• 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 Broadwell Thread

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Idontcare said:
It is true, Broadwell makes no sense provided you aren't interested in improved performance (performance/clock, performance/watt, performance/dollar, etc.).

Provided none of those metrics are relevant or of interest to you (the royal you), you are better off waiting for something that won't be released until a later date.
Click to expand...

Set apart the 5% better IPC, what is the improvement scale of the two other metrics, perf/watt and perf/$..?.

Do you have numbers, or even raw estimations of your own, that would suggest significant progress were made on thoses two parameters.?.
 
Abwx said:
Set apart the 5% better IPC, what is the improvement scale of the two other metrics, perf/watt and perf/$..?.

Do you have numbers, or even raw estimations of your own, that would suggest significant progress were made on thoses two parameters.?.
Click to expand...

Last I saw, the top Broadwell CPU was 65W (which is ~30% more perf/watt over IVB, the last tick). It's just that Skylake-K will have a 95W TDP and likely be a better choice for an enthusiast (but sadly will be making a pretty late appearance it seems).
 
Ajay said:
Last I saw, the top Broadwell CPU was 65W (which is ~30% more perf/watt over IVB, the last tick). It's just that Skylake-K will have a 95W TDP and likely be a better choice for an enthusiast (but sadly will be making a pretty late appearance it seems).
Click to expand...


I haven't seen reliable Broadwell TDP infos and the TDP of Skylake isn't known or confirmed either which is no surprise given that Skylake is coming mid 2015 at best. Also TDP is not necessarily the power consumption.
 
Broadwell will be similar to Ivy Bridge: some performance gains, a healthy IGP performance increase and a much lower power consumption.
 
Abwx said:
Set apart the 5% better IPC, what is the improvement scale of the two other metrics, perf/watt and perf/$..?.

Do you have numbers, or even raw estimations of your own, that would suggest significant progress were made on thoses two parameters.?.
Click to expand...

Am assuming it will be similar to the SB->IB tock->tick, which is why I will skip it.

For desktop, IMO it pays bigger dividends to wait for the tock rather than jumping in on the tick.

I may jump into a broadwell upgrade for a laptop though, ticks make sense for mobile and power-saving segments where you get last year's desktop performance shoved into this year's mobile form factor.
 
Intel will officially release 5th generation Intel Core series processors Broadwell-U in CES 2015.

And Core M processor with Intel 14nm process belonging to, Broadwell-U series processors. will be divided into "2 + 2" and "2 + 3" versions.

In Broadwell-U 2 + 2 part, Intel will release i7-5600U, i7-5500U, i5-5300U, i5-5200U, i3-5010U and i3-5005U; As Broadwell-U 2 + 3 is i7- 5650U, i7-5550U, i5-5350U, i7-5250U, i7-5557U, i5-5257U and i3-5157U. Intel Broadwell-U will match Intel Iris graphics 6100, Intel HD graphics 6000 and Intel HD graphics 5500, and 4th generation Core processors Intel Iris graphics 5100, Intel HD graphics 5000 and Intel HD graphics 4400..

broadwell-u_1-665x317.png

broadwell-u_2-665x229.png

intel-iris-graphics-6100-665x212.png
 
The rate of improvement isn't too bad, from the perspective of a user with Ivy Bridge. It works out to be roughly 17% YoY for the CPU, comparing GT2 to GT2. It's also about 52.5% faster, comparing my 3317U to the 5300U, stock to stock.

Definitely would have appreciated an earlier launch, but it's not the end of the world.
 
Homeles said:
The rate of improvement isn't too bad, from the perspective of a user with Ivy Bridge. It works out to be roughly 17% YoY for the CPU, comparing GT2 to GT2. It's also about 52.5% faster, comparing my 3317U to the 5300U, stock to stock.
Click to expand...

It's not that much faster actually, because we had a literal standstill in the Haswell generation.

The 3317U gets 2.41 points in Cinebench R11.5, and probably runs at 2.4GHz to achieve that. I'd say 3317U's successor was really 4200U, and 4200U's successor 5200U, but let's see 5300U as well since you mentioned it.

Cinebench score to clocks ratio:
-Ivy Bridge 1:1
-Haswell: 1.1:1
-Broadwell: 1.15(?):1

3317U: 2.4 points = 2.4GHz
5200U: 2.5GHz = 2.88 points
5300U: 2.7GHz = 3.1 points

That's probably an optimistic scenario. I think you can expect 25% going to 5300U and 20% to 5200U. Still not bad since we got essentially nothing from a "Tock" Haswell. And at least confirms Broadwell won't be a disappointment performance-wise unlike Haswell.

Another good news is that Iris parts are available at 15W. On Haswell it took 28W to do so. Also the clock frequency is rather high. No wonder there's no M anymore. The U's replace them completely.
 
Last edited:
The fastest Haswell-U parts at launch were:
Core i7 4500U - 1.8GHz (3GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT2 graphics
Core i7 4650U - 1.7GHz (3.3GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT3 (no eDRAM) @ 200/1100 MHz

Now we have:
Core i7 5600U - 2.6GHz (3.2GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT2 graphics
Core i7 5557U - 3.1GHz (3.4GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT3e (eDRAM) @ 300/1100MHz (50% higher base clocks)

That's a massive CPU and graphics performance increase for a Tick(+), kinda reminds me of the Sandy Bridge ULV -> Ivy Bridge ULV transition (but better). 🙂
 
Last edited:
Something doesn't seem right with this chart. I kind of think the chart with the 5557U is actually of the 28W U models.

Burpo said:
And Core M processor with Intel 14nm process belonging to, Broadwell-U series processors. will be divided into "2 + 2" and "2 + 3" versions.
Click to expand...

There are Broadwell-U Celerons and Pentiums now. Intel added it late. They are 2+1.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
It's not that much faster actually, because we had a literal standstill in the Haswell generation.

The 3317U gets 2.41 points in Cinebench R11.5, and probably runs at 2.4GHz to achieve that. I'd say 3317U's successor was really 4200U, and 4200U's successor 5200U, but let's see 5300U as well since you mentioned it.

Cinebench score to clocks ratio:
-Ivy Bridge 1:1
-Haswell: 1.1:1
-Broadwell: 1.15(?):1

3317U: 2.4 points = 2.4GHz
5200U: 2.5GHz = 2.88 points
5300U: 2.7GHz = 3.1 points

That's probably an optimistic scenario. I think you can expect 25% going to 5300U and 20% to 5200U. Still not bad since we got essentially nothing from a "Tock" Haswell. And at least confirms Broadwell won't be a disappointment performance-wise unlike Haswell.

Another good news is that Iris parts are available at 15W. On Haswell it took 28W to do so. Also the clock frequency is rather high. No wonder there's no M anymore. The U's replace them completely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're right about 4200U being the 3317's sucessor. Haswell was really nice from a battery life standpoint though, and we should see further gains with Broadwell, in addition to performance. Graphics should be nice, too (relative to Haswell), although the low clock speed is puzzling.
 
Sweepr said:
The fastest Haswell-U parts at launch were:
Core i7 4500U - 1.8GHz (3GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT2 graphics
Core i7 4650U - 1.7GHz (3.3GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT3 (no eDRAM) @ 200/1100 MHz

Now we have:
Core i7 5600U - 2.6GHz (3.2GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT2 graphics
Core i7 5557U - 3.1GHz (3.4GHz Turbo) 2C/4T with GT3e (eDRAM) @ 300/1100MHz (50% higher base clocks)

That's a massive CPU and graphics performance increase for a Tick(+), kinda reminds me of the Sandy Bridge ULV -> Ivy Bridge ULV transition (but better). 🙂
Click to expand...


5557U with HD graphics 6100 shouldn't have edram and I somehow doubt this is a 15W part.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
It's not that much faster actually, because we had a literal standstill in the Haswell generation.

The 3317U gets 2.41 points in Cinebench R11.5, and probably runs at 2.4GHz to achieve that. I'd say 3317U's successor was really 4200U, and 4200U's successor 5200U, but let's see 5300U as well since you mentioned it.

Cinebench score to clocks ratio:
-Ivy Bridge 1:1
-Haswell: 1.1:1
-Broadwell: 1.15(?):1

3317U: 2.4 points = 2.4GHz
5200U: 2.5GHz = 2.88 points
5300U: 2.7GHz = 3.1 points

That's probably an optimistic scenario. I think you can expect 25% going to 5300U and 20% to 5200U. Still not bad since we got essentially nothing from a "Tock" Haswell. And at least confirms Broadwell won't be a disappointment performance-wise unlike Haswell.

Another good news is that Iris parts are available at 15W. On Haswell it took 28W to do so. Also the clock frequency is rather high. No wonder there's no M anymore. The U's replace them completely.
Click to expand...

64809.png


The 4200U still achieved 2.5 pts, so not exactly a standstill, but a 5% improvement is nothing to cheer about. Those clock increases are really solid, hopefully we can see a 25% increase. I'd hope we see better than 2.88 pts though, hopefully we can see around 3 pts. with the 5200U.
 
Intel posted Drivers for Core M
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/SearchResult.aspx?lang=eng&ProdId=3832

Only Iris 5300 Broadwell GT2
DiskId = "Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator Driver for Windows"
Intel = "Intel Corporation"
; HSW Classic
iHSWGT1D = "Intel(R) HD Graphics"
iHSWGT1M = "Intel(R) HD Graphics"
iHSWGT15D = "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4400"
iHSWGT2D = "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4600"
iHSWGT2M = "Intel(R) HD Graphics 4600"
; HSW ULT
iHSWGT1UT = "Intel(R) HD Graphics"
iHSWGT2UT = "Intel(R) HD Graphics Family"
iHSWGT3UT = "Intel(R) HD Graphics 5000"
iHSWGT3UT28W = "Intel(R) Iris(TM) Graphics 5100"
iHSWGT2UX = "Intel(R) HD Graphics Family"
iHSWGT1ULX = "Intel(R) HD Graphics"
; HSW CRW
iHSWGT3CW = "Intel(R) Iris(TM) Pro Graphics 5200"
iHSWGT3CWDT = "Intel(R) Iris(TM) Pro Graphics 5200"
; HSW SRVR
iHSWSVGT2 = "Intel(R) HD Graphics P4600/P4700"
; BDW HW
iBDWULXGT2 = "Intel(R) HD Graphics 5300"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jdubs03 said:
hopefully we can see a 25% increase. I'd hope we see better than 2.88 pts though, hopefully we can see around 3 pts. with the 5200U.
Click to expand...

That's unlikely, because the max dual core Turbo is only 2.5GHz. You'll need the 5300U. See though the 4300U's successor is 5300U, so there you go. 4300U is technically a business part anyway. Base frequency really matters on a CPU, but not so much for GPU. I wonder why they upped it at Broadwell.

The 4200U still achieved 2.5 pts, so not exactly a standstill, but a 5% improvement is nothing to cheer about.
Click to expand...
3317U came at Ivy Bridge's introduction. They released 3337U with 100MHz higher clocks later. And it wasn't a business oriented part like the 4300U. That practically puts it on par with 4200U. Ok, maybe you didn't know and I didn't mention that.

Perhaps that's a little too optimistic.
Click to expand...
That's still very good, if they moved from requiring 28W for 2+3 part in Haswell to 15W 2+3 part, and 28W 2+3e part. I mean, the CPU is faster too. You are talking 3.9 points on a dual core part. That's why the -M series SKUs are gone. I figure though it might be a typo and 2+3 parts are really 28W and 2+3e parts are 35/45W parts only for desktops and special mobiles.

15W TDP ''U'' chips with Iris Pro should arrive with Skylake.
Click to expand...
The biggest reason not having the eDRAM on the 15W and lower parts is because the current eDRAM modules would take up lot of TDP. 3.5-4.5W for the eDRAM on current Crystalwell parts are massive 1/3rd of the TDP level, while is relatively insignificant for a 28W part. The eDRAM presentation this year reduces standby power to 1/5-1/4th but they said nothing about peak power.

Also, the eDRAM takes quite a lot of space too and U/Y series have not much room if at all: http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item2219/IntelBroadwell-600.jpg

If they move the PCH to 22nm on Skylake then they can probably integrate the eDRAM and put high bandwidth connection between the two chips. Hilariously that would mean the U parts would have faster connections than the DMI successors on the high end desktop/laptop parts though. 😀

(One last PiP(posts in posts) I promise)

although the low clock speed is puzzling.
Click to expand...
The GPU? If you look at benches in Notebookcheck, the HD 4400 chips really aren't running higher than 1GHz in any meaningful game. Now if Intel engineers figure out that setting it to 1GHz benefits it in some way that's good enough for me.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys look at the Iris 6100 chart:

TDP: 4MB
Tj(deg): 15W
Intel SBA: 105

😀 😀

Perhaps we should take that to mean 15W is a typo.
 
I know some Broadwell-M based products like the ASUS Zenbook UX305 have been presented. But has any release date for actual Broadwell-M based products been announced yet? I'm wondering how long we'll have to wait, so I can decide if I might as well wait for Skylake or not. Mainly interested in fanless notebooks (if they can turbo for long enough)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top