backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by blandge.. on Apr 26 at 12:22 AM


  (Source: Clubic)
IGP is faster than Sandy Bridge, but well behind AMD; power savings to be key amid higher prices

Today Intel Corp. (INTC) is reportedly launching (according to reports by Electronista and BBC News) its third-generation of Core i-Series processors, code-named Ivy Bridge.  The launch comes just over a year and four months after the introduction of Sandy Bridge, which was launched at the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show.

I. Third-Generation Core i-Series Chips Announced a Bit Earlier Than Expected

Ivy Bridge brings a new integrated graphics processor (IGP), a 22 nm die-shrink, new power-saving 3D FinFET transistors, and long-overdue native USB 3.0 support.

The arrival of Ivy Bridge is a bit of a pleasant surprise.  While it was reportedly complete and ready in January, low demand from OEMs reportedly pushed the launch date backwards.  Rumor had it that the launch would be pushed all the way to June, but here we are with 13 Ivy Bridge chips reportedly ready to ship.

There's been no official press releases from Intel, thus far, and prices/models have not gone live on Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) or Newegg.com.  It is not immediately clear when these parts will be available.

Ivy Bridge
A colorized die-shot of Intel's third generation Core i-Series CPU. [Image Source: BBC News]

Intel's PC business chief, Kirk Skaugen, told the BBC, "The momentum around the system design is pretty astonishing.  There are more than 300 mobile products in development and more than 270 different desktops, many of which are all-in-one designs.  This is the world's first 22 nanometre product and we'll be delivering about 20% more processor performance using 20% less average power."

Intel reportedly has three factories fully upgraded to the 22 nm process and churning out Ivy Bridge chips, with a fourth coming online later this year.  States Mr. Skaugen,  "This is Intel's fastest ramp ever.  There will be 50% more supply than we had early in the product cycle of our last generation, Sandy Bridge, a year ago. And we're still constrained based on the amount of demand we're seeing in the marketplace."

The world's largest chipmaker's marketing of the chip -- aimed at its much touted "ultrabooks" -- revolves around the power-saving benefits of the die shrink and new 3D transistor gate design.  Lauds Mr. Skaugen, "A lot of people had thought that Moore's law was coming to an end.  What Intel has been able to do is instead of just shrinking the transistor in two dimensions, we have been able to create a three-dimensional transistor for the first time.  For the user, that means the benefits of better performance and energy use will continue for as far as Intel sees on the road map."

II. More Questions Than Answers

But there are many unanswered questions about Ivy Bridge.  First, there's the question of its supposed strength -- power consumption.  Competitor Advanced Micro Device, Inc. (AMD) just unleashed a power-sipping pair of system-on-a-chip designs dubbed Trinity and Brazos 2.0.  While the AMD chips are built on a more power hungry 32 nm process, they are also expected to feature less-powerful CPU cores.  Who comes out on top power-wise is still up in the air -- Intel clearly has the process lead, but AMD's slimmer cores may close that gap, while delivering superior pricing.

And that's not to mention the waiting ranks of ARM chipmakers like Qualcomm, Inc. (QCOM) who are preparing their chips, such as the Snapdragon 4 series, for Windows 8 laptops.  Like AMD, they are built on a bigger feature size, but include more lightweight cores.  Additionally, ARM chips enjoy certain architectural advantages from a power perspective versus Intel and AMD's x86 chips.

Who comes out on top of the power battle will likely not be decided until October or November, when the ARM designs launch in mass, and Intel/AMD's respective lineups have had time to flesh out and be thoroughly benchmarked.

The other major question is graphics.  While the HD 3000 IGP inside Sandy Bridge was a step forward for Intel, it was also nearly twice as slow as the IGP found in AMD's Llano chips.  Intel is touting Ivy Bridge's HD 4000 IGP as a major advance performance-wise.  In some talks it's bragged of 2 or more times increase in performance -- but other reports indicate a more conservative 60 percent (on average) performance bump.

Early reviews [example] are not looking good for Intel on the IGP front, as they show the chip unable to beat AMD's last generation design, and posting 50 percent (less than promised) gains in real world games and 80 percent gains in synthetic benchmarks.  While there's a need for more careful analysis (Anandtech's thorough review is on the way -- teaser here.), it appears that Ivy Bridge may be DirectX 11 compatible, but will need to be paired with a discrete GPU (unlike AMD's design) to have acceptable gaming.

With AMD's Trinity boasting a reportedly much-improved hybrid design incorporating elements of AMD's HD 6000 and HD 7000 series of discrete graphics chips, Intel's hopes of winning the IGP war this round are all but over.

III. Can Intel Sell Customers on Twice-as-Expensive Ultrabook Designs?

Likewise, it's anyone's guess how the IGPs inside high-end laptop-ready ARM chips will stack up to Intel's offerings in Windows 8 benchmarks.

If there's one safe bet, it will be that the new Intel chips will be more-powerful CPU-wise on a per-core basis than its competitors.  The compelling question, though is whether that will matter enough to consumers to overlook the chips' relatively high price point.

The initial launch is expected to feature 13 pricier quad-core models, according to BBC News.  These chips will fall under the Core i5 and Core i7 monikers.  The lineup will only be fleshed out with single-core and dual-core (Core i3, i5) models later this spring.

Intel Ultrabooks are expected to be $800 to $1,000 USD.  By contrast, AMD is promising sub-$500 USD ultrathins.  ARM notebooks are expected to debut at a similar price -- or even lower.  The price difference reportedly stems largely from the higher unit prices for Intel's chip + chipset solution and the potentially weaker IGP, which necessitates a low-end discrete GPU, in many cases.  In other words, don't necessarily expect a $900 USD Intel Ultrabook to be any higher build quality than a $500 AMD ultrathin.

If AMD can beat Intel in graphics-enabled applications such as Adobe Systems Inc.'s (ADBE) Photoshop CS6 and various games, the question is what if any good Intel's much more powerful CPU cores are for laptop users.  Likely only browsers (think intense multi-tab sessions) and a handful of other apps might perform better on Intel's more powerful CPUs.  But the question is whether winning in "some cases" is enough to convince customers to pay nearly twice as much.

Trinity in the wild 

Trinity in the wild
Intel is facing fierce competition from AMD, whose Trinity (center). is expected to outperform Ivy Bridge graphically, while being featured in laptops that are nearly half the cost of Ivy Bridge ultrabooks. [Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

For that reason it's little wonder that Intel is hyping power consumption so much.  Power is a must-win scenario for Intel in the laptop space.  Utility in mobile devices is still heavily dictated by battery life.  If Intel can beat AMD from a power perspective, it will make a compelling case for its pricier chips.

Intel is already looking ahead to its architectural makeover in the 2013 Haswell, promising even more power advances.  States Mr. Skaugen, "We are targeting 20 times better battery life on standby - always on, always connected.  So you can get all your files and emails downloaded onto your PC while it's in your bag, and still get more than 10 days of standby and all-day battery life."

The veteran will need to deliver big on those promises in the face of intense competition, or it could face extinction in the mobile space it has long dominated.

Sources: BBC News, Electronista



Comments     Threshold


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

Sensational Mick
By BSMonitor on 4/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sensational Mick
By Goty on 4/23/2012 5:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the fanboy. I debate even responding to you since you'll simply twist the facts however you can to try and rationalize your arguments, but I'll just leave this here and then watch you splutter for a bit.

quote:
Really, where are all the USB 3.0 devices if integrating this support into the chipset is LONG OVERDUE??


Hosts first, devices later; that's the way it happens.

quote:
These chips are not available.


They have shipped to ODMs. IVB isn't available either.

quote:
This is a function of demand. You cannot charge more for something no one wants.


Actually, it's called market positioning. If you want/are able to compete with an i3, your price in accordance.

quote:
No ARM chip can even remotely compete in terms of performance on the desktop with ANY AMD or Intel CPU.


Clearly you haven't heard that Windows 8 isn't really aimed at the desktop, but rather tablets and convertibles, where ARM rules the roost.

quote:
No one ever claimed Ivy Bridge's IGP would surpass AMD's Llano. AMD's Llano incorporates 400 shader units and utilizes much more power in doing so. No one claimed IVB would be 2 times faster than SNB IGP. Intel only raised the number of EU's from 12 to 16.


They claimed it would be competitive. It's not.

quote:
How is this possible?? Explain. A top of the line IVB for an ultra-thin will cost at most $300. So using the same components short of the APU, AMD will be selling Trinity APU's for $-100 for Ultrabooks.


A few reading comprehension exercises will allow you to recall the fact that the author implies the price of a discrete GPU (needed for IVB to compete in graphics performance with the incoming Trinity APUs) will eat up a portion of the budget for comparable Intel ultrathins.


RE: Sensational Mick
By BSMonitor on 4/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sensational Mick
By Goty on 4/23/2012 6:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Spluttering accomplished. Goodnight, everyone.


RE: Sensational Mick
By BSMonitor on 4/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sensational Mick
By tamalero on 4/24/2012 12:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
are you implying only him down-voted you? please!.


RE: Sensational Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2012 7:04:34 PM , Rating: 3
"Fanboi"

You know when I read the review from Anandtech, Daily Tech's more technically minded and factual sister site, one comes away with an entirely different opinion of Ivy Bridge.

Who's buying all these "Ultrabooks" anyway? Not many, but I suspect Daily Tech keeps referring to them because it's the ONLY area where AMD even remotely looks competitive. Anandtech sure as hell isn't basing their evaluation of Ivy Bridge on such an insignificant market.

Other professional sites like Anandtech are thoroughly impressed with Ivy Bridge and back this up with benchmarks. Daily Tech is referring to it like a big disappointment. Now who's being the fanboi here again?


RE: Sensational Mick
By Goty on 4/23/2012 8:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Taken in isolation, IVB is great, but the performance gains just aren't there for anyone who owns pretty much any processor from the previous two generations (heck, I'm still rocking my 920 D0 @ 4.2 GHz and don't feel the slightest bit of desire to upgrade). Take this with the less-than-promised (well, hyped, anyhow) power consumption gains and disappointing overclocking and IVB is definitely a let-down.


RE: Sensational Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2012 10:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
These aren't the low power models though. These are desktop chips. How is a desktop i7 pulling just 45w at max load at "Turbo" clocks not impressive as hell?

Overclocking? To make this chip a better overclocked you would be giving up WAY more than you get. Explained here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-an...

And honestly who really needs to overclock anymore? The off-the-shelf performance of these chips are just outrageous. Even you just said two generations ago are "good" enough, so why do you also put emphasis on overclocking as a negative? That's a contradiction.

I guess if you're putting unrealistic expectations on it, then sure, IVB is a "let down". But in reality, given that this is the first iteration of 22nm Ivy Bridge, you cannot be serious. Let down compared to what? Nothing out there is even close.


RE: Sensational Mick
By Goty on 4/23/2012 11:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Unrealistic" is a relative term. Everyone and their brother were hyping finfets/3d transistors as being the next coming/the best thing since sliced bread, when at best it is an incremental improvement that doesn't even really match up to the move to SOI (for AMD) or HKMG (for both Intel and AMD).


RE: Sensational Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sensational Mick
By Goty on 4/24/2012 1:05:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is. It's pushed back Moores Law. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say.


I don't know what to say. (See what I did there?)

quote:
And SOI? Where are you getting this stuff from? SOI is a whole lot more expensive to produce than building a finFET based processor currently. SOI has always been more expensive thus why Intel has never used SOI in their processors. Why don't you actually read about the problems that AMD has had with SOI and compare Bulldozer to Ivy Bridge. Notice something?

The two aren't even at odds anyway. SOI is a materials change while finFet is a structural improvement. In theory you could have finFET processors on SOI, which would pretty much rock.


I'm not sure what exactly you took offense to here (or why you're getting to riled up, outside of a little too much love for a name). SOI, HKMG and tri-gate transistors are all targeted at one thing: improving transistor performance, whatever the metric you choose to measure "performance". Also, I'm simply comparing the impact of the move to these different techniques; I don't care about ongoing difficulties or diminishing returns. Also, I never implied that SOI/HKMG/tri-gates were mutually exclusive technologies, that's just another case of a fanboy making up arguments that don't exist.

quote:
That's by design of course. Hello? This is the first Ivy Bridge chip.
You think this is the best they'll ever get? Or that Intel doesn't want to hold back? Of course they're holding back to maximize profits, they have ZERO competition from AMD. Why wouldn't they? It's like you're tunneling on the end result of this first chip and ignoring the potential of the technology entirely.

Oh, absolutely, Intel could have made a monster chip that's four times as fast as this IVB on a completely new process with a new transistor technology if they just worked at it!

(/sarcasm)

That being said, I'm judging the technology as it is currently implemented, and the results are (again) an incremental improvement. Based on the hyperbole that was spread for most of the past year about the technology, I was expecting more. If things change down the road (as they most certainly will), so will my opinion.

quote:
You people can be Tri-Gate deniers if that makes you happy, whatever. It's willful ignorance in my opinion. It's like arguing that fuel injection isn't all that great, and carburetors are almost as good lol.


I'm not sure what a "Tri-Gate denier" is, but ok. I'll continue to be happy in my opinion (which seems to be somewhat more informed than your own), and you can continue to make up arguments and defend Intel against all opposition (real or imagined) to your last breath as long as that makes you happy.


RE: Sensational Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2012 2:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
There's really no need for that much sarcasm and condescension. But there seems to be a concerted effort on some peoples part to insist that Tri-Gate is a disappointment and is no big deal. If you are not one of those people, I apologize.

quote:
SOI, HKMG and tri-gate transistors are all targeted at one thing: improving transistor performance, whatever the metric you choose to measure "performance". Also, I'm simply comparing the impact of the move to these different techniques


Well seeing as how tri-gate is the only technology that's actually incorporated into competitive CPU's for the desktop/server, I feel you only brought up these other processes to, again, minimize Intel's accomplishment here. You said it didn't "match up to the move to SOI" without even bothering to support your argument. That is far from a definitive statement.

quote:
That being said, I'm judging the technology as it is currently implemented, and the results are (again) an incremental improvement.


I'm just trying to understand your basis for comparison. They were able to increase CPU AND GPU power and still make a significant improvement in efficiency. Not sure what's so disappointing about that.

It's the most efficient clock for clock and most powerful quad core CPU you can currently buy. Hands down. You can dance around it all you want, but there it is.


RE: Sensational Mick
By bigboxes on 4/24/2012 8:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Goty, you are spot on today. As another Intel i920 D0 owner I completely agree with what you are saying. I too have decided to wait to Haswell to update my desktop. I'm thinking that Trinty will be fine on the laptop and ARM may rule the tablet (for all practical purposes). I'm not all caught up in the spec wars. I just want what's best for me, the consumer.


RE: Sensational Mick
By BSMonitor on 4/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sensational Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2012 5:24:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah BS I really don't get this guy. I just love how people work so hard to make the facts somehow fit their world view on something, but in this case Goty is really stretching reality.

It's the first released chip using a brand new process, OMG it doesn't instantly blow away a mature platform like Sandy Bridge? God it sucks!


RE: Sensational Mick
By someguy123 on 4/24/2012 12:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
FinFet exists to reduce leak and provide better scaling at lower voltages. I'm not sure why anyone would think that finfet would provide a huge bump in desktop performance, where the standard voltage fluctuates at around 1.2, which is pretty much in line with performance scaling graph intel released a while back showing gate delay improvements. As anandtech's testing notes, the chips they received could be undervolted down to about .9v while still overclocking to 3.9ghz and running stably. This sounds like a case where people were hyped due to misinformation.


RE: Sensational Mick
By Amiga500 on 4/24/2012 2:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This sounds like a case where people were hyped due to misinformation.


No, people were hyped because they were stupid and unable to comprehend the information put in front of them.


RE: Sensational Mick
By TakinYourPoints on 4/24/2012 4:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. People expecting decent overclocks from a CPU made off a new process versus a mature one were not paying attention or thinking critically.


RE: Sensational Mick
By blandge on 4/26/2012 12:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ivy Bridge was about where most people with technical knowledge expected it to be. All of the data Intel release showed 22nm finFET transistors having marginal performance gains at desktop voltages.

Consider that the FX 8150 has a 125W TDP. Compare that to IVB with 77W. That's a 48W difference in TDP with SIGNIFICANT performance advantage to IVB. That's almost unbelievable.

Still, the true advantage of 22nm finFETs is yet to be revealed in full. The performance per watt delta between 22nm finFET and 32nm planar is not linear. At lower power finFETs become more efficient and more powerful compared to planar. Wait until 22nm ULV (17W) and Atom (<1W - 10W) are released before you start making negative claims about finFET performance.


RE: Sensational Mick
By BSMonitor on 4/24/2012 9:26:59 AM , Rating: 1
LMAO, it's ONLY overhyped in YOUR mind.


RE: Sensational Mick
By tamalero on 4/24/2012 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
except anandtech are well known to swing for Intel every single time.. and again proven when they were saving intel, during the whole failing laptop graphics saga.


RE: Sensational Mick
By TakinYourPoints on 4/24/2012 4:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ivy Bridge is on the latest fab, there isn't much question about how well it wouldn't OC compared to Sandy and its very mature 32nm process.

I'm in the same boat though, i7 860 here and I have no pressing reason to upgrade. An SSD and new video card are all you really need to keep it current, and I'm covered on both with a 240GB Intel SSD and a GTX 680. Haswell may make me finally upgrade, we'll see. Until then I'm actually ok, I haven't been able to milk a single CPU/mobo like this for over a decade.


RE: Sensational Mick
By lennylim on 4/23/2012 6:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I've actually managed to own the following USB 3.0 devices :

1. Flash drive that actually works significantly faster on USB 3.0.

2. External drive

3. Card reader, for high speed CF cards

With the exception of the card reader I bought them because I didn't have to pay a premium for USB 3.0.

I tried to provide more details about the products, but I got flagged as spam.


RE: Sensational Mick
By TakinYourPoints on 4/24/2012 4:48:57 PM , Rating: 1
Compare Anand's review with Mick's rundown. It is the difference between balanced commentary and through testing versus sensationalist BS.

I've said it so many times but I have no idea why DT is still on the AT sidebar, this place has down down the toilet in the last few years.


TDP
By drkicker on 4/23/2012 2:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
The title hypes low TDP, but the article never mentions the TDP. It says 20% less power consumption, but is that off a 35W(i3-2120T) or 95W (i7-3770K) CPU?




RE: TDP
By Gondor on 4/23/2012 3:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
As reviews that have been posted already indicate i7-3770K consumes approximately 20W less than i7-2600K, while offering better performance. This is much more than 20% saving as far as power consumption is concerned.

Dual-core Ivy Bridge chips (i3) aren't avaliable yet but a reasonable speculation would be that the difference there is halved from i7 results, just like the number of cores, therefore ~10W savings.


RE: TDP
By ShaolinSoccer on 4/23/2012 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
dumb question but what does the "~" in ~10W mean?


RE: TDP
By trisct on 4/23/2012 3:46:23 PM , Rating: 5
~ usually means "approximately"


RE: TDP
By Taft12 on 4/23/2012 3:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Lordy I feel like a broken record around here, but please everybody tattoo on their forehead:

TDP != power consumption

Check the Anandtech review if you want to see some real-world figures.


RE: TDP
By ShaolinSoccer on 4/23/2012 3:42:31 PM , Rating: 3
dumb question but what does != mean? I assume it means "does not equal"?


RE: TDP
By ddopson on 4/23/2012 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 5
yes. != means "does not equal". It comes from the programming world where languages like C define the "==" and "!=" operators to test for equality and non-equality. Javascript, Java, and most other languages then inherited these symbols so at this point they have entered the common geek lexicon.


RE: TDP
By SPOOFE on 4/23/2012 6:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TDP != power consumption

Quite true. A chip can consume less power than its predecessor while producing similar or even greater amounts of heat if the surface area of the chip is smaller... less footprint to move that heat from one place to another!


Is this statement for real?
By vignyan on 4/24/2012 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If AMD can beat Intel in graphics-enabled applications such as Adobe Systems Inc.'s (ADBE) Photoshop CS6 and various games, the question is what if any good Intel's much more powerful CPU cores are for laptop users.


No offense to Jason Mick, but I think this article should be written by a person who understands the market a bit more.

Honestly, how many laptop users use PS-CS6 or play "intensive" games on the laptops? Casual gamers would love better battery life than better graphics (may not be true for all, but for most!)

IVB graphics are at par with most low-end graphics cards. IVB media functionality surpasses all the discrete cards (far more superior to AMD's transcode solution). I am guessing that's more important than casual gaming.

Let's see other than browsing, office (productivity), coding (might be only a few, but still there), music, watching videos, running apps, cloud services, etc etc... WTH, I see that all of them require a better CPU than a better graphics.




By TakinYourPoints on 4/24/2012 4:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This is in aid of moving towards lighter and thinner laptops. That is more important to people than having a 8lb+ gaming laptop with 90 minutes of battery life. Hell, the need of a dedicated GPU will mostly go away with Haswell next year anyways.


RE: Is this statement for real?
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/25/2012 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think this article should be written by a person who understands the market a bit more.
I think I understand the market pretty well -- you didn't read my article very carefully, though clearly.
quote:
Honestly, how many laptop users use PS-CS6 or play "intensive" games on the laptops? Casual gamers would love better battery life than better graphics (may not be true for all, but for most!)
And that's not the argument I made. If you read what I wrote carefully and thoroughly you would realize that I said that the biggest advantage AMD has is price.

IVB laptops are targeting a $800-$1000 USD price point, where as Trinity laptops are targeting a $500 price point.

To my knowledge those figures do not represent a clear difference in build quality, it's largely attributed to higher CPU and chipset costs, plus the cost of a discrete GPU for the Intel ultrathin.

We'll have to see when the dust settles how the true pricing stacks up, but if AMD's claims are to be believed (and I've heard some OEMs back them up, unofficially), it may be very well positioned price wise.

Surely you acknowledge that price is a key decider in consumer purchases?
quote:
IVB graphics are at par with most low-end graphics cards. IVB media functionality surpasses all the discrete cards (far more superior to AMD's transcode solution). I am guessing that's more important than casual gaming.

Let's see other than browsing, office (productivity), coding (might be only a few, but still there), music, watching videos, running apps, cloud services, etc etc... WTH, I see that all of them require a better CPU than a better graphics.
Again, I don't understand why you're dwelling on the graphics.

The point is the pricing on the Intel models is expected to be quite high. A disadvantage graphics-wise is just icing on the cake.

If Intel can win power-wise, it stands a chance, otherwise, I think you could agree that with a much higher price, but equal or lesser battery life, it would likely not sell well.

I have not seen in-depth Trinity v. IVB battery life benchmarks yet, so I'm not sure exactly how they'll stack up. Seems like IVB would win, but I have no clue by how much or if that's even the case.

That is my point, hope I clarified matters for you. Next time please rta.


RE: Is this statement for real?
By vignyan on 4/25/2012 1:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
I did rta Jason :-)

I did not cover the points covered by others in the comments. While the pricing part and build qualities are speculative, its moot to assume in favor of something just yet. I do favor lower pricing, but not at the cost of quality. And mind you, AMD carefully mentions it as ultrathins, which might mean that they need not meet the restrictions placed by Intel on Ultra books.

Why are you assuming that Intel would be paired with a discrete gpu? There is no significant evidence for that with the present ultra books. That comes to your comment. I specifically quoted the statement that was in question here. But seems like you diverted the comment to the entire article. Sorry if you took offense. My response was for the quoted statement. You need to be more careful with your sensationalism. :-)

Also, why is Intel a two chip solution and not AMD? I don't think AMD has integrated analog phys on to the CPU. That would make the processor much more expensive. Am I missing something here?


RE: Is this statement for real?
By blandge on 4/25/2012 11:28:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If AMD can beat Intel in graphics-enabled applications such as Adobe Systems Inc.'s (ADBE) Photoshop CS6 and various games


The performance gap between Llano and Intel is with AMD's best DESKTOP chip. You're comparing a 130W part (Llano) to a 77W part (IVB) and then saying that AMD has a clear advantage in laptops. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me. When was the last time you saw a 130W CPU in a laptop? Or even a 77W part for that matter. Let me quote an article I read earlier

quote:
Actual product level performance depends on pricing, binning and the market. For instance, Intel has an edge for very low power designs due to process technology. The 22nm FinFETs are exceptionally efficient at low voltage and it is likely that Ivy Bridge will match Trinity for 17W designs. At 25-35W for conventional notebooks, Intel should trail by around 20%, which is close enough to be competitive.


So this means that in the 17W ultra low voltage space, Ultrabooks and Ultrathins, you are looking at the same graphics performance and MASSIVELY different CPU performance. You may be paying $200+ for a Ultrabook, but you are going to get a quality machine with great battery life, cpu performance, and competitive graphics. AMD's offerings will be inferior in almost every way.

quote:
the question is what if any good Intel's much more powerful CPU cores are for laptop users.


Businesses use laptops for productivity. This includes things like Microsoft Office, browsers, compilers and other tools. Ivy Bridge will do all of these things much faster. Every respectable business issues laptops to their employees, and I can assure you that very few of them are going to spring for fusion graphics so their employees can play BF3 during work hours.

In addition, IVB graphics are good enough to play 1080p video and many games at decent frame rates. I think that's good enough for a facebook/netflix machine.

That being said, I agree that price is probably the most important factor in the consumer laptop market. You have make a good point, but then go on to make some very sensationalist claims about performance with poor, and in some cases incorrect technical reasoning. Either do more research or just don't include these in your article.


Meh...
By XZerg on 4/23/2012 2:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
There is power drop and increase in performance but not as much as Intel had given the impression when talking about 22nm and 3d transistors last year. The power drop is there but performance increase just isn't there in many aspects - some receive the benefit due to optimizations from cpu point. The GPU got a nice boost but compares nowhere near a year old AMD's APU.




RE: Meh...
By BSMonitor on 4/23/2012 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
Intel also mention in those same presentations that the MOST benefit from the 3d transistors would be in low-power environments. Scaling back benefits as more power is involved. Go back to Anand's articles and you will know. It's all in the details.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4313/intel-announces...


RE: Meh...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2012 7:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is only the first iteration, and with virtually zero competition from AMD or anyone else, I wouldn't expect them to go balls out with this design. Why would they? There's no incentive to.

Moving forward though with now each tick-tock being Tri-Gate based, I think we're in for an unprecedented era. Intel has literally pushed back Moore's Law with this development. But for some reason it seems wholly unappreciated/understood.


New math?
By Church of Dirac on 4/23/2012 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Intel reportedly has three factories fully upgraded to the 22 nm process and churning out Ivy Bridge chips, with a third coming online later this year


Maybe I'll stick with Sandy Bridge if Intel now thinks 3+1=3.




RE: New math?
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/23/2012 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I'll stick with Sandy Bridge if Intel now thinks 3+1=3.
Thanks, should have read fourth, fixed!


RE: New math?
By Taft12 on 4/23/12, Rating: 0
Overclocking disappointment
By Warren21 on 4/23/2012 3:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
I think we've all been spoiled with the Core series' ability to overclock up until now with architectures like Sandy Bridge.

Check out this article on Anandtech where Anand staffer Ian Cutress discusses the difficulties of reaching stable, high overclocks like SNB would:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-an...

For those that run a 4.4+ GHz SNB chip, there is no reason to upgrade even for IPC.




ARM architectural advantage
By Trisped on 4/24/2012 2:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Additionally, ARM chips enjoy certain architectural advantages from a power perspective versus Intel and AMD's x86 chips.
As a developer I can say that ARM's advantages come as part of a trade off. Because ARM is using a much reduced instruction set compared to Intel chips no basic operations require multiple clock cycles to complete.

I must admit I do not know the complete list of commands ARM and x86/x64 commands, but if it takes two cycles to pull a value from a BitArray on an ARM CPU and it takes one cycle on an x86/x64 CPU then there will be performance benefits to using the x86/x64 which may marginalize the power use difference.

I am looking forward to Windows 8 on tablets as I hope this will provide a CPU agnostic platform for comparing true system performance.




By fteoath64 on 4/25/2012 7:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
Can anyone imagine if an ARM A15 chip were fabricated in this process ?. It will KILL all other chips in the market almost overnight!. The best ARM foundary does 28nm Hi-K MG process which is pretty good but thus smaller process is way better. Well, because Intel has the monopoly on this tech, they will do their OWN chips and premium ones at that.

One would hope Intel come to their senses and get an ARM license. then churn up A15 using this FinFET. That might just allow them to capture the higher-end phones/tablet market, then they can later evolve the cores towards their own design while allowing ARM instruction set to run. Much like what Qualcomm does now. Only license ARM instruction-set not the core-architecture.
In fact, Apple might just "push" Intel to do FinFET for their own ARM chips just to stay competitive with the market. It would take time but Apple and Intel can wait a heck of a long time considering their financials lately.




Graphics vs. Power
By Khato on 4/23/12, Rating: 0
"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