selecting the power power parts out of the distribution
So, again, simply tell me what the "ultra low voltage" is so we can be assured that these are indeed "low voltage" parts.
Finally, you think these are just "high end Atoms" ? You haven't been paying attention. Do you actually know the architectural difference between Atoms & higher performing parts ? Read before you leap.
Voltage is voltage. Power is power. These are SI physical quantities - pretty much (I've never quite understood AC)... If the thing takes a 0.1 V power supply and outputs a kilowatt of power - well, you won't need a separate electric heater in the room, but it would be technically low voltage. The problem will be the wiring, and of course the heat sink...
In practice, the whole point of having low voltage is to achieve low power, and also less heat, for the same amount of computing work. Think of it like the old computers with valves, if you can run them at reduced voltage and power and heat and still get the job done on time...
What would you expect from InHell?
The voltages are 15% lower. If the Non-U runs at 1.2v, then the U version runs at 1.02v. That's very reasonable for a mobile processor, and even a desktop.
These are ALL dual-core mobile units, with the i7 660UM being just 1.33Ghz. The X2 3250e is a dual core as well running at 1.5Ghz for the extra $65 over a 2650e. With that, you can buy a desktop CPU. If you don't need quad, ya don't need dual.
They'd be very comparable performance wise for what folks do with such low horsepower units. They're basically high end Atoms...and remain dual core.
And yes, 18W is the TDP which is thermal design vise electrical.
I like the facts and not the hype. Why would I need four cores in a netbook anyway. I do however like AMD's x2 3250e and wish AMD would make these available to the public. MY little Zino w/24 inch monitor runs at 58 watts and can play most games (some at slow frame rates but they play) and anything to do with videos. We don't need more cores, we need faster cpu's at lower power since most software can't use 4 cores anyway. I slso like the atom but not with 4 cores. A waste of battery.
Dont confuse a chips actual power use to its TDP. TDP is just the amount of power which can be dissipated by that particular chip package. (for instance a E5200 has the same TDP of 65w as an E8500, but only uses about 25w or so).
For some (probably marketing) reason Intel will not release actual power figures.
I'll wait and see what AMD comes up with when they finally reach 32nm.
D'ooohhhhhh!
I like the *new* inquirer. How about you, Luddite?
Duh. It doesn't take a degree in Electrical Engineering to know that claims of lower voltage can be refuted by simply publishing what the lower voltage spec is --- and comparing it to standard parts.
So what's the lower voltage and how does that compare ?