• 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.

Intel Amber Lake

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dell has listed a XPS 13 2-1 with the i5 8200Y and I7 8500Y
Lr15J3S.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eug
^^^ Finally!

Good: There is more of a delta between the three models of Y chips this year with Amber Lake.
Bad: They're still dual-core, as expected. Still no Thunderbolt 3 from what people have said.

I bought the m3-7Y32 last year. If I were buying this year, I'd probably buy the i5-8200Y or maybe the i7-8500Y. m3-7Y32 is fine, but the reason I bought it was because it seemed the i5-7Y54 wasn't that much of an improvement.

Tom's: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/xps-13-2-in-1-amber-lake-leak,37471.html
 
Here is 7th gen:

Core m3-7Y30
1.0 GHz - Base clock
2.6 GHz - 1-core Turbo
??? GHz - 2-core Turbo

Core m3-7Y32
1.1 GHz - Base clock
3.0 GHz - 1-core Turbo
??? GHz - 2-core Turbo

Core i5-7Y54
1.2 GHz - Base clock
3.2 GHz - 1-core Turbo
2.8 GHz - 2-core Turbo

Core i5-7Y57
1.2 GHz - Base clock
3.3 GHz - 1-core Turbo
2.9 GHz - 2-core Turbo

Core i7-7Y75
1.3 GHz - Base clock
3.6 GHz - 1-core Turbo
3.4 GHz - 2-core Turbo

I originally thought the Core m3-7Y32 might be faster than the 8100Y, but I mixed up the Turbo speeds.
 
Last edited:
jpiniero said:
while Amber Lake (claimed TDP is 5W) goes up to 4.2 (with 3.6 ACT). Release is soon.
Click to expand...

What's the point? It's not like it can sustain anywhere near that Turbo even with 7W cTDPup. M3s are essentially equal to i7 chips at this class. Amber Lake is going to get double digit gains but M3/i5/i7s are all going to perform in the same range, just like Kabylake Y.

The clocks are entirely for responsiveness, which is a poor excuse for paying the hefty premium of getting i5 and i7 parts.

Whiskey Lake is going to end up even worse. It can't even reach ACT of 3.7GHz, now it wants 4.1GHz? Unless it has hidden features we are not aware of, it'll end up barely better at MT compared to Kabylake R.

The specs are too much for 5W/15W on 14nm, no matter how many plusses you add. We need 10nm and Icelake.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
What's the point? It's not like it can sustain anywhere near that Turbo even with 7W cTDPup. M3s are essentially equal to i7 chips at this class. Amber Lake is going to get double digit gains but M3/i5/i7s are all going to perform in the same range, just like Kabylake Y.

The clocks are entirely for responsiveness, which is a poor excuse for paying the hefty premium of getting i5 and i7 parts.

Whiskey Lake is going to end up even worse. It can't even reach ACT of 3.7GHz, now it wants 4.1GHz? Unless it has hidden features we are not aware of, it'll end up barely better at MT compared to Kabylake R.

The specs are too much for 5W/15W on 14nm, no matter how many plusses you add. We need 10nm and Icelake.
Click to expand...
In extended high load, the Kaby Lake i7 does indeed perform a bit better than the KBL m3, but it might be as little as 5-10% depending upon the test. However, it's interesting to see that Intel has spec'd the Amber Lake models with more base clock speed differences than before. Before they were 100 MHz apart. Now they are 200 MHz apart. And improved responsiveness is always nice.

OTOH, my m3 under extreme load (YES testing x 4 threads) throttles to 2.6 GHz, but like you were suggesting, so do the i5 and the i7. Their graphs looked identical.

I'm happy with my 2017 KBL m3. I just need Apple to release an OS update to allow 4K 10-bit HDR video streaming. Not that I need that on a 1440p 8-bit display, but just because. 😉
 
IntelUser2000 said:
What's the point? It's not like it can sustain anywhere near that Turbo even with 7W cTDPup. M3s are essentially equal to i7 chips at this class. Amber Lake is going to get double digit gains but M3/i5/i7s are all going to perform in the same range, just like Kabylake Y.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible that Amber Lake is 14+++ and that offers some amount of decent transistor performance gains.
 
That is what I said: ...Amber Lake is going to get double digit gains but M3/i5/i7s are all going to perform in the same range, just like Kabylake Y.

However, just like Kabylake-Y, Amberlake M3/i5/i7s are going to be the same. Differentiation is only peak clocks in extremely light load/bursty scenarios or ST. Which makes the only reason you buy i5/i7 over M3 being responsiveness.

but it might be as little as 5-10% depending upon the test.
Click to expand...

NBC shows zero difference between the three. The i5 and the i7s might be slightly faster in the beginning, but the TDP constraints force all 3 to be the same. It's all for responsiveness.

Simply put, the Core chips are too much for 5-7W TDP range. They are really pushing it.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
That is what I said: ...Amber Lake is going to get double digit gains but M3/i5/i7s are all going to perform in the same range, just like Kabylake Y.

However, just like Kabylake-Y, Amberlake M3/i5/i7s are going to be the same. Differentiation is only peak clocks in extremely light load/bursty scenarios or ST. Which makes the only reason you buy i5/i7 over M3 being responsiveness.



NBC shows zero difference between the three. The i5 and the i7s might be slightly faster in the beginning, but the TDP constraints force all 3 to be the same. It's all for responsiveness.

Simply put, the Core chips are too much for 5-7W TDP range. They are really pushing it.
Click to expand...


I’m not familiar with NBC testing but it is a synthetic load. How extreme is the load? Like I said, with my YES x 4 testing I could get the machine to go to 2.6 GHz immediately, and the i5 and i7 behave the same way. But YES x 4 isn't very representative of real world loads.

The graph below is our testing on KBL MacBooks, using repeated Cinebench R15 CPU benches. As soon as the test ended, it would be started again, maybe with a 1 sec delay. Wood is on a wood table (insulator) and granite is on a granite counter (better conductor). The Cinebench scores are shown in the graph lines. The X axis is the run number. After about run 10-12 runs we’re already past the 30 minute mark. Regardless, you can see there is still at least some difference after half an hour of sustained Cinebench R15 load.

37919940161_b26de0fa86_h.jpg


For the granite run I actually ran it ran it much longer, but during run 11 I moved the computer over several inches, just to make the positioning on the counter less awkward.

37364023982_befbbca95a_b.jpg


Notice how the score improved when I moved it, presumably because that part of the counter hadn't been heated up yet by the computer. And then in run 23 I moved it on purpose to confirm that hypothesis.
 
mikk said:
Fake news.
Click to expand...

There's got to be some difference between the two besides the TDP, otherwise they would have kept the same name, you would think. Making a max power consumption optimized 14nm variant would make a ton of sense, especially with Cooper Lake coming.
 
jpiniero said:
There's got to be some difference between the two besides the TDP, otherwise they would have kept the same name, you would think. Making a max power consumption optimized 14nm variant would make a ton of sense, especially with Cooper Lake coming.
Click to expand...


There is some difference

14nm++ vs 14nm+
 
Eug said:
The graph below is our testing on KBL MacBooks, using repeated Cinebench R15 CPU benches
Click to expand...

That's less than a 5% difference.* That kind of difference can be easily dwarfed by real world factors like ambient temperature and background applications running. Macbooks also use a 7W cTDPup for the Y chips it uses.

So pretty much in a best case scenario, we see a 5% difference between the cheap M3 part and the pricey i7. That's why I am saying Y chips are crappy, overpriced chips. Either they need a purpose designed part, or I hope Tremont is 30-40% faster than Goldmont Plus and replaces them.

*If you compare the i3, i5, i7, there's a real difference on the 15W chips. The i5's are 15-20% better than the i3, and the i7s are an additional 5-10% better. So there's a reason to get the i3 rather than the i5. Turbo actually means something.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
That's less than a 5% difference.* That kind of difference can be easily dwarfed by real world factors like ambient temperature and background applications running. Macbooks also use a 7W cTDPup for the Y chips it uses.
Click to expand...
MacBooks use TDPup but I don't think it's been established what TDPup they're using, has it? Just asking.

So pretty much in a best case scenario, we see a 5% difference between the cheap M3 part and the pricey i7. That's why I am saying Y chips are crappy, overpriced chips. Either they need a purpose designed part, or I hope Tremont is 30-40% faster than Goldmont Plus and replaces them.
Click to expand...
You say crappy, overpriced, but I say it's the only chip I wanted in a laptop. That's what allows my laptop to be just 2 lbs with no fan noise. For me (and a lot of people), that makes it worth more than other faster chips. I'd take a Y laptop over a U laptop any day.

*If you compare the i3, i5, i7, there's a real difference on the 15W chips. The i5's are 15-20% better than the i3, and the i7s are an additional 5-10% better. So there's a reason to get the i3 rather than the i5. Turbo actually means something.
Click to expand...
I think it's the responsiveness you were talking about earlier that makes the chip. A lot of what these chips are used for is bursty multitasking for business apps and surfing. People aren't rendering Hollywood movies on these chips.

I believe for burst speeds, the i7 can be over 20% faster than the m3. That said, I stuck with the m3 partially for the reasons you cite.
 
There's one cTDPup and that's 7W.

https://ark.intel.com/products/95441/Intel-Core-i7-7Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

Yea I do agree there's no other choice. But that doesn't make it good. There's far less models being made with Y compared to U, because there's a lot less demand.

You can get 2LB notebooks at 15W, but they are most commonly sold in Japan because they disproportionately value light laptops over elsewhere. The super light laptops are not as popular because it starts needing exotic materials for the chassis and that raises the price.

Apple is probably not happy about it either, which is why rumors of moving to their A chip increases as time goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top