32nm Arrandale (Laptop) in 1Q10

[ilkhan]

Intel does have the tech to turn off circuits completely (as demoed with nehalem itself). It wouldn't surprise me if that was being integrated into it.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: tokie
Why would the entire laptop unit NOT have a higher TDP? would it not even be only 1-2 watts higher because of what Intel has done?

Because we are merely moving components around the system; all the components stay within the system.

Am I missing some crucial part of the conversation here?

If you have a 35W CPU and a 10W IGP in two sockets, the TDP for the laptop is "X", while the TDP for the cpu socket is 35W. If you put both the 35W cpu and the 10W IGP under the same IHS (by way of MCM or monolithic) you now have a 45W TDP socket to deal with but the TDP for the laptop remains "X".

 

[tokie]

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is this:
You have a 35W CPU, and a 5W chipset without IGP. You also have a 20W discrete GPU.
Now, with Arrandale you would have a 35W CPU + 5W chipset (on/off die, whatever same functions) + a few watts going to the IGP because the IGP die is shared with the IMC. Then you still have the 20W discrete GPU. Now you end up with a higher TDP of a few watts?

 

[drizek]

Possibly, but reviews show nehalem having better idle power consumption than core 2, so even if the TDP is higher you will still probably get better battery life.

/

What does everyone think about the possibility of having USB 3/Final N/SATA III in these systems?

 

[dflynchimp]

lol Arrandale sounds like the Japanified pronunciation of "Allendale"....</racism>

As long as it's an improvement in some aspect, I can't complain.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: tokie
No, that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is this:
You have a 35W CPU, and a 5W chipset without IGP. You also have a 20W discrete GPU.
Now, with Arrandale you would have a 35W CPU + 5W chipset (on/off die, whatever same functions) + a few watts going to the IGP because the IGP die is shared with the IMC. Then you still have the 20W discrete GPU. Now you end up with a higher TDP of a few watts?

But if they use the same system as some current solutions, where the IGP is used for graphics output all the time and the discrete just for 3D which is then sent through the IGP (I think that's what they do with some systems to save on discrete power draw when in idle mode), then it wouldn't make any difference.

But if they ran the display of discrete all the time and had an IGP CPU then it would be interesting to see if the IGP can be completely shut off, but is there any reason why Intel couldn't engineer it so it was? Current IGP's are integrated into the NB which is where the off-CPU mem controllers are, so why can't they do it when it's all in one package with the CPU?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

But if they use the same system as some current solutions, where the IGP is used for graphics output all the time and the discrete just for 3D which is then sent through the IGP (I think that's what they do with some systems to save on discrete power draw when in idle mode), then it wouldn't make any difference.

But if they ran the display of discrete all the time and had an IGP CPU then it would be interesting to see if the IGP can be completely shut off, but is there any reason why Intel couldn't engineer it so it was? Current IGP's are integrated into the NB which is where the off-CPU mem controllers are, so why can't they do it when it's all in one package with the CPU?

Lonyo, I think you might be confusing it with the switchable graphics that's in recent laptops. With switchable graphics, the user can switch to whatever the graphics they want at the time(discrete for 3D, integrated for non 3D or battery life). Of course, it means if they don't switch it, they aren't taking advantage of the feature.

But normally when a discrete GPU is installed in a system with integrated graphics, the IGP don't function at all. Everything including the display goes to the discrete graphics.

By Tokie

No, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is this: You have a 35W CPU, and a 5W chipset without IGP. You also have a 20W discrete GPU. Now, with Arrandale you would have a 35W CPU + 5W chipset (on/off die, whatever same functions) + a few watts going to the IGP because the IGP die is shared with the IMC. Then you still have the 20W discrete GPU. Now you end up with a higher TDP of a few watts?

That's actually a legitimate question, but I don't think it'll be that big of a problem. The vastly improved power management settings will work better in real world than simple theory will suggest.

Anyway, what's to suggest they won't use the power saving features to the full extent with the GPU/MC portion too?

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: drizek
What does everyone think about the possibility of having USB 3/Final N/SATA III in these systems?

Im really hoping. Not on the SB, but the manu could add controllers for them to the mobo. (we're seeing that with USB3 and SATAIII already.) -N will be part of the calpella platform with Intel's next gen wireless card.

 

[drizek]

Adding controllers for USB/SATA devices which don't even exist yet doesn't make too much sense on a laptop(except for people like us). Hopefully manufacturers will recognize the potential SSDs have and give us SATA without the bottlenecks. I'm not quite as worried about USB3 if I go with lenovo because I can always add it in with an expresscard.

 

[drizek]

Wow. Digitimes was right on the money.

I bought an HP Envy 15 with the i5 520. Unfortunately, the i5 models don't have USB 3. It has SATA II as well. The good news is that it has a proper N wifi card, but that isn't too much consolation.

I might return it and get a Macbook Pro 13" or a Thinkpad T410. The thinkpad has the advantage of having an expresscard slot, so USB 3 is a possibility.