Print 62 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Jun 4 at 5:37 PM

Intel announces its “most energy-efficient Intel Core processor” to date

When it comes to processors used in today’s computers (be they laptops, desktops, or servers), Intel remains the king. However, as consumers find themselves increasingly moving away from being tied down to a desktop towards mobile devices, Intel still wants to be at the forefront of innovation when it comes to processor performance and efficiency.
With processors based on ARM architecture clearly dominating in the smartphone and tablet space, Intel is looking to push back heavily starting at the convertible PC level and downward. To show its commitment, Intel is introducing a new Core M processor that is based on the 14nm Broadwell architecture. Intel calls the Core M the “most energy-efficient Intel Core processor” to date, and states that the processor will enable a broad range of thin, lightweight, and more importantly, quiet mobile devices.

Intel's Llama Mountain reference design
Compared to the previous generation Core offerings, the Core M will have a 60 percent lower TDP, 20 to 40 percent better performance, and a 50 percent smaller package footprint.
At Computex, Intel demoed a 2-in-1 device with Core M, codenamed Llama Mountain, which pairs a 12.5” fanless tablet with a detachable keyboard. The tablet itself is just 7.2mm thin, and weighs 1.48 pounds. For comparison’s sake, the recently announced Surface Pro 3 features a 12” display, is 9.1mm thin, and weighs 1.76 pounds.

 Microsoft's Surface Pro 3 is 2.1mm thicker than the Intel reference design

One of the first products to use the new Core M processor is the ASUS Transformer Book T300 Chi which runs Windows 8.1. This convertible PC features a 12.5” IPS display (2560x1440), detachable keyboard, and integrated LTE connectivity.

ASUS Transformer Book T300 Chi
There’s no word yet on availability for the Transformer Book T300 Chi, or other devices that will use the Core M.

Sources: Intel, ASUS

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not much to go on here.
By retrospooty on 6/3/2014 11:22:16 AM , Rating: 3
There are 2 reasons for that.

1. Intel CPU's have been too hot and power hungry (until now)
2. Derp... Windows RT, Windows8 - enough said. (Win8.2 and 9 look to fix the "Derp"

So... It's a different landscape. I know you dont want to see that being a completely off the rails MS hater, but its at least to a point where the problems and irritating things are gone. Like it or not, this CPU is alot more powerful than anything ARM can do and is x86 compatible, which runs the software that runs the world.

RE: Not much to go on here.
By Mint on 6/3/2014 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
Intel and MS were always focused on the long term.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's "derp" was to kick off Win8 app development. 200M users quasi-forced to use Win8 apps is a better draw for developers than 500M users mostly ignoring them by turning on the original start menu and forgetting about Metro altogether. Now they're converging on a unified OS core (even if UI differs a bit) to attract developers even more.

And Intel has long done everything it can to keep people buying $100-1000+ processors as opposed to embracing the $30 SoC paradigm. They knew they'd get fanless Core processors eventually. The MacBook Air had already shown Haswell achieved consumption parity to ARM in web browsing per kWh of battery.

At 1.48 lbs, weight is no longer a meaningful issue, especially when you get a 12.5" screen. It's beginning to make less and less sense to buy and carry a premium tablet and laptop as opposed to a 2-in-1, especially when we're seeing dual OS systems (Android/Win8) for those who can't wait for Win8 apps to reach parity.

It's not a done deal yet, but in terms of markets Intel and MS actually care about ($300+ devices), I think they predicted well and made the right business moves.

RE: Not much to go on here.
By retrospooty on 6/3/2014 5:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
"It's not a done deal yet, but in terms of markets Intel and MS actually care about ($300+ devices), I think they predicted well and made the right business moves."

Maybe... Through it all they did both remain incredibly profitable, but I cant help to think about the lost opportunities if they had both been up to the mobile task years earlier... Or even if Intel hadnt sold off thier ARM business a decade ago. I remember having a Tungsten T3 with an Intel StrongARM CPU back int he day, but they sold the whole ARM business unit off to Marvell (If I recall correctly). If Intel had that ARM business we could potentially be on faster ARM chips now.

Meh, maybe its a good thing. This whole mobile boom loosened both MS and Intel's grip on the industry, so we all benefit from the added competition.

RE: Not much to go on here.
By Mint on 6/4/2014 7:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think it played out well for everyone.

As you mentioned, we got competition due to MS and Intel letting others win the low end computing market.

Meanwhile, Intel's failure to market BayTrail (especially when running Android) as "good enough" kept Core processor demand mostly intact, and this at least slowed down the oft-predicted "end of PC era". MS also furthered this goal by bringing multitouch to PCs.

Smartphones are a different story, though. Definitely lost opportunities there.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki