• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"7 Watt" Ivy Bridge my arse!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Honestly, I don't really care what metrics they want to use, as long as they are consistent and open about it. They aren't doing that here -- they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by defining a newer power measurement but leading a lot of folks to believe the lower numbers use the old measurement.
 
Yes, the footnote says TDP is characterized at 105C while SDP is at 80C. That's true.

But also remember what Turbo Boost 2.0 on Sandy Bridge+ does. It takes advantage of thermal headroom(otherwise being called "cool") and ups the clock until that headroom runs out.

If you are doing something demanding, that will happen all the time. Cut it out and under certain circumstances, it will run cooler. Like in graphics demanding applications, where it'll be forced to run only at lowly 350MHz base frequency rather than "up to 1.xxGHz".
 
Last edited:
The truth will come out when Anand tests these parts. We need to know clockspeeds, turbo/no-turbo, throttling aspects, and power draw under various CPU/GPU load combinations before we can call foul or no foul on Intel. They are just talking right now. They do have a track record of backing it up so we'll see if they can back this up.
 
Hulk said:
The truth will come out when Anand tests these parts. We need to know clockspeeds, turbo/no-turbo, throttling aspects, and power draw under various CPU/GPU load combinations before we can call foul or no foul on Intel. They are just talking right now. They do have a track record of backing it up so we'll see if they can back this up.
Click to expand...

Remember temperature 😉
 
IntelUser2000 said:
That wouldn't make sense, because if the 7W is for a thinner and sleeker device, you'd have less room for cooling.
Click to expand...

Yep. that is what I am thinking.

The 7 watt SDP processor device would have the same or even smaller cooler, but just be clocked lower. (No turbo on CPU and GPU like you said)

The upshot, I am guessing, is that manufacturers will have to figure out what type of cooler best suites the max clocks of these "turbo less" processors at 80C and below.

Keep the worst case scenario at 80C and below and these low clocked Intel processors consume 7 watts or less....use the typical cooler to keep Tjmax at 105C and the power consumption now climbs above 7 watts.

In a nutshell, I would expect a processor with a 7 watt SDP to need a larger cooler than a 7 watt TDP processor. (But this cooler should still be smaller than a 10 to 13 watt TDP cooler)
 
Last edited:
Anyone want to wager a guess how much power a 7 watt SDP processor uses if the OEM puts a very small cooler on it and instead uses the TjMax 105 C standard?

7.5 watts?

8 watts?

More than that?
 
Hold Up,

Let me get some things straight. So SDP is the lowest power usage for this chip under a certain condition, or is it over all? Also is Intel just providing this information and allowing the OEMs to decide their own cooling methods for these chips? If so, whats stopping OEMs from slapping on a 7wpower usage label on their products that use this chip? If not, how demanding of a cooling system would you think is required to keep these chips at 7w?
 
Speaking of removing turbo from the iGPU, I wonder how that will affect performance in an ultrabook vs. tablet.

The tablet should have a lower resolution right? (Therefore less need for iGPU turbo)
 
Na dont worry about 1080 p If were talking about haswell SoC runs much higher resolution . Not to worry about 1080P. IF your talking about IB that not Soc nor does it have Soix. as that comes on Haswell and atoms. Atoms already have. Intel only need 2 chips to cover the entire market. Haswell and Silvermont. Its interesting these new products . But everthing looks pretty well covered . But until that time enjoy all the wonderful new products come out until than.
 
Intel is one of the best tech companies when it comes to transparency. Jumping on them like this is silly.
 
I'm talking about current hardware though. Are you saying intel doesn't have anything that can power 1080p tablets? I didn't know that. Like I said, Hondo can do that at HALF the TDP! Why in the world would OEMs not have tablets on the market with Z60?? That makes no sense whatsoever?!?! Are they trying to lose more ground to ARM? Props to Vizio for not being stupid.
 
Computer Bottleneck said:
Speaking of removing turbo from the iGPU, I wonder how that will affect performance in an ultrabook vs. tablet.

The tablet should have a lower resolution right? (Therefore less need for iGPU turbo)
Click to expand...

You do recall what resolutions haswell supports right . 1080p is nothing. IB does 1080p
 
IntelUser2000 said:
Yes, they can. Atom based devices can do it too, and at almost 1/3rd the TDP of Hondo, and 2x the battery life: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Inte...-Windows-8-Tablet-Performance-Preview/?page=4

Core devices can do 4k2k resolutions.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I watched AMD's CES presentation again and they did mention the Clover Trail tablet with a side by side demo. Wow does that thing suck! Lol. Not trying to flame, it just really does suck. On the bright side, I missed it before that there will be several Hondo based tablets coming to market in the weeks ahead.
 
Wow, this chip has an SDP of 0 W! Amazing work Intel! (Yes, I know, that's just because the website hasn't been updated properly. Its still funny though. 🙂 )

@ShintaiDK- that slide says that they are characterised at different temperatures, yes, but it doesn't say what is being characterised in each case, and doesn't specify that the same thing is characterised. All news coverage of SDP I have seen indicates that it is meant to represent a "mainstream workload", not the balls-out-thrash-all-the-cores-with-Prime95 style TDP.
 
Ya the problem is If your going to buy a tablet for graphics performance it won't beClover trail it will be the higher priced SOC/SOIX 2 core haswell with g3 graphics made specific for this market. Intel can price $10 above AMD and make all the money in that sector of gaming tablets,
 
I still read Intel's TDP as "this chip can consume up to X Watts" and "It will shut down at Y Degrees".

Whats a cTDP ? how can it be 3W lower than the TDP.... This is REALLY WEIRD....

Is anyone else reading SDP as "At Nominal speed, if kept under 80°, this chip will consume 7W"
(Well we all know there is a huge link between temperature, leakage, power consumption)
 
Last edited:
dastral said:
I still read Intel's TDP as "this chip can consume up to X Watts" and "It will shut down at Y Degrees".

Whats a cTDP ? how can it be 3W lower than the TDP.... This is REALLY WEIRD....

Is anyone else reading SDP as "At 80° and Nominal speed, this chip will consume 7W"
(Well we all know there is a huge link between temperature, leakage, power consumption)
Click to expand...

Honestly? We have no idea what SDP means. Until Intel releases the details of what it actually means, its a meaningless statistic. It could be "load while watching Youtube", it could be "load while scrolling a .txt file".

And if we're comparing Intel's chips to AMD's Temash and Kabini, don't forget that they still need a PCH at 3W: http://ark.intel.com/products/64342/Intel-BD82UM77-PCH For a 16W total TDP for the solution. Whereas Temash has an integrated FCH, so the chip's TDP covers both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top