Tom's hardware: Intel to launch 10 to 13 watt Ivy Bridge in 2013

[cbn]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-ivy-bridge-core-pentium,19572.html

Click on the image bar to resize.

Here are some Specs of current Ivy Bridge 17 watt processors (for comparison to the 10 watt and 13 watt ones in the chart above.)

i3:http://ark.intel.com/products/65697/Intel-Core-i3-3217U-Processor-3M-Cache-1_80-GHz (2 cores/4 threads, 1.8 Ghz, no turbo, HD4000 with 1.05 Ghz max frequency)

i5: http://ark.intel.com/products/65707/Intel-Core-i5-3317U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz (2 cores/4 threads. 1.7 Ghz with 2.6 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.05 Ghz max frequency)

i5: http://ark.intel.com/products/64903/Intel-Core-i5-3427U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_80-GHz (2 cores/4 threads, 1.8 Ghz, 2.8 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.15 Ghz max frequency)

i7: http://ark.intel.com/products/65714/Intel-Core-i7-3517U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_00-GHz (2 cores/4 threads. 1.9 Ghz with 3.0 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.15 Ghz max frequency)

i7: http://ark.intel.com/products/64898/Intel-Core-i7-3667U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz (2 cores/4 threads, 2.0 Ghz with 3.2 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.15 Ghz max frequency)


Now looking at a cross section of the i5s (both 13 watt and 17 watt):

i5Y 13 watt (low bin): 2 cores/4 threads, 1.5 Ghz with 2.0 turbo, HD4000 with 850 Mhz max frequency)

i5Y 13 watt (high bin): 2 cores/4 threads, 1.5 Ghz with 2.3 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 850 MHz max frequency)

i5 17 watt (low bin): 2 cores/4 threads. 1.7 Ghz with 2.6 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.05 Ghz max frequency

i5 17 watt (high bin) : 2 cores/4 threads, 1.8 Ghz, 2.8 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.15 Ghz max frequency

The high bin 13 watt i5 compares favorably with the low bin 17 watt i5 (although the high bin 17 watt i5 does open the gap back up again).

The most interesting part of this (to me) is the form factor. How much will the 4 watt difference provide in terms of device thinness/weight? Also, what is Intel going to do with "Configurable TDP". The specs for cTDPdown are listed in the above chart, but what about cTDPup?

 

[cbn]

Does anyone want to wager a guess what the cpu and gpu frequency of i5-3349Y (high bin 13 watt Ivy Bridge) and i5-3339Y(low bin 13 watt Ivy Bridge) will be at 10 watts? (ie, cTDPdown configuration)

Comparing the 17 watt processor i5-3427U (ie, "high bin" 17 watt i5 mentioned in post #1) http://ark.intel.com/products/64903/Intel-Core-i5-3427U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_80-GHz to the two 13 watts i5's:

(For the 24% reduction in TDP going from 17 watts to 13 watts) We see a 26% reduction in GPU clocks and a ~18% reduction in single core turbo (i5-3349Y, the 13 watt high bin) and 29% reduction in single core turbo (i5-3339Y, the 13 watt low bin). The 13 watt base clocks (both bins @ 1.5 Ghz) fare better at only 17% reduction compared to the 17 watt i5's 1.8 Ghz base clock.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Computer Bottleneck,

The Core i7 17W in your link is the embedded version. The current fastest i7s are 3517U(without the E) and 3667U. The former has 1.9GHz clock speed and the latter, 2.0GHz.

No mention of cTDPup means it likely does not have cTDPup. On the 17W chips, its 25W. There's only one device that uses it though. That's the Sony Vaio Duo 11 Convertible Ultrabook with the Core i7 option.

 

[Fjodor2001]

What's the use case for these 7/10 W CPUs? Why would you want to use them instead of a 17 W CPU that has better performance? The 17 W CPU will scale the frequency anyway so when the additional performance is not needed it will lower the frequency, hence there should not be any substantial difference in battery life.

The only reason I can think of is that the cooling requirements are lower for a 7/10 W CPU. But for that to make any difference, it has to pass the threshold where you can go fanless. Is that the intention of the 7/10 W CPUs? Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[cbn]

Computer Bottleneck,

The Core i7 17W in your link is the embedded version. The current fastest i7s are 3517U(without the E) and 3667U. The former has 1.9GHz clock speed and the latter, 2.0GHz.

Thank you. I fixed that and made some other corrections to how I was listing the models.

 

[IntelUser2000]

What's the use case for these 7/10 W CPUs? Why would you want to use them instead of a 17 W CPU that has better performance? The 17 W CPU will scale the frequency anyway so when the additional performance is not needed it will lower the frequency, hence there should not be any substantial difference in battery life.

The only reason I can think of is that the cooling requirements are lower for a 7/10 W CPU. But for that to make any difference, it has to pass the threshold where you can go fanless. Is that the intention of the 7/10 W CPUs? Otherwise, what's the point?

Cooling requirements are lower. That's because designers go for worst case scenario when going for a chassis for their new Notebook/Ultrabook/Tablet. TDP becomes the worst case scenario in which case will determine the size of the heatsink, how fast/loud the fan should run and such.

There's lots of cases where a 17W chip will have same battery life as a 10/13W one. But that doesn't mean the system and thermal design of the device should be of a lower TDP setup. That's because not everyone does only simple web surfing or video watching. What if they use something that actually allows the chip to reach TDP levels? Best-case you have users complaining the system doesn't perform to spec and runs to hot. Worst-case you might have lawsuits if it turns out the chip, or even the system gets degraded lifespan.

I assume system design isn't purely about fans either. Certain really thin and light Ultrabooks and Convertibles might be at a point where just dropping few W from the 17W point is enough to allow it into more mainstream ones rather than few that tries to push boundaries.

 

[cbn]

The only reason I can think of is that the cooling requirements are lower for a 7/10 W CPU. But for that to make any difference, it has to pass the threshold where you can go fanless. Is that the intention of the 7/10 W CPUs? Otherwise, what's the point?

Maybe someone else has a better example of 10 watt cooling, but here is what I found:

http://ark.intel.com/products/55637/Intel-Atom-Processor-N570-1M-Cache-1_66-GHz (Atom N570, 1.66 Ghz dual core, TDP 8.5 watts)

http://ark.intel.com/products/47610/Intel-CG82NM10-PCH (Intel NM10 chipset, TDP 2.1 watts)

8.5 watts (atom) + 2.1 watts (chipset) = 10.6 watts TDP for the total.

Now here is what the atom N570 + NM10 chip combo looks like in a Samsung Notebook:

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Series+5+3G+Chromebook+Teardown/5939/2#s26167

The Atom processor and NM10 graphics chip produce such little heat that no cooling fins are used at the fan's exhaust. Air forced over the thin copper plate comprising the heat sink and fan shroud bottom by the fan blades is enough to keep things cool.

In contrast here is the fan arrangement from a Mid 2012 Apple Mac Book air using the 17 watt Ivy Bridge Core i5 3427U processor (2 cores/4 threads, 1.8 Ghz, 2.8 Ghz turbo, HD4000 with 1.15 Ghz max frequency)

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Mid+2012+Teardown/9457/2#s36166

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Mid+2012+Teardown/9457/2#s36162

The Apple cooling unit, although very nicely packaged in the chassis, definitely looks like a beefier design.

Although, with that said, I have to wonder how much of the atom's NM10 chipset heat is being delivered to the Samsung's cooling unit. (Notice, unlike the Atom N570, there is no TIM on the NM10 PCH). Maybe this cooling comparison is really 17 watts vs. 8.5 watts? (Not 17 watts vs 10.6 watts.)

 

[cbn]

Fjodor2001,

After doing some more research, I have found even the ExoPC Tablet with 5.5 watt Intel Pineview N450 processor requires a fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoPC (Specs of Exo PC)

Intel Atom Pineview-M N450, 1.66 GHz - 64 bit support

reference to the TDP:

http://ark.intel.com/products/42503

Max TDP 5.5 W

Teardown Video of Exo PC showing fan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0peVPGQpLc&feature=player_detailpage#t=271s


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another example of a 5.9 watt processor needing a fan is the MSI Wind 110W Tablet (using AMD):

Here are the specs:

http://www.msi.com/product/nb/WindPa...=Specification

AMD Brazos Dual Core Z01+HD6250

and reference to the TDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fus...840.C2.A0nm.29

Model: Z-01.....(snip).....TDP 5.9 watts

Here is the teardown (showing fan):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd8ZVeg1YS0&feature=player_detailpage#t=117s

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So based on those two examples, I think it is safe to say going fanless (Laptops/Tablets) would require a pretty drastic reduction in TDP for Intel Core processors.

 

[mikk]

Basically 5W TDP is the upper limit for a fanless system. CPUs under 5W TDP should run without a fan, just with a passive cooling block.

 

[Idontcare]

Basically 5W TDP is the upper limit for a fanless system. CPUs under 5W TDP should run without a fan, just with a passive cooling block.

I am surprised the fanless threshold is so low, just a mere 5W?

That is obviously form-factor dependent though, a smartphon or tablet form factor will have different fanless cooling performance versus a laptop or desktop form factor (even if the systems themselves are 100% passively cooled).

 

[Fjodor2001]

Basically 5W TDP is the upper limit for a fanless system. CPUs under 5W TDP should run without a fan, just with a passive cooling block.

So with these 7 W IB CPUs, we're just 2 W away from a fanless system even with current cooling technology?

Then surely some clever engineering solution should make it possible to also enable fanless 7 W systems? E.g. an ultrabook with an aluminum chassis acting as heatsink, and possibly throttling the CPU frequency in case the CPU temperature should get too high after extended use at max load?

 

[mikk]

I am surprised the fanless threshold is so low, just a mere 5W?

That is obviously form-factor dependent though, a smartphon or tablet form factor will have different fanless cooling performance versus a laptop or desktop form factor (even if the systems themselves are 100% passively cooled).

So with these 7 W IB CPUs, we're just 2 W away from a fanless system even with current cooling technology?

Then surely some clever engineering solution should make it possible to also enable fanless 7 W systems? E.g. an ultrabook with an aluminum chassis acting as heatsink, and possibly throttling the CPU frequency in case the CPU temperature should get too high after extended use at max load?

Theoretically fanless designs are possible even for 8-10W models with a bigger heatsink but that wouldn't be a clever idea for a small form factor such as netbooks, tablets, notebooks whatever. Also I guess a cheap fan coupled with a small heatsink is probably more cost friendly for system builders.

There is a fanless HD6850 with TDP more than 100W (HD 6850 SCS3). Such kind of heatsink are not doable in a small form factor.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Theoretically fanless designs are possible even for 8-10W models with a bigger heatsink but that wouldn't be a clever idea for a small form factor such as netbooks, tablets, notebooks whatever. Also I guess a cheap fan coupled with a small heatsink is probably more cost friendly for system builders.

There is a fanless HD6850 with TDP more than 100W (HD 6850 SCS3). Such kind of heatsink are not doable in a small form factor.

Obviously we're talking about ultrabooks/laptops/tablets and similar. We already know there are passive cooling solutions for desktops handling TDP levels of 100 W or more. But such computers are not what these 7/10 W CPUs primarily are intended for.

So back to the original question. As previously stated 5 W fanless designs are already available in current netbook/ultrabook formats. So shouldn't it be possible to handle 2 W more while still keeping that small size format, with the help of some clever engineering?

For example:

* Low power SSD
* Low power RAM
* With Haswell the chipset will be 32 nm instead of 65 nm
* Use aluminum chassis as heat sink
* Throttle CPU frequency if it becomes too hot after extended periods of use at full load
* Any more ideas?

Adding up several such improvements, shouldn't it be possible to design a fanless ultrabook with a 7 W CPU?

 

[cbn]

So with these 7 W IB CPUs, we're just 2 W away from a fanless system even with current cooling technology?

Fjodor2001,

I am still learning about cooling, but as I understand things SDP (Scenario Design Power) is different than TDP.

SDP is defined as the power draw at Tj 80C, whereas TDP is defined as the power drawn at Tj 105C. (Tj = Junction Temperature)

Some more information on Junction Temperature --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_temperature

Junction temperature is the highest temperature of the actual semiconductor in an electronic device. In operation, it is higher than case temperature and the temperature of the part's exterior. The difference is equal to the amount of heat transferred from the junction to case multiplied by the junction-to-case thermal resistance.

Maximum junction temperature

Maximum junction temperature (sometimes abbreviated TJMax) is specified in a part's datasheet and is used when calculating the necessary case-to-ambient thermal resistance for a given power dissipation. This in turn is used to select an appropriate heat sink if necessary.

In Intel processors, the core temperature is measured by a sensor. If the core reaches its TJMax, this will trigger a protection mechanism to cool the processor. If the temperature rises above the TJMax, the processor will trigger an alarm to warn the computer operator who can then discontinue the process that is causing the overheating or shut down the computer to prevent damage.[1]

An estimation of the chip-junction temperature, TJ, can be obtained from the following equation: TJ = TA + ( R θJA × PD )

where: TA = ambient temperature for the package ( °C )

R θJA = junction to ambient thermal resistance ( °C / W )

PD = power dissipation in package (W)

 

[cbn]

* Low power SSD
* Low power RAM
* With Haswell the chipset will be 32 nm instead of 65 nm

Yep, those should all lower Tcase. (If they were not used previously)

Another thing to consider for Haswell is Crystal Well. (GPU memory on an interposer.) According to S/A this will also help save power.--> http://semiaccurate.com/2012/04/02/haswells-gpu-prowess-is-due-to-crystalwell/

 

[epidemis]

Theoretically fanless designs are possible even for 8-10W models with a bigger heatsink but that wouldn't be a clever idea for a small form factor such as netbooks, tablets, notebooks whatever. Also I guess a cheap fan coupled with a small heatsink is probably more cost friendly for system builders.

There is a fanless HD6850 with TDP more than 100W (HD 6850 SCS3). Such kind of heatsink are not doable in a small form factor.

No, those require a cabinet fan

 

[cbn]

Maybe the possibility exists we will see Fanless Core processors in the not so distant future.

Lets say (for the sake of argument) the Integrated Wifi (on 14nm ULV i5 and i7 Skylake) comes in low power/low leakage xtor flavor, but the rest of the i5/i7 ULV chip is mostly 14nm Standard Power (SP).

Wouldn't it make sense for Intel to have the low powered Core Processor line (Skylake Pentium, Skylake i3) also use 14nm LP....but across the entire die to save costs. (re: with Skylake Pentium and Skylake i3 the extra speed from Standard power (SP)/standard leakage process wouldn't be needed for the cores since those SKUs don't come with turbo enabled.)

See below post for the cost savings explanation:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34355660&postcount=6

In a nutshell:

1.) Skylake ULV i5 & i7: (14nm SP and LP process on the same die)

Standard Power (SP) 14nm process in order to keep "turbo boost" on the processor cores efficient. Low Power (LP) 14nm process on the integrated Wifi to keep power consumption down. Mixing xtor types on the same die increases costs, but is warranted due to the premium nature of the SKU.

Cooling: Most likely needs fan

2.) Skylake ULV Pentium and i3: (homogenous 14nm LP process)

Low Power (LP) 14nm process across entire die to keep costs at a minimum. Since these processors don't support "turbo boost" having Standard Power (SP) 14nm process (for the processor cores) is not necessary.

Cooling: Potential to be fanless

 

[StinkyPinky]

I have to say the mobile CPU market is much more interesting than the desktop cpu market these days.

I'll be replacing my 4 year old laptop with a haswell based laptop next year.