I really hope that Microsoft and Intel are working closely together on the SP4. It could be the perfect device with just the right amount of reputation to showcase everything both companies have been building to in the last year.
I hope for their own sake, that they're not that dumb. I cant imagine anything, that would cause OEMs to run even faster towards ARM based Chromebooks, than Microsoft and Intel working closely together on a Surface device.
Honestly, the professional mobile device market needs that type of kick in the pants. Microsoft needs something to showcase what their software development can accomplish. It's the same for Intel on the hardware side. The OEMs for the longest time couldn't produce a product in that market with the traditional business methods (i.e. the OEMs build a finalized, integrated product based on Wintel tech) that wasn't half-assed. The first Surface showcased what Windows 8 on a properly designed tablet could do. The market has gotten slightly better for it since MS was willing to pave the way (read: take the risk) and show the OEMs (read: its partners) how to do it.
Besides, MS knows not to completely walk all over its partners. There's a reason why the Surface models are placed where they are. There are plenty of market gaps for the OEMs to fill in if they want. MS needed a flagship device to showcase its software. "If you want something done right, do it yourself." (And by "right", I mean to your own expectations.)
Disclosure: I'm an owner of a Surface Pro 2. It's currently the ONLY way I can stand (and actually like) Windows 8.1. I am eagerly awaiting news of the SurPro4. (Too bad Courier never made it as a finalized product. I sometimes wonder if MS is keeping that experiment in mind.)
To say that Surface paved the way to anything seems funny to me. There were promising earlier contenders like Asus EP121 or Samsung Ativ Pro and others. While they had their drawbacks, so too did Surface. I have a Pro 2 like you, and know first-hand of how well it "showcased MS software" - the appalling situation with its type-cover touchpad drivers, for example. Or how "properly designed" its cooling system or even the power-port really was... Don't get me wrong. I don't hate my Surface. It's still the best in its category when it launched. But it has room for improvement, in certain aspects in very obvious ways, and I'm a bit disappointed MS did not get it to its full potential.
"Don't get me wrong. I don't hate my Surface. It's still the best in its category when it launched. But it has room for improvement, in certain aspects in very obvious ways, and I'm a bit disappointed MS did not get it to its full potential."
They did just a few months later when they released the Surface Pro 3. It solved just about every gripe you and others had.
I have an Ativ Pro, and the fact that after 3 years Samsung haven't released a new one says a lot when Microsoft are closing on v.4 product.
Samsung have shown they don't give a shit about this type of product so they didn't pave the way for much. Surface Pro was announced before the Ativ was anyway.
I see what you mean. I guess I didn't quite state my argument the way I meant.
By "paving the way," I meant the Surface gave the other OEMs a clear(er) direction to aim at for device design. There were promising designs as you stated, but the drawback they had tended to be more concentrated in one area than the Surface (if I recall the reviews from then correctly. Do correct me if I'm wrong.) The Surface was one of, if not the first, to attempt to address those shortcomings in OEM designs. The Surface line had some shortcomings, yes, but IMHO, they were more balanced all around than prior designs.
Lastly, don't forget you're looking at the Surface line through the lens of hindsight. It will color opinion (much like any else can.)
I think you guys are assuming too much. It's very clear that me was going for large hardware sales. When Ballmer said "Devices" as part of Microsoft's new mission, he wasn't talking about low sales to lead the OEMs forward. He meant selling tens of millions a year. That vision failed, and instead, if they sell 4 million Surface Pro 3 devices this year, it will be an accomplishment.
At this point, it's become clear to Microsoft that device sales aren't going to be their future, so they reluctantly changed direction.
This is true when major companies have sales that disappoint. The can talking about "leading the industry" and all that, but that's just face saving. So while it's true that Surface sales have been increasing, they are at such a low level that just a few hundred thousand a year in an increase looks large.
OEMs will produce systems that generate sales and offer lucrative profit margins. I don't think any relationship between Microsoft and Intel will ultimately have a large impact that dictates the decisions other companies make in selecting a product lineup. There are numerous OEMs that currently produce Chromebooks and if that market becomes larger through their success, it's likely other companies will join in the fray, but I think that the driver for their entry isn't going to be due to halo products like the Surface Pro that simply don't compete directly with the market segment to which Chromebooks appeal.
--[I cant imagine anything, that would cause OEMs to run even faster towards ARM based Chromebooks, than Microsoft and Intel working closely together on a Surface device.]--
These aren't even in the same market segment. Surface is as powerful as a good laptop and priced to match, Chromebooks are designed to be a cheap computer-like device. Surface is based around x86 software, Chromebooks use web-based software. I can't really see one replacing the other any more than an 10" Windows Atom netbook would replace a 15" OS X Mac Pro laptop or vice versa.
This isn't clear to me. Yes, it is true that performance will be better in some orientations but isn't it almost useless to discuss as throttling kicks in once the temperature threshold is reached set by the manufacturer and regardless of external factors?
What we are missing here, I think, is the device surface temperature. For a 2 in 1 not attached to a dock/keyboard, it can be assumed that it is held by hand or flat on surface so its thermal performance should be limited to avoid user discomfort with higher temperatures.
I think what Intel is trying to fix here is a device similar to the Yoga 3 Pro where the thermal limits is static where the thermal headroom is too safe, targeting the low surface temps. Where, it should be able to increase that limit when it detects an orientation such as the laptop or tent mode as it is not held by a user.
The problem with that is how these devices go from mobile to standing and back very quickly by design. To take my SP3 on the go I literally pick it up and pop the kickstand in, a process that takes two seconds tops.
If you let it get too hot even when free standing, it'll take about a day before someone goes to grab it and it burns their hand followed by a juicy lawsuit and an expensive hardware recall.
Even at 60°C, it takes a few seconds for any kind of skin damage to take place. You can hold something at 50°C for a couple minutes. When they're setting maximum skin temps at 45°C, it's because they don't want people to feel uncomfortable at all.
Personally, I'd like power profiles in more operating systems, and for those profiles to actually do something with the max temperatures or minimum clock cycles or stuff like that.
It's important to understand that the reaction of the system to these changes is effectively instant and that skin temperatures are usually set to the same limit for all modes of operation. If you were to place the tablet on a table it would immediately change state to handle the difference.
Power draw does not increase with the square of the frequency, it is a linear response. It increases with the square of the VOLTAGE. However, to hit certain frequencies, you may have to increase voltage, which has the double whammy of increased voltage and frequency for power consumption.
Moving from 2GHz to 2.2GHz should only result in an increased power draw of 10%. However, if you also have to increase voltage from 1 to 1.1v to get 2.2GHz, you increase power consumption by a further 21% at that frequency. So you have a total increase of 33%. This is why voltage scaling can be a good thing (if you can decrease it) and a bad thing (if you must increase it).
Yes, this is true. The relationship is more complex than described, but for the purposes of understanding why power increases don't directly translate to linear clock gains the explanation is sufficient, although I'd be happy to know why this isn't the case.
Funny, I have noticed the press (not sure if it was AT or another site) making this mistake several times recently. Kinda weird. But yeah, everything the parent of my post said is correct.
Why don't they just attach a few sensors to the chassis and measure the skin temperature directly? No guesswork needed, and those sensors aren't that big.
I think that's probably due to the fact that the chassis design can have a lot of variation and the sensors would be the responsibility of the OEM to create and install which means that they may not operate with a degree of precision that Intel would want (and could even compromise performance). Intel's had a history of integration from things like the movement of L2 cache from the motherboard to the CPU package in the Pentium II days to absorbing functions that previously were the responsibility of the chipset and then there's the move from letting OEMs decide what graphics cards to include on the motherboard to the eventual inclusion of the GPU on the processor's die. Giving processor performance control back to the OEM by depending on the correct integration of sensors is likely something that is a task Intel considers too complex to hand off.
The while concept seems like a hokey compromise to me. The CPU isn't the only heat source in a system. If there is a discrete GPU (e.g. in a high-end ultrabook) the CPU isn't even the largest heat source. Then there's the power supply, the chipset, RAM, SSD(s), the screen... The exact spatial arrangement of those components can vary; the cooling design (heat pipes/spreaders, case materials and dimensions, presence of active cooli g or not) can vary greatly.
Nuts, hit "submit" prematurely with my fat fingers... Anyway, even after all that, actual operating co ditions can vary more than a simple orientation sensor can predict. What is the ambient temperature? Is the device in direct sunlight or in the shade? Is the device being held, in a lap, on a warm surface, on a cold surface? What is the wind/airflow around the device like?
Wow, sis it again. Gawd Anandtech, where's that edit button everyone's been requesting for the last umpteen years?
Anyway, what I was driving at, is that these sorts of decisions are best left to the BIOS, which has a more complete view and 'understanding' of exact system hardware and design features, and best fed by direct skin temperature sensors rather than simplistic and inherently incomplete abstract models.
I understand how Intel could easily add an orientation sensor internally for improved dynamic power, but how would it determine an external active cooling solution is being used?
Intel doesn't need to add any orientation sensor when all tablets already have a gyrometer onboard, just leverage the existing hardware.
A dock could also be detected through software. Any enterprise products which support real docks or USB 3.0 docks can easily know that they are currently attached or not through simply software checks against hardware presence.
All in all this peaks well for future devices. Excited to see if this is included within the SP4 ecosystem.
I have a Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro with M-5Y70 processor. If DPTF is enabled in BIOS, then my CinebechR15 single CPU score is 72points and when is disabled in BIOS the result is 93 points. I can't find any temperature differences when touching the case.....
This is going to be the real “You’re holding it wrong”. Also, whe’ll get the chance to laugh at people holding their arms up for the advertised performance.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
Drumsticks - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I really hope that Microsoft and Intel are working closely together on the SP4. It could be the perfect device with just the right amount of reputation to showcase everything both companies have been building to in the last year.V900 - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I hope for their own sake, that they're not that dumb. I cant imagine anything, that would cause OEMs to run even faster towards ARM based Chromebooks, than Microsoft and Intel working closely together on a Surface device.Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
You're a bit late on that prediction given that they already had a close partnership on the SP3 at the very least.Stahn Aileron - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Honestly, the professional mobile device market needs that type of kick in the pants. Microsoft needs something to showcase what their software development can accomplish. It's the same for Intel on the hardware side. The OEMs for the longest time couldn't produce a product in that market with the traditional business methods (i.e. the OEMs build a finalized, integrated product based on Wintel tech) that wasn't half-assed. The first Surface showcased what Windows 8 on a properly designed tablet could do. The market has gotten slightly better for it since MS was willing to pave the way (read: take the risk) and show the OEMs (read: its partners) how to do it.Besides, MS knows not to completely walk all over its partners. There's a reason why the Surface models are placed where they are. There are plenty of market gaps for the OEMs to fill in if they want. MS needed a flagship device to showcase its software. "If you want something done right, do it yourself." (And by "right", I mean to your own expectations.)
Disclosure: I'm an owner of a Surface Pro 2. It's currently the ONLY way I can stand (and actually like) Windows 8.1. I am eagerly awaiting news of the SurPro4. (Too bad Courier never made it as a finalized product. I sometimes wonder if MS is keeping that experiment in mind.)
Visual - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
To say that Surface paved the way to anything seems funny to me.There were promising earlier contenders like Asus EP121 or Samsung Ativ Pro and others. While they had their drawbacks, so too did Surface.
I have a Pro 2 like you, and know first-hand of how well it "showcased MS software" - the appalling situation with its type-cover touchpad drivers, for example. Or how "properly designed" its cooling system or even the power-port really was...
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate my Surface. It's still the best in its category when it launched. But it has room for improvement, in certain aspects in very obvious ways, and I'm a bit disappointed MS did not get it to its full potential.
basroil - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
"Don't get me wrong. I don't hate my Surface. It's still the best in its category when it launched. But it has room for improvement, in certain aspects in very obvious ways, and I'm a bit disappointed MS did not get it to its full potential."They did just a few months later when they released the Surface Pro 3. It solved just about every gripe you and others had.
Lonyo - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I have an Ativ Pro, and the fact that after 3 years Samsung haven't released a new one says a lot when Microsoft are closing on v.4 product.Samsung have shown they don't give a shit about this type of product so they didn't pave the way for much. Surface Pro was announced before the Ativ was anyway.
Stahn Aileron - Saturday, August 22, 2015 - link
I see what you mean. I guess I didn't quite state my argument the way I meant.By "paving the way," I meant the Surface gave the other OEMs a clear(er) direction to aim at for device design. There were promising designs as you stated, but the drawback they had tended to be more concentrated in one area than the Surface (if I recall the reviews from then correctly. Do correct me if I'm wrong.) The Surface was one of, if not the first, to attempt to address those shortcomings in OEM designs. The Surface line had some shortcomings, yes, but IMHO, they were more balanced all around than prior designs.
Lastly, don't forget you're looking at the Surface line through the lens of hindsight. It will color opinion (much like any else can.)
melgross - Sunday, August 23, 2015 - link
I think you guys are assuming too much. It's very clear that me was going for large hardware sales. When Ballmer said "Devices" as part of Microsoft's new mission, he wasn't talking about low sales to lead the OEMs forward. He meant selling tens of millions a year. That vision failed, and instead, if they sell 4 million Surface Pro 3 devices this year, it will be an accomplishment.At this point, it's become clear to Microsoft that device sales aren't going to be their future, so they reluctantly changed direction.
This is true when major companies have sales that disappoint. The can talking about "leading the industry" and all that, but that's just face saving. So while it's true that Surface sales have been increasing, they are at such a low level that just a few hundred thousand a year in an increase looks large.
BrokenCrayons - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
OEMs will produce systems that generate sales and offer lucrative profit margins. I don't think any relationship between Microsoft and Intel will ultimately have a large impact that dictates the decisions other companies make in selecting a product lineup. There are numerous OEMs that currently produce Chromebooks and if that market becomes larger through their success, it's likely other companies will join in the fray, but I think that the driver for their entry isn't going to be due to halo products like the Surface Pro that simply don't compete directly with the market segment to which Chromebooks appeal.melgross - Sunday, August 23, 2015 - link
Since when have OEMs making Windows devices ever made lucrative profits? Mostly, they just barely make any profit.stephenbrooks - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
--[I cant imagine anything, that would cause OEMs to run even faster towards ARM based Chromebooks, than Microsoft and Intel working closely together on a Surface device.]--These aren't even in the same market segment. Surface is as powerful as a good laptop and priced to match, Chromebooks are designed to be a cheap computer-like device. Surface is based around x86 software, Chromebooks use web-based software. I can't really see one replacing the other any more than an 10" Windows Atom netbook would replace a 15" OS X Mac Pro laptop or vice versa.
zodiacfml - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
This isn't clear to me. Yes, it is true that performance will be better in some orientations but isn't it almost useless to discuss as throttling kicks in once the temperature threshold is reached set by the manufacturer and regardless of external factors?What we are missing here, I think, is the device surface temperature. For a 2 in 1 not attached to a dock/keyboard, it can be assumed that it is held by hand or flat on surface so its thermal performance should be limited to avoid user discomfort with higher temperatures.
I think what Intel is trying to fix here is a device similar to the Yoga 3 Pro where the thermal limits is static where the thermal headroom is too safe, targeting the low surface temps. Where, it should be able to increase that limit when it detects an orientation such as the laptop or tent mode as it is not held by a user.
Mushkins - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
The problem with that is how these devices go from mobile to standing and back very quickly by design. To take my SP3 on the go I literally pick it up and pop the kickstand in, a process that takes two seconds tops.If you let it get too hot even when free standing, it'll take about a day before someone goes to grab it and it burns their hand followed by a juicy lawsuit and an expensive hardware recall.
mkozakewich - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Even at 60°C, it takes a few seconds for any kind of skin damage to take place. You can hold something at 50°C for a couple minutes. When they're setting maximum skin temps at 45°C, it's because they don't want people to feel uncomfortable at all.Personally, I'd like power profiles in more operating systems, and for those profiles to actually do something with the max temperatures or minimum clock cycles or stuff like that.
JoshHo - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
It's important to understand that the reaction of the system to these changes is effectively instant and that skin temperatures are usually set to the same limit for all modes of operation. If you were to place the tablet on a table it would immediately change state to handle the difference.azazel1024 - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Power draw does not increase with the square of the frequency, it is a linear response. It increases with the square of the VOLTAGE. However, to hit certain frequencies, you may have to increase voltage, which has the double whammy of increased voltage and frequency for power consumption.Moving from 2GHz to 2.2GHz should only result in an increased power draw of 10%. However, if you also have to increase voltage from 1 to 1.1v to get 2.2GHz, you increase power consumption by a further 21% at that frequency. So you have a total increase of 33%. This is why voltage scaling can be a good thing (if you can decrease it) and a bad thing (if you must increase it).
JoshHo - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Yes, this is true. The relationship is more complex than described, but for the purposes of understanding why power increases don't directly translate to linear clock gains the explanation is sufficient, although I'd be happy to know why this isn't the case.extide - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Funny, I have noticed the press (not sure if it was AT or another site) making this mistake several times recently. Kinda weird. But yeah, everything the parent of my post said is correct.WagonWheelsRX8 - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Why don't they just attach a few sensors to the chassis and measure the skin temperature directly? No guesswork needed, and those sensors aren't that big.BrokenCrayons - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I think that's probably due to the fact that the chassis design can have a lot of variation and the sensors would be the responsibility of the OEM to create and install which means that they may not operate with a degree of precision that Intel would want (and could even compromise performance). Intel's had a history of integration from things like the movement of L2 cache from the motherboard to the CPU package in the Pentium II days to absorbing functions that previously were the responsibility of the chipset and then there's the move from letting OEMs decide what graphics cards to include on the motherboard to the eventual inclusion of the GPU on the processor's die. Giving processor performance control back to the OEM by depending on the correct integration of sensors is likely something that is a task Intel considers too complex to hand off.boeush - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
The while concept seems like a hokey compromise to me. The CPU isn't the only heat source in a system. If there is a discrete GPU (e.g. in a high-end ultrabook) the CPU isn't even the largest heat source. Then there's the power supply, the chipset, RAM, SSD(s), the screen... The exact spatial arrangement of those components can vary; the cooling design (heat pipes/spreaders, case materials and dimensions, presence of active cooli g or not) can vary greatly.boeush - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Nuts, hit "submit" prematurely with my fat fingers... Anyway, even after all that, actual operating co ditions can vary more than a simple orientation sensor can predict. What is the ambient temperature? Is the device in direct sunlight or in the shade? Is the device being held, in a lap, on a warm surface, on a cold surface? What is the wind/airflow around the device like?boeush - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Wow, sis it again. Gawd Anandtech, where's that edit button everyone's been requesting for the last umpteen years?Anyway, what I was driving at, is that these sorts of decisions are best left to the BIOS, which has a more complete view and 'understanding' of exact system hardware and design features, and best fed by direct skin temperature sensors rather than simplistic and inherently incomplete abstract models.
ScottSoapbox - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
I understand how Intel could easily add an orientation sensor internally for improved dynamic power, but how would it determine an external active cooling solution is being used?creed3020 - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
Intel doesn't need to add any orientation sensor when all tablets already have a gyrometer onboard, just leverage the existing hardware.A dock could also be detected through software. Any enterprise products which support real docks or USB 3.0 docks can easily know that they are currently attached or not through simply software checks against hardware presence.
All in all this peaks well for future devices. Excited to see if this is included within the SP4 ecosystem.
meacupla - Saturday, August 22, 2015 - link
Either a temperature sensor glued to the backside, or some program that keeps track of thermal load vs. hardware workload.junky77 - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
But I don't get it. Sensors were available before - Weren't some API to the sensors data and the ability to change performance available before?toyotabedzrock - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
How about placing an molded in temp sensor in the back cover and maybe using something to spread the heat out a bit?Morawka - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link
where is the architecture deep dive in?tisho75 - Sunday, August 23, 2015 - link
I have a Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro with M-5Y70 processor. If DPTF is enabled in BIOS, then my CinebechR15 single CPU score is 72points and when is disabled in BIOS the result is 93 points. I can't find any temperature differences when touching the case.....claudiu - Sunday, August 23, 2015 - link
This is going to be the real “You’re holding it wrong”. Also, whe’ll get the chance to laugh at people holding their arms up for the advertised performance.