backtop


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: Fourth generation, huh?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/3/2014 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct, it was a mistake on my part.


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By retrospooty on 6/3/2014 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Isnt this a die shrink on Haswell, which is still 4th gen?

.65nm Conroe Core 2 duo - 1st gen
.45nm Wolfdale Core 2 duo - 1st gen (die shrink)

.45nm Nehalem Core i3,5,7 - 2nd gen
.32nm Westmere (I think) Core i3,5,7 - 2nd gen (die shrink)

.32nm Sandy Bridge Core i3,5,7 - 3rd gen
.22nm Ivy Bridge Core i3,5,7 - 3rd gen (die shrink)

.22nm Haswell Core i3,5,7 - 4th gen
.14nm Broadwell Core M,i3,5,7 - 4th gen (die shrink)

As I type/pasted that out I realize I am a megadork. Only a Megadork would know or care about this.


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By XZerg on 6/3/2014 12:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
conroe/wolfdale are not part of the Core i generations.

Nehalem was 1st gen (45nm, new arch)
Westmere was still 1st gen (32nm, die shrink)
Sandy was 2nd (32nm, new arch)
Ivy was 3rd (22nm, die shrink)
Haswell was 4th (22nm, new arch)
Broadwell is 5th (14nm, die shrink)

With Ivy bridge they mucked things up with using new arch as new generation...


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By retrospooty on 6/3/2014 12:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
But the "Core i" isnt what determined it, it was the "core" or no? We say "4th generation Intel® Core™" processor. Not "Core" i

Whatever, its just naming, the chips are the chips and they are getting really good on the mobile front.


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By extide on 6/3/2014 2:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
XZerg is correct. Yes, it doesnt exactly make sense, but that is how it is.


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By retrospooty on 6/3/2014 3:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
" it doesn't exactly make sense, but that is how it is."

Ya, it must be convoluted. If that is the case, as BH mentioned it's wrong in Intels slide presentation too.


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/4/2014 8:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention Conroe was called Core 2, directly implying that it was 2nd generation. Intel and their idiotic naming schemes....


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By EnzoFX on 6/4/2014 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Core i or just "core" is different from the C2D's. Don't let the 2 in C2D confuse you, it's separate, think of C2D as it's own thing?


RE: Fourth generation, huh?
By Gondor on 6/4/2014 4:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well TBH there was Core ("Core Solo/Duo", not to be confused with Core2 Duo et al) stuff available as well, based on Pentium M, just to add more confusion. hence "2" in Core2.


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














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki