First Intel 14nm Broadwell Core M Benchmarks Unveiled 51
MojoKid writes Intel Execs out at IDF this week in San Francisco have let slip some actual benchmark run results on Intel's just-released Broadwell Core M processor platform. Intel has gone into detail on Broadwell's architecture and features previously and has discussed power consumption and performance expectations. However, now we finally have some cold, hard numbers, rather than just percentage comparisons versus previous generation Intel platforms. Intel was demonstrating a 12.5-inch Broadwell-based, Core M 5Y70-powered Windows tablet live and the benchmark runs look promising, with 3DMark scores in the 50K range. The Cinebench results shown place the CPU on par with full-fledged Core i5 notebook variants in the 15 Watt power envelope, but powered by the new 4.5 Watt Broadwell Y Core M processor that will be employed mostly in 2-in-1 hybrid devices and high end tablets.
Battery life (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hope the manufacturers will use the lower power consumption for prolonging the battery life rather than cutting down the capacity of batteries for cost saving :/
Re: (Score:1)
Company life (Score:2)
"What else would a manufacturer do", you ask?
How 'bout "never mind the customer, maximize profits, and prolongue the mere existence of the company."?,[<-- hey look,
four interpunction signs in succession] not necessarily in that order.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battery life (Score:4, Insightful)
Smaller battery, smaller cost, smaller weight, smaller/thinner device.
What do you think is going to happen?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope the manufacturers will use the lower power consumption for prolonging the battery life rather than cutting down the capacity of batteries for cost saving :/
Actually, let's hope that they do both, in different devices, and let consumers decide for themselves whether they want longer battery life, or thinner/cheaper devices. When I come home at the end of a long day, my smartphone usually still has a 90% charge. I don't need longer battery life.
ARM's number is up (Score:2, Interesting)
The silly notion that splashing ARM across your chip means it will always win in low-power devices just got the final nail driven into its coffin.
Re:ARM's number is up (Score:4, Informative)
It depends. If the ARM can do roughly the same work with only 2.25 watts, that's still 100% more efficient. Don't let the small wattage confuse the big picture.
Re: (Score:3)
If ARM really is worst in performance/watt then the only things that could save it are custom CPUs, a lower cost and multiple manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
work/Joule (Score:2)
or MIPS/Watt.
work per Watt makes no sense.
work/Joule is how "cheaply" you can get something done. MIPS/Watt is how fast you can get something done given a restricted power supply (or power envelope).
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes 4 times as long at 2.25 watts, it doesnt matter: It will use more battery.
Power consumption (Score:5, Interesting)
Performance increases have been evolutionary for quite some time now, no major news expected this time.
What is really important is the power consumption and battery life. Each new process shrink roughly halves the power while keeping the performance. Will be interesting to see if this trend holds.
At $281, a bit expensive for a tablet CPU (Score:5, Informative)
That's more expensive than the total cost of many tablets
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/... [cpu-world.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You really think OEMs pay that price?
Re:At $281, a bit expensive for a tablet CPU (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think OEMs pay that price?
OEMs may not pay that price, but what they will pay is still quite a bit more than the ARM chips that are available to them.
Re:At $281, a bit expensive for a tablet CPU (Score:4, Informative)
These chips are an order of magnitude faster than the fastest tablet ARM chips. If you look at performance/watt the intel chips are much more efficient too.
The advantage of the arm chips remains that can operate in a lower power envelope. Their drawback is they cant approach the speed of the intel chips. (Intel chips are more expensive though)
Intel is the best chip maker in the world. Their fabrication tech is a full 2 generations ahead of their nearest competitors. When intel decides to pull their head out of their own ass and focus on something serious they do quite well.
In my oppionon Intel's problems are entirely management driven. When they finally decided to ditch the netburst arch and develop the core/core2 they left AMD in the dust and have to this day. They've taken a long time to take mobile seriously. If they do, they will leave ARM in the dust as well.
If you're an opensource advocate I would welcome intel with wide open arms. Your typical ARM SoC is a fucking nightmare labyrinth of never-updated closed source drivers, zero documentation and one-off hackish implementations with no standards. (Just ask the Cyanogen devs) Sure, you can get cheap ARM chips but good luck trying to get anything but the example android mystery build that came with it to do anything useful.
You're going to have a lot more luck with an intel SoC. Open drivers, open specs, good documentation. Though there are a few exceptions with certain atom GPUs, 99 times out of 10 they'll be a hell of a lot easier to work with than an ARM device.
Re: (Score:2)
Your typical ARM SoC is a fucking nightmare labyrinth of never-updated closed source drivers, zero documentation and one-off hackish implementations with no standards.
But it's awesome how my brand new octo-core SoC only comes with Linux 3.4 support.
Re:At $281, a bit expensive for a tablet CPU (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel seems to be a full generation behind ARM in making efficient chips, but has used the 2 generation head start their fab has on everyone to cover that game, and then some now.
The story I got from my friends who work there (circa 1 year ago) is that they are scared to death that the tablet/phone markets escaped them. Desktop replacements have slowed, and they missed the boat on phones/tablets. They suck at being lean and mean, so they have almost always just outgrown their screw-ups. Chips like this make it clear that they really have made strides to close the gaps where they could.
It still stands that they have to push out an entrenched ARM competitor, and they appear to be trying to do so by targetting the 2 in 1 side rather than tablets directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel seems to be a full generation behind ARM in making efficient chips, but has used the 2 generation head start their fab has on everyone to cover that game, and then some now.
Intel has been very good at making efficient CPUs, but not systems. If you want to make a <5W SoC there's a whole lot of other skills you need than a 15-150W processor and Intel has clearly been on a steep learning curve there. Also they've been geared a lot towards efficient computing, while the chips that go into phones and tablets are far more about being efficient at idle and light load. Intel has been learning many new tricks to only power up what they need in the lowest possible power state for a s
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing high-end mobile x86 chips to ARM is comparing apples to oranges. Don't agree? Look at the transistor counts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for tablets and laptops, but also..... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The NUC is kind of a sleeper hit for intel. They're fast, well documented, easy to get a hold of, and reasonably priced.
You can get cheap tiny system from china, but they're poorly documented and poorly supported and QC is often bad. I've heard a lot of stories of business and buying NUCs by the truckload because they're a lot of high quality computer in a tiny package for a good price.
Re: (Score:2)
With you :)
Light on details but I thought you might be slightly interested:
http://www.pcworld.com/article... [pcworld.com]
Pertinent point: "Now, Intel’s next NUCs are taking aim at the 14-nm Broadwell generation. No, not the Core M, the chip that Intel just announced for tablets and some notebooks. Intel designed the Broadwell-U derivative for NUCs, a 15-watt dual-core chip for ultrabooks and NUCs that should arrive with a slower graphics core than Intel’s more mainstream chips."
Stor
someone had to say it (Score:1)
Daily announcement (Score:2)
3 pieces of turd = Benchmark? (Score:2)
In the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, the Broadwell-based tablet we saw in action put up a score of 142.8 (with Internet Explorer running under Windows 8.1)
Quite possibly the 3 most inefficient and slowest performing items ever created in the era of computing.
Lets fling em together and benchmark everything based on multiple turds!