The large step from 8 to 10&12 threads is weird, especially since filling the last few logical cores usually increases performance and power only marginally, as some other ressource (caches, memory bandwidth etc.) is usually already saturated / limiting. I have a hard time to imagine the step from 8 to 10 threads to cause so much more load that a step from 3.9 GHz to 3.2 GHz is warrented. I rather suspect that this is some workload-independent limit or that the turbo steps are too coarse in that region, e.g. without any step in between. If this could be fixed the performance difference woudl be drastically reduced.
I agree with both of your sentences. The problems are scalable, but you always get more or less pronounced diminishing returns by adding threads, especially as you only populate the last few logical cores which already have a load on their physical counterpart. Hence the step of 700 MHz from 8 to 10 cores seems to be an artificial limit if going from 6 to 8 threads only required a drop of 100 MHz. It should be at maximum 200 MHz I'd estimate.
It's a silly term that caught on because it sounds weird and makes a person question what it means... A symptom of the clickbaity 'curiosity gap' abusing culture we live in today.
Other examples include: God particle (instead of Higg's Boson) Big Data (sounds grammatically incorrect at first blush for a reason...) super blue blood moon bomb cyclone
Intel foisted this on mobile with Haswell. Killing sockets altogether from Broadwell on. Lots of embedded atom type CPUs over the years too. Putting it in ever higher power SKUs is worrying though. Killing user service and upgrades, and increasing system turnover and especially E-WASTE.
Yay! Even more non-upgradeable/non-serviceable parts in product segments where this doesn't actually give any kind of tangible benefit. I can kinda-sorta accept soldered CPUs in thin-and-light laptops, but for AIOs? Don't be silly. If the ~5mm savings of leaving out the socket and retention mechanism is what's making your AIO design fat, you're doing something wrong.
It's like you've never heard of embedded systems. Besides, AIO absolutely can benefit. The typical owner of an AIO is not going to upgrade their CPU, so saving some space for better thermal management is great.
Embedded systems already have existing CPU options, and this series is not for those. Also, better thermal management? How? Last I looked AIOs don't stack their HSFs on top of the CPU, so that point is moot.
_Cheap_ AIO systems don't have CPUs like these, but rather U-series mobile chips (that are already BGA). These are obviously premium options, for iMacs and their ilk.
If you can actually use the performance benefits of these CPUs over an U-series, you're going to need a cooling solution that'll take up way more than those 5 mm anyhow. So the point is moot; this is a silly change, but in tune with the trend toward ever more locked-down hardware and less serviceability.
Sure, but some are. And after the rest are prematurely scrapped, socketed CPUs can be easily harvested and reused. This will take some serious hardware to remove without damage. In short: the "gains" from this are immaterial and unnecessary, while the drawbacks are significant.
So what is the big difference with the H line, sounds like the primary difference is 65W vs 45W - Will it also be possible that some high end notebooks used B processor - and what about more that 6 cores line.
One thing I notice with going though Sandra on XPS 15 2in1 line that I believe it shares more with H Series than it shares with U series of CPU. In fact specific related some of component it states specifically H series related the Ram controller. It maybe a Sandra issue, but I think Integrated GPU is a 620 but it looks like it has some 630 features.
One the Integration of Vega GPU with Intel - to me this looks more like a step towards a direction of there own Discrete GPU's in the future. It definitely custom GPU and unlike my Lenovo Y50 - it looks all part of one systems - instead of two system. Sort of reminds what Microsoft and Sony did with the game consoles.
I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see this crossing over into a few oversized laptops. OTOH I wouldn't be hugely surprised if it didn't happen either, because they don't sell well enough to justify a second PCB design and at their most overpowered max even with a factory overclock these would still lag behind a 95W K series desktop chip. I suspect if those systems currently sell with K chips or not is likely to be the determining factor; but it's not a segment I pay enough attention to to know if they do or not.
I think we will be starting to see blur between desktop and mobile chips - as technology gets smaller and lower power - the more powerful typical desktop line will be role in the more desirable mobile line for customers.
I not sure you referring to when they put desktop processors in larger laptops with enormous power supplies.
I more referring, to Intel making mobile processors with similar performance of desktop lines - removing the need for desktop machines unless you desire a machine with many cores or dual cpus
Well, the current H and S lines are exactly the same design. Maybe with slight process tuning towards low power vs. high clock & leakage. I'm sure the B series uses the same chip again, just with a different TDP (compared to H) & mounting (compared to S). They probably could have achieved the same goal with just a reconfigurable TDP on the H chips, apart from the minor process tweaks I mentioned, if there are any.
Are solder cracks with newer solder a non-issue now post 2009-2011 soldergate, or is an eventual end to lifespan just a reality of the ball connection?
I haven't heard of issues with anything past the first generation of lead free solder, and since bumpgate became an issue so long ago I'd assume they've found a replacement that lasts for the lifetime of the rest of the system.
Anyone else besides me having trouble keeping up with Intel's newest SKUs? With Ryzen, it seems to be getting more crazy because it seems like Intel is trying to fill every niche possible. I yearn for the simpler days when Pentium was high end, and Celeron was low end.
Yes and no, I'd say. There are Core-based Celerons, and Atom-based Celerons. Then there's Pentium Gold, on Core, and Pentium Silver, on Atom. Followed by I3/5/7/9. I'd take a Celeron on the Core architecture over a Pentium Silver.
What might also be interesting is that 65w TDP really isn't beyond something like a 17+ inch laptop. They've done really thick, desktop-replacement laptops with desktop CPUs, of course but often in 19+ inch form factors. I'd wager that a 65w CPU + 1080maxQ isn't outside the realm of practicality.
I spend most of my time tethered to a desk using a physical keyboard and monitor connected to a laptop. A few times a month I need the laptop and move it. But, most of the time I'm a desk laptop. I'd love it if this could be put in a normal laptop and eGPU docking station combo and let me have it at desk and once and a while laptop. Part of the reason I'm looking so carefully at gaming laptops now because I need more power than my little yoga gives but would prefer not a 17" laptop. Just a more powerful 15" with more power consumption
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
33 Comments
Back to Article
MrSpadge - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
The large step from 8 to 10&12 threads is weird, especially since filling the last few logical cores usually increases performance and power only marginally, as some other ressource (caches, memory bandwidth etc.) is usually already saturated / limiting. I have a hard time to imagine the step from 8 to 10 threads to cause so much more load that a step from 3.9 GHz to 3.2 GHz is warrented. I rather suspect that this is some workload-independent limit or that the turbo steps are too coarse in that region, e.g. without any step in between. If this could be fixed the performance difference woudl be drastically reduced.jordanclock - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
The jump from 8 to 12 threads isn't likely to be as important as the move from 4 to 6 real cores.However, there are plenty of scenarios that are embarrassingly scalable, even with hyperthreading.
MrSpadge - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I agree with both of your sentences. The problems are scalable, but you always get more or less pronounced diminishing returns by adding threads, especially as you only populate the last few logical cores which already have a load on their physical counterpart. Hence the step of 700 MHz from 8 to 10 cores seems to be an artificial limit if going from 6 to 8 threads only required a drop of 100 MHz. It should be at maximum 200 MHz I'd estimate.benedict - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
What exactly is embarrassing about scalability? What you wrote makes no sense.Flunk - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
He means embarrassingly parallel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassingly_paral...
lazarpandar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
It's a silly term that caught on because it sounds weird and makes a person question what it means... A symptom of the clickbaity 'curiosity gap' abusing culture we live in today.Other examples include:
God particle (instead of Higg's Boson)
Big Data (sounds grammatically incorrect at first blush for a reason...)
super blue blood moon
bomb cyclone
CajunArson - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
You have to admit.It takes a whole lotta balls to release a BGA processor.
Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
1440 to be exact. At least for this series.bennyg - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Badoom tish.Intel foisted this on mobile with Haswell. Killing sockets altogether from Broadwell on. Lots of embedded atom type CPUs over the years too. Putting it in ever higher power SKUs is worrying though. Killing user service and upgrades, and increasing system turnover and especially E-WASTE.
Dr. Swag - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Intel core-🅱️Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Yay! Even more non-upgradeable/non-serviceable parts in product segments where this doesn't actually give any kind of tangible benefit. I can kinda-sorta accept soldered CPUs in thin-and-light laptops, but for AIOs? Don't be silly. If the ~5mm savings of leaving out the socket and retention mechanism is what's making your AIO design fat, you're doing something wrong.jordanclock - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
It's like you've never heard of embedded systems. Besides, AIO absolutely can benefit. The typical owner of an AIO is not going to upgrade their CPU, so saving some space for better thermal management is great.Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Embedded systems already have existing CPU options, and this series is not for those. Also, better thermal management? How? Last I looked AIOs don't stack their HSFs on top of the CPU, so that point is moot.meacupla - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
People upgrade their cheap AIO systems? that is news to me.Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
_Cheap_ AIO systems don't have CPUs like these, but rather U-series mobile chips (that are already BGA). These are obviously premium options, for iMacs and their ilk.Elstar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
If you don't care about the ~5mm savings, then you're not the target market.Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
If you can actually use the performance benefits of these CPUs over an U-series, you're going to need a cooling solution that'll take up way more than those 5 mm anyhow. So the point is moot; this is a silly change, but in tune with the trend toward ever more locked-down hardware and less serviceability.Flunk - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
AIOs already mostly use soldered CPUs. They're not designed with upgradablity in mind.name99 - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I can assure you that few people are opening up their iMacs to swap processors.THAT is the target sort of market.
Valantar - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Sure, but some are. And after the rest are prematurely scrapped, socketed CPUs can be easily harvested and reused. This will take some serious hardware to remove without damage. In short: the "gains" from this are immaterial and unnecessary, while the drawbacks are significant.HStewart - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
So what is the big difference with the H line, sounds like the primary difference is 65W vs 45W - Will it also be possible that some high end notebooks used B processor - and what about more that 6 cores line.One thing I notice with going though Sandra on XPS 15 2in1 line that I believe it shares more with H Series than it shares with U series of CPU. In fact specific related some of component it states specifically H series related the Ram controller. It maybe a Sandra issue, but I think Integrated GPU is a 620 but it looks like it has some 630 features.
One the Integration of Vega GPU with Intel - to me this looks more like a step towards a direction of there own Discrete GPU's in the future. It definitely custom GPU and unlike my Lenovo Y50 - it looks all part of one systems - instead of two system. Sort of reminds what Microsoft and Sony did with the game consoles.
DanNeely - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see this crossing over into a few oversized laptops. OTOH I wouldn't be hugely surprised if it didn't happen either, because they don't sell well enough to justify a second PCB design and at their most overpowered max even with a factory overclock these would still lag behind a 95W K series desktop chip. I suspect if those systems currently sell with K chips or not is likely to be the determining factor; but it's not a segment I pay enough attention to to know if they do or not.HStewart - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I think we will be starting to see blur between desktop and mobile chips - as technology gets smaller and lower power - the more powerful typical desktop line will be role in the more desirable mobile line for customers.DanNeely - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
That started happening years ago when intel added a line of 35W socketed desktop processors.HStewart - Friday, April 13, 2018 - link
I not sure you referring to when they put desktop processors in larger laptops with enormous power supplies.I more referring, to Intel making mobile processors with similar performance of desktop lines - removing the need for desktop machines unless you desire a machine with many cores or dual cpus
MrSpadge - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Well, the current H and S lines are exactly the same design. Maybe with slight process tuning towards low power vs. high clock & leakage. I'm sure the B series uses the same chip again, just with a different TDP (compared to H) & mounting (compared to S). They probably could have achieved the same goal with just a reconfigurable TDP on the H chips, apart from the minor process tweaks I mentioned, if there are any.tipoo - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Are solder cracks with newer solder a non-issue now post 2009-2011 soldergate, or is an eventual end to lifespan just a reality of the ball connection?DanNeely - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I haven't heard of issues with anything past the first generation of lead free solder, and since bumpgate became an issue so long ago I'd assume they've found a replacement that lasts for the lifetime of the rest of the system.ZipSpeed - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Anyone else besides me having trouble keeping up with Intel's newest SKUs? With Ryzen, it seems to be getting more crazy because it seems like Intel is trying to fill every niche possible. I yearn for the simpler days when Pentium was high end, and Celeron was low end.Ian Cutress - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Celeron is still low end, if that helpsmrbios - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Yes and no, I'd say. There are Core-based Celerons, and Atom-based Celerons. Then there's Pentium Gold, on Core, and Pentium Silver, on Atom. Followed by I3/5/7/9. I'd take a Celeron on the Core architecture over a Pentium Silver.ravyne - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
What might also be interesting is that 65w TDP really isn't beyond something like a 17+ inch laptop. They've done really thick, desktop-replacement laptops with desktop CPUs, of course but often in 19+ inch form factors. I'd wager that a 65w CPU + 1080maxQ isn't outside the realm of practicality.EvanAdams - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
I spend most of my time tethered to a desk using a physical keyboard and monitor connected to a laptop. A few times a month I need the laptop and move it. But, most of the time I'm a desk laptop. I'd love it if this could be put in a normal laptop and eGPU docking station combo and let me have it at desk and once and a while laptop. Part of the reason I'm looking so carefully at gaming laptops now because I need more power than my little yoga gives but would prefer not a 17" laptop. Just a more powerful 15" with more power consumption