"7 Watt" Ivy Bridge my arse!

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not "drama" to push back when companies try to be deceptive using marketing games.

The only reason they are doing this is to try to trick people into thinking there's been some great technological advance with these chips, when there hasn't been.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's not "drama" to push back when companies try to be deceptive using marketing games.

The only reason they are doing this is to try to trick people into thinking there's been some great technological advance with these chips, when there hasn't been.

There is no deception. The TDP is clearly listed for the different temperatures.

Even the big slides put a primary on 10W number and not 7W.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

WTF is the usage scenario for SDP? Is it web browsing? Real-time video decode? Playing a game?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here is Intel's press release from yesterday.

Here's how they are presenting these new chips in terms of power:

Since mid-2011, Intel has led the industry in enabling Ultrabook devices aimed at providing new, richer mobile computing experiences in thin, elegant and increasingly convertible and detachable designs. To enable these innovative designs, Intel announced last September that it added a new line of processors to its forthcoming 4th generation Intel Core processor family targeted at about 10 watt design power, while still delivering the excellent performance people want and need.

Skaugen announced today that the company is bringing the low-power line of processors into its existing 3rd generation Intel Core processor family. Available now, these chips will operate as low as 7 watts, allowing manufacturers greater flexibility in thinner, lighter convertible designs. Currently there are more than a dozen designs in development based on this new low-power offering and they are expected to enable a full PC experience in innovative mobile form factors including tablets and Ultrabook convertibles. The Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga* 11S Ultrabook and a future Ultrabook detachable from Acer will be among the first to market this spring based on the new Intel processors and were demonstrated by Skaugen on stage.

Notice the deliberate mention of "design power" in the context of Haswell chips. And then, in the very next paragraph, they move on to discuss these new IBs by talking about them being "as low as 7 watts".

No mention of what those 7 watts are, or that they're using an entirely new marketing-speak measure. No mention of "SDP" in the paragraph. In fact, there's no mention of it anywhere in the release!

This is actually even more deliberately deceptive than I thought it was when I read the Ars piece, before I found the PR.

If anyone is being "dramatic", it is Intel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

WTF is the usage scenario for SDP? Is it web browsing? Real-time video decode? Playing a game?

Its full load usage. It just only applies when the temperture is kept at 80C or below. So it puts an extra demand on the OEMs cooling solution.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Here is Intel's press release from yesterday.

Here's how they are presenting these new chips in terms of power:

Notice the deliberate mention of "design power" in the context of Haswell chips. And then, in the very next paragraph, they move on to discuss these new IBs by talking about them being "as low as 7 watts".

There's no mention of "SDP" in the paragraph. In fact, there's no mention of it anywhere in the release!

This is actually even more deliberately deceptive than I thought it was when I read the Ars piece.

If anyone is being "dramatic", it is Intel.

Oh please, you got presented with information you didnt (and still dont) understand. And now you rage?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Oh please, you got presented with information you didnt (and still dont) understand. And now you rage?

Instead of engaging in personal attacks, why don't you address the points I made about Intel's press release?

As I said, they deliberately juxtaposed a TDP number from upcoming Haswell chips with "SDP" numbers for these new IBs, didn't mention that they were different measurements, and in fact, never mentioned this new "SDP" at all.

That's deceptive, period.

 

[SiliconWars]

I guess the next step for intel is giving away a free fridge with their phones?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Its full load usage. It just only applies when the temperture is kept at 80C or below. So it puts an extra demand on the OEMs cooling solution.

That's BS, and you know it. It does have relevance, but that's something I don't fully get yet.

PCWatch article had something about how in Tablet mode you use lot less demanding applications and that's basically what SDP was for. I still insist that its simply Turbo disabled CPU and GPU.

Anand's bench showed that 17W Core i5 Ultrabook chip uses 16-17W in gaming with 4W CPU, 9W GPU, and 4W for the rest. Turbo barely kicks in for CPU, but the GPU is allowed to reach ~1GHz frequency. Remember the base frequency for the 17W chip's iGPU is only at 350MHz. If it only operates at 350MHz, it would significantly lower the 9W use in gaming.

With Turbo, programs give "power control" to the CPU by boosting up when the program doesn't fully load it to TDP. Turbo-less chips depend entirely on applications for power use.

I reckon SDP is simply a way of going back to those days.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And here, the very first article I found on a Google search to see who was buying Intel's PR: New Intel Core processors consume just 7 watts.

Read the article. See anything about SDP in there? Of course not, because Intel never mentioned it. But we do see this:

Intel managed to slightly beat its target by reducing the power envelope of some parts to as little as 7 watts. This is the maximum expected power draw from the processor itself, which means that the part will likely also consume several watts less at idle.

Oops, wrong.

Obvious response will be to blame that guy for making a mistake. But I don't blame the guy, since Intel clearly wanted people to get that impression.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Instead of engaging in personal attacks, why don't you address the points I made about Intel's press release?

As I said, they deliberately juxtaposed a TDP number from upcoming Haswell chips with "SDP" numbers for these new IBs, didn't mention that they were different measurements, and in fact, never mentioned this new "SDP" at all.

That's deceptive, period.

They what?

If you raise the tjmax to say 130C. What do you think the TDP would be?

It wasnt a personal attack, it was simply an observation.

And again, this is OEM information for an OEM only product.

 

[piasabird]

Probably has something to do with a really tiny screen.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That's BS, and you know it. It does have relevance, but that's something I don't fully get yet.

PCWatch article had something about how in Tablet mode you use lot less demanding applications and that's basically what SDP was for. I still insist that its simply Turbo disabled CPU and GPU.

With Turbo, programs give "power control" to the CPU by boosting up when the program doesn't fully load it to TDP. Turbo-less chips depend entirely on applications for power use. Anand's bench showed that 17W Core i5 Ultrabook chip uses 16-17W in gaming with 4W CPU, 9W GPU, and 4W for the rest. Turbo barely kicks in for CPU, but the GPU is allowed to reach ~1GHz frequency. Remember the base frequency for the 17W chip's iGPU is only at 350MHz. If it only operates at 350MHz, it would significantly lower the 9W use in gaming.

I reckon SDP is simply a way of going back to those days.

I think you confuse cTDP and SDP now.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It wasnt a personal attack, it was simply an observation.

Saying that I don't understand something and am "raging" is a personal attack.

And again, this is OEM information for an OEM only product.

Oh come off it. Companies do not publish press releases for OEMs.

This BS about "new 7W chips" is all over the Internet. I just read a dozen different stories, all of them talking about this, not ONE mention of "scenario design power".

Why are you so vigorously defending rather obviously deceptive marketing practices?

 

[cbn]

Tjmax goes from 100C to 85C.

So that does indicate there is a relevance.

If you ask me, I would guess they are simply disabling Turbo Boost on both CPU and the GPU core to achieve it. Remember since Turbo Boost 2.0 on Sandy Bridge, Turbo is made to use the "thermal headroom" that isn't normally used by typical applications.

+1. That is a great theory and thank you for pointing that out. (especially in light of the fact Intel at 17 watts already rates TDP based on CPU turbo (but not iGPU turbo) being disabled --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5878/...ation-realtime-igpu-clocks-on-ulv-vs-quadcore )

I am just wondering how Intel will differentiate the i5 Y processors when installed with 7 watt SDP.

Pentium "Y" with 7 watt SDP= 2MB cache, no SMT
Core i3 "Y" with 7 watt SDP= 3MB cache with SMT
Core i5 "Y" with 7 watt SDP= 3MB cache, SMT, <---but what else? (normally this part has turbo on CPU)
Core i7 "Y" with 7 watt SDP= 4 MB cache, SMT

Going by the preview chart (below) I am guessing the differentiating factor between 7 watt i5 and 7 watt i3 will be slightly better base clocks on the i5 CPU. (but like you mentioned no turbo for 7 watt i5 or i7)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think you confuse cTDP and SDP now.

Right -- everyone's confused except you.

Here's the press release again. Where is the mention of "SDP"?

 

[IntelUser2000]

I think you confuse cTDP and SDP now.

No, I don't. I explained it extensively on my thread here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241480&highlight=overview+power+management

Look at the graph on Post #4. cTDP simply changes the (thermally-limited)duration of Turbo. cTDPdown means Turbo will deactivate faster, while cTDPup means Turbo will stay on for longer.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Oh come off it. Companies do not publish press releases for OEMs.

Yet AMD for example launched its OEM HD8000 series with full press?

You need to find a bigger excuse.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yet AMD for example launched its OEM HD8000 series with full press?

"But Mom, he did it too!" is not an acceptable rationalization for poor behavior. I don't accept it from my kids, so I'm certainly not going to accept it from a major multinational company.

If you have a problem with AMD, feel free to complain about it somewhere else. It doesn't change what Intel is doing here.

The only real question in my mind is why you are so determined to try to find anything you can to excuse their behavior.

Claiming that this information is "only for OEMs" is so obviously false -- try Google News -- that I honestly don't know why you are bothering.

 

[ShintaiDK]

"But Mom, he did it too!" is not an acceptable rationalization for poor behavior. I don't accept it from my kids, so I'm certainly not going to accept it from a major multinational company.

If you have a problem with AMD, feel free to complain about it somewhere else. It doesn't change what Intel is doing here.

The only real question in my mind is why you are so determined to try to find anything you can to excuse their behavior.

Claiming that this information is "only for OEMs" is so obviously false -- try Google News -- that I honestly don't know why you are bothering.

You seem very emotional about it. And it was you who claimed this:

Oh come off it. Companies do not publish press releases for OEMs.

I simply gave you an example of another company doing it. It could also have been Qualcomm or someone else.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No, I don't. I explained it extensively on my thread here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241480&highlight=overview+power+management

Look at the graph on Post #4. cTDP simply changes the (thermally-limited)duration of Turbo. cTDPdown means Turbo will deactivate faster, while cTDPup means Turbo will stay on for longer.

Its simply characterized at 80C instead of 105C. cTDP is a way to control the TDP at the same temperature limit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You seem very emotional about it.

I'm more annoyed by your refusal to discuss this matter reasonably and respond to my arguments than I am about the marketing-speak itself. You are dancing around the real issue here, which is that Intel has put out information that deliberately makes it seem like these chips have a 7W TDP, and that's what is being reported.

Instead of addressing that, you're just engaging in endless deflection.

I simply gave you an example of another company doing it.

I said "companies do not publish press releases for OEMs" in response to your claim that "its simply OEM information for their designs."

It's not just OEM information. It is in their press release, intentionally made to look like a TDP number when it isn't. And it's all over the press. That's why I brought up the release.

 

[cbn]

SDP is simply TDP at a lower temperature. However the tjmax is still 105C. And its up to the OEM to keep it below 80C, unless they want extra power consumption.

Are you saying that the clock speed spec for 10 watt is the same for 7 watt, but the cooling is better for a 7 watt installation? (in order to keep temperature and power consuming leakage to a minimum)

 

[IntelUser2000]

Are you saying that the clock speed spec for 10 watt is the same for 7 watt, but the cooling is better for a 7 watt installation? (in order to keep temperature and power consuming leakage to a minimum)

That wouldn't make sense, because if the 7W is for a thinner and sleeker device, you'd have less room for cooling.

 

[podspi]

Which is "simply" marketing bullshit.

Heck, why not define Tjmax at 50C and call it 3W or whatever? Who knows, maybe they'll do that next time.

They make it difficult enough to compare processors. Now we need every core or core revision having incompatible power ratings?

Would that really be a problem if it throttled (or could be set to throttle, whatever) @ 50C?

That is really what I am interested in with this release, under which conditions the processor will pull 7W. Power ratings are borderline useless (imho) anyway, since actual power use depends on many variables (as IDC has been kind enough to demonstrate )

Here is hoping we get more of those in-depth power analysis articles, I found it fascinating and a lot more informative than looking at TDP (or whatever) numbers.