What made Lakefield suck was it didn't even show a battery life advantage. You could just get a -Y class system and have far better performance, with similar battery life.
I'd say I agree with that sentiment. This was an ambitious goal that could have been amazing if it offered iPad levels of standby in an x86 device. But it didn't. It didn't even offer standby much better than any other x86 device - mostly because Windows is so good at managing that through processor power management minimum process states.
The entire project reminds me of Transmeta Crusoe. Not that it was compiling x86 instructions in a software abstract layer or anything ridiculous, but that it was taking this outside-of-the-box approach to tackling power efficiency with the end result having no benefit.
Probably not. ARM big.LITTLE scheduling is already pretty good on Linux and Windows and Windows 11 on ARM is showing longer battery life and snappier performance. It's hard to compete with that using x86 cores.
They've also cancelled ICL-U and CML-U, obviously they have TGL-U now which is far better, but older processors usually live a lot longer. I suspect it's 10nm fab capacity to blame.
FieldLake should have a tiny 10nm die, so capacity should be less of an issue, but with only two, presumably low-selling, products, it's dead. It served as a demonstrator of Foveros mass manufacture, whether the results are good, or not so good requiring fixes.
Given ICL-U and ICL-X are on the same process, I'd imagine they're shifting the wafers over from the laptop chips to the server side as TGL-U is already doing great in mobile and they probably need more of these big die server parts.
And yeah, Lakefield was mostly a prototype for Heterogenous cores and Foveros with 55um bumps
Windows is the problem, but not for the reasons stated in the article. My employer issued me a H-series quad-core and a U-series dual-core 14 nm Intel laptop, before the pandemic (I got the U series, since I hated lugging the H back & forth to the office). The only problem is that Windows bogs badly on the H and is borderline unusable on the U, due to all the security software they loaded onto it. I can't imagine running it on one of these little Lakefield chips.
I'll bet running Chrome OS on it would be a completely different story, but then you'd probably do better just to get a Snapdragon 8cx machine, for a fraction of the cost.
BTW, I have a Skylake i3 laptop, running Linux, that I use for some streaming to my TV and a bit of web browsing. It's completely fine. Battery life is fine, and the fan is nice and quiet, when it runs.
The U-series Windows laptop I referenced above is an i5 Kaby Lake. Its fan seems bordeline, because the machine smells like it's overheating, when running under load for a little bit. I even dusted it periodically, too.
"Windows is the problem [...] due to all the security software they loaded onto it." So is it Windows though?
"I have a Skylake i3 laptop, running Linux, that I use for some streaming to my TV and a bit of web browsing. It's completely fine." Is it relevant though?
You compare a Windows laptop loaded by the IT team with 3 dozen "security software suites" plus the usual load of domain policies vs. that clean home Linux laptop on which you browse a bit and maybe stream to the TV.
Imagine AT doing this sort of benchmarking. In this corner we have the blue laptop, we ran some streaming to the TV and worked just fine, editor's pick! In the other corner we have the red laptop, we ran 256 parallel instances of H.265 4K encoding on the CPU in HandBrake and the cooling got noisy, junk status.
My point is that Lakefield's failing was that it targeted premium Windows notebooks/tablets at a price point that will mostly restrict it to executives of corporations who love to lard up their Windows PCs with multiple layers of security software such a low-power CPU can't handle. This product was doomed from the start.
" My point is that Lakefield's failing was that it targeted premium Windows notebooks/tablets at a price point that will mostly restrict it to executives of corporations who love to lard up their Windows PCs with multiple layers of security software such a low-power CPU can't handle. " that sounds more like the execs of corps fault then lakefield, or windows. id guess if you removed all that lard, the notebook would run pretty well, if those same execs spent a little more money, on a comp that could handle all that lard, the experience probably would of been better.
> that sounds more like the execs of corps fault then lakefield
I'm just offering the single datapoint of my experience of running a corporate Windows 10 image. Take it for what it's worth, but it sounds like I'm not the only one in this boat.
Building a successful product is partly about knowing your market well enough to choose the right specifications. We can't say that was definitely an issue, here, but I think it'll be telling if Intel doesn't follow it up with anything similar.
I think you are saying Windows is the problem because of all the security software? Anyhow we have 4 security products on our enterprise laptops and it does eat into performance. If you can get a quad core ore more along with a fast M.2 SSD it helps a lot. You do need the better IO as well.
Not to mention how much Windows runs software compatibility telemetry in the background. I usually have Task Manager running and any time my computer starts running like shit if I look at Task Manager I will see software compatibility telemetry is running in the background using 100% of the hard drive capacity. It would be so nice to be able to disable that shit completely, it's why I hate Windows 10.
> If you can get a quad core ore more along with a fast M.2 SSD it helps a lot.
I know the H-series machine has a decent M.2 NVMe drive, though I forget which model. I couldn't believe it, because the machine performs as though it has a spinning hard disk. All the drivers are up to date and it has passed diags several times.
It has a Nvidia dGPU and 32 GB of RAM, as well. They didn't skimp on the HW specs.
Our IT department treats Linux like it doesn't exist. It's annoying that we have to do all the admin on those machines, but at least they're not bogged down like the Windows machines.
But that's the reality of how most Lakefield users are probably trying to use it. For $2k, you can bet that most of these are executive laptops and if they're unusably slow, then it's a failed product. Doesn't matter how good the efficiency or battery life is.
IT isn't paranoid, if anything the risks are far more advanced than they understand, they just don't have anything better at their disposal. Users that think they know more than they do are actually the biggest threat Karen.
> IT isn't paranoid, if anything the risks are far more advanced than they understand
I can see both sides of the problem. I know my own employer has chronically under-resourced out IT organization, seeing it mostly as a cost center. So, now to expect them to craft a robust security stack that can provide good protection against multiple threats, while also enabling various users' diverse needs and not bogging down the hardware too much is a lot to expect.
That still doesn't change the fact that well-spec'd hardware way underperforms its raw capabilities, which is frustrating for even those of us who appreciate the challenge. And when you put that same stack on such a lightweight CPU as Lakefield, the situation becomes hopeless.
Ok, so why mention chromeOS and windows when the issue is the CPU isnt powerful enough to deal with bloated IT applications? Windows, chrome, linux, makes no difference.
You keep making comparisons then drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with the information you have provided.
Most likely because the same security tools are not available on Linux and ChromeOS otherwise they would've been just as full of bloatware. So like others keep telling you, the issue in your case is the overzealous security policy of your employer.
I still can't agree. I think Chrome OS is simply designed to be a lot more security-conscious. There's not as much need for add-on software, because it's not struggling with the same legacy that Windows has.
Then I guess it's really the "security software" that is the problem, not windows. A Snapdragon 8cx running windows is pretty snappy, and thankfully most of the "security software" isn't compatible currently ;)
I have nothing against security, but seems sometimes some of those anti-virtus/malware apps can really bog a system down.
> if they loaded all that security software on chromeOS it would run like crap too.
Chrome OS doesn't have the same reliance on native apps, and everything is more strictly sandboxed from the outset. The service architecture is also more locked down than Windows. So, it doesn't need the same level of bloatware to make it secure.
Apple isn't using this CPU, which limits it to mostly Windows machines.
As for my situation, my employer is a Windows shop. I have no influence over that. They control which hardware we're allowed to buy, and they manage all the software installed on it.
Oh ok it's because your IT puts lots of "security" software on to it, and your point is that Lakefield wouldn't be performant enough if used in a corporate device and similarly configured. Fair enough.
Between when this product launched and its called time of death, Apple launched Macs with the M1, which offered 4 low power cores and 4 big cores, and it offered a significant boost in battery life. Not only that, you could get the M1 in Macs priced the same or less than the few PCs that contained this slug from Intel, and the M1 could run circles around it. To me, Intel couldn't keep this product alive and target the segments they did while that pesky "lifestyle company" offered something substantially better, even if there was no direct competition. It just made Intel look bad.
To be fair, even setting aside the manufacturing node disparities, Apple has had years of experience working with big.little cores, not only at the design level but also at the software/schedular level within iOS and macOS. Intel had none of this - bear in mind OS support is particularly relevant for these designs.
Also M1 is a relatively straightforward monolithic SoC - quite different with what Foveros was trying to pull to do with hybrid packaging. An imperfect analogy would be to say Lakefield was taking the disaggregated approach of AMD's Rome server chips, but crunching it down to a thermally constrained laptop form factor with the added complication of PoP memory.
So while not diminishing the outstanding achievement of the M1, nor the fact that Lakefield was basically a sucky devkit marketed as a product, making the direct comparison is a cheap shot, and in no ways an apples-to-apples comparison.
Except all of what you mention matters very little to consumers and even OEMs. Consumers buy what's good, and OEMs want products that sell. It's not a "cheap shot" to compare 2 products in the same market segment. If Intel kept it as a dev kit, then fine, no need to make the comparison, but Intel took the product to market and set the pricing. That invites the comparison. Even on the technical side, you can't even say it is "in no ways an apples-to-apples comparison." They are both consumer grade SOCs that are found in PCs you can buy. By their very nature, it invites comparison. Blame whoever you want for the scheduler, but just keep in mind the Surface Pro X has been out on the market almost 2 years now with a big.LITTLE SOC inside.
Apologies. I assumed from the tone of your OP that you were comparing the M1 to Lakefield. Even though you were talking about core comparison and CPU performance I was clearly wrong to assume you were talking about trying to compare chips on a website which is all about chips.
I now realised that I stand corrected. Obviously you were talking about Apple's ability to deliver a complete Mac system from device to OS to silicon. You are completely correct - they were far more able to deliver a complete system from device to OS to silicon. In fact its amazing that Intel were even in the game given they do not control the OS and device (although they do of course provide R&D subsidy to laptop makers - different story). But I understand your point and its very valid to compare a company to makes device, OS and silicon to one which makes just silicon because we are talking from the perspective of complete end user experience and not actually what is actually under their control.
In future I promise to try to do better and and compare what users use, not what companies produce. I will then use it to make valid comparisons for what companies produce. Thank your for your educating me, sir!
It is indeed fortunate for Intel that the M1 is kept locked inside Macs. Not only need they not compete directly against it, they can also rely on other shortcomings of the Mac (mainly, poor availability of modern AAA games) as a line of attack against the M1.
A greater potential worry for Intel (and AMD) is if Qualcomm were to actually succeed in turning their acquisition of Nuvia into M1-like products made available to all PC OEMs, with strong support from Microsoft. If that happens, then nobody (not Intel, not Apple) can hide behind apples-to-oranges comparisons.
> If that happens, then nobody ... can hide behind apples-to-oranges comparisons.
If that happens, I think it won't be long before AMD and Intel announce their first post-x86 products. I think these efforts are already well under way, but they're being kept secret to avoid spooking existing customers or of helping to accelerate the transition away from x86.
Ha I was thinking about it as a pipe cleaner for Alder Lake.. I guess we can characterise it as a pipe cleaner for whatever the Intel roadmap was smoking at the time! :-p
There's quite a few ambitious technologies in Lakefield but a big reason for Intel to have leaned into FOVEROS as early as it did was the lack of leading edge foundry capacity at 10nm or even 14nm had they continued to produce modems for Apple. I think they cut this part to free up 10nm foundry capacity for the ramp up of Alderlake parts, and we'll see whether these use FOVEROS (my guess is no.)
Intel used Lakefield as a test chip to build a future roadmap (as per recent news article:https://www.anandtech.com/show/16653/intel-to-inve... They learned their lesson from it and they are improving themself against Apple/AMD/QualComm). Definitely Lakefield was first, so lot of issues where there.
Turns out Palm CEO was right about how mobile is hard -- just not about Apple!
"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.” ...
I wonder if it's just hard to market one consumer product based on form factor and user experience when simultaneously marketing nearly all other consumer products based on price/performance.
Maybe they should have emphasized how this design enabled more and brighter LEDs?
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
58 Comments
Back to Article
IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
What made Lakefield suck was it didn't even show a battery life advantage. You could just get a -Y class system and have far better performance, with similar battery life.Samus - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
I'd say I agree with that sentiment. This was an ambitious goal that could have been amazing if it offered iPad levels of standby in an x86 device. But it didn't. It didn't even offer standby much better than any other x86 device - mostly because Windows is so good at managing that through processor power management minimum process states.The entire project reminds me of Transmeta Crusoe. Not that it was compiling x86 instructions in a software abstract layer or anything ridiculous, but that it was taking this outside-of-the-box approach to tackling power efficiency with the end result having no benefit.
TheinsanegamerN - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
It sure doesnt speak well for alder lake, does it?serendip - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
Probably not. ARM big.LITTLE scheduling is already pretty good on Linux and Windows and Windows 11 on ARM is showing longer battery life and snappier performance. It's hard to compete with that using x86 cores.psychobriggsy - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Well I guess low uptake killed this one.They've also cancelled ICL-U and CML-U, obviously they have TGL-U now which is far better, but older processors usually live a lot longer. I suspect it's 10nm fab capacity to blame.
FieldLake should have a tiny 10nm die, so capacity should be less of an issue, but with only two, presumably low-selling, products, it's dead. It served as a demonstrator of Foveros mass manufacture, whether the results are good, or not so good requiring fixes.
AC_666__ - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Given ICL-U and ICL-X are on the same process, I'd imagine they're shifting the wafers over from the laptop chips to the server side as TGL-U is already doing great in mobile and they probably need more of these big die server parts.And yeah, Lakefield was mostly a prototype for Heterogenous cores and Foveros with 55um bumps
stepz - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Uptake was hampered by Lakefield being such a crappy product.mode_13h - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Windows is the problem, but not for the reasons stated in the article. My employer issued me a H-series quad-core and a U-series dual-core 14 nm Intel laptop, before the pandemic (I got the U series, since I hated lugging the H back & forth to the office). The only problem is that Windows bogs badly on the H and is borderline unusable on the U, due to all the security software they loaded onto it. I can't imagine running it on one of these little Lakefield chips.I'll bet running Chrome OS on it would be a completely different story, but then you'd probably do better just to get a Snapdragon 8cx machine, for a fraction of the cost.
mode_13h - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
BTW, I have a Skylake i3 laptop, running Linux, that I use for some streaming to my TV and a bit of web browsing. It's completely fine. Battery life is fine, and the fan is nice and quiet, when it runs.The U-series Windows laptop I referenced above is an i5 Kaby Lake. Its fan seems bordeline, because the machine smells like it's overheating, when running under load for a little bit. I even dusted it periodically, too.
at_clucks - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
"Windows is the problem [...] due to all the security software they loaded onto it."So is it Windows though?
"I have a Skylake i3 laptop, running Linux, that I use for some streaming to my TV and a bit of web browsing. It's completely fine."
Is it relevant though?
You compare a Windows laptop loaded by the IT team with 3 dozen "security software suites" plus the usual load of domain policies vs. that clean home Linux laptop on which you browse a bit and maybe stream to the TV.
Imagine AT doing this sort of benchmarking. In this corner we have the blue laptop, we ran some streaming to the TV and worked just fine, editor's pick! In the other corner we have the red laptop, we ran 256 parallel instances of H.265 4K encoding on the CPU in HandBrake and the cooling got noisy, junk status.
mode_13h - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
> You compare a Windows laptopForget about the comparison.
My point is that Lakefield's failing was that it targeted premium Windows notebooks/tablets at a price point that will mostly restrict it to executives of corporations who love to lard up their Windows PCs with multiple layers of security software such a low-power CPU can't handle. This product was doomed from the start.
Qasar - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
" My point is that Lakefield's failing was that it targeted premium Windows notebooks/tablets at a price point that will mostly restrict it to executives of corporations who love to lard up their Windows PCs with multiple layers of security software such a low-power CPU can't handle. "that sounds more like the execs of corps fault then lakefield, or windows. id guess if you removed all that lard, the notebook would run pretty well, if those same execs spent a little more money, on a comp that could handle all that lard, the experience probably would of been better.
mode_13h - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
> that sounds more like the execs of corps fault then lakefieldI'm just offering the single datapoint of my experience of running a corporate Windows 10 image. Take it for what it's worth, but it sounds like I'm not the only one in this boat.
Building a successful product is partly about knowing your market well enough to choose the right specifications. We can't say that was definitely an issue, here, but I think it'll be telling if Intel doesn't follow it up with anything similar.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 11, 2021 - link
Great point. A machine that isn’t doing anything is bound to be fast at it.FreckledTrout - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
I think you are saying Windows is the problem because of all the security software? Anyhow we have 4 security products on our enterprise laptops and it does eat into performance. If you can get a quad core ore more along with a fast M.2 SSD it helps a lot. You do need the better IO as well.29a - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Not to mention how much Windows runs software compatibility telemetry in the background. I usually have Task Manager running and any time my computer starts running like shit if I look at Task Manager I will see software compatibility telemetry is running in the background using 100% of the hard drive capacity. It would be so nice to be able to disable that shit completely, it's why I hate Windows 10.brucethemoose - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
You can, via the registry or maybe a group policy option.GeoffreyA - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
Take a look at ShutUp10. Good tool.Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 11, 2021 - link
Telemetry? Yes. Most/all of it being about software compatibility? Ha.mode_13h - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
> If you can get a quad core ore more along with a fast M.2 SSD it helps a lot.I know the H-series machine has a decent M.2 NVMe drive, though I forget which model. I couldn't believe it, because the machine performs as though it has a spinning hard disk. All the drivers are up to date and it has passed diags several times.
It has a Nvidia dGPU and 32 GB of RAM, as well. They didn't skimp on the HW specs.
A5 - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
My corporate IT manages to bog down fully-loaded Macbook Pros, too. The problem is IT paranoia, not the OS.mode_13h - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Exactly.Our IT department treats Linux like it doesn't exist. It's annoying that we have to do all the admin on those machines, but at least they're not bogged down like the Windows machines.
mode_13h - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
But that's the reality of how most Lakefield users are probably trying to use it. For $2k, you can bet that most of these are executive laptops and if they're unusably slow, then it's a failed product. Doesn't matter how good the efficiency or battery life is.coburn_c - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
IT isn't paranoid, if anything the risks are far more advanced than they understand, they just don't have anything better at their disposal. Users that think they know more than they do are actually the biggest threat Karen.mode_13h - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
> IT isn't paranoid, if anything the risks are far more advanced than they understandI can see both sides of the problem. I know my own employer has chronically under-resourced out IT organization, seeing it mostly as a cost center. So, now to expect them to craft a robust security stack that can provide good protection against multiple threats, while also enabling various users' diverse needs and not bogging down the hardware too much is a lot to expect.
That still doesn't change the fact that well-spec'd hardware way underperforms its raw capabilities, which is frustrating for even those of us who appreciate the challenge. And when you put that same stack on such a lightweight CPU as Lakefield, the situation becomes hopeless.
TheinsanegamerN - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
Ok, so why mention chromeOS and windows when the issue is the CPU isnt powerful enough to deal with bloated IT applications? Windows, chrome, linux, makes no difference.You keep making comparisons then drawing conclusions that have nothing to do with the information you have provided.
mode_13h - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
> Windows, chrome, linux, makes no difference.To my knowledge, Chrome OS and Linux don't have the same level of bloatware available.
vladx - Saturday, July 10, 2021 - link
Most likely because the same security tools are not available on Linux and ChromeOS otherwise they would've been just as full of bloatware. So like others keep telling you, the issue in your case is the overzealous security policy of your employer.mode_13h - Sunday, July 11, 2021 - link
I still can't agree. I think Chrome OS is simply designed to be a lot more security-conscious. There's not as much need for add-on software, because it's not struggling with the same legacy that Windows has.domboy - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Then I guess it's really the "security software" that is the problem, not windows. A Snapdragon 8cx running windows is pretty snappy, and thankfully most of the "security software" isn't compatible currently ;)I have nothing against security, but seems sometimes some of those anti-virtus/malware apps can really bog a system down.
mode_13h - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
> thankfully most of the "security software" isn't compatible currently ;)LOL, yes. Hopefully, most of the malware also has yet to catch up!
Wereweeb - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Yep, I'm glad I switched to Linux. And Steam's Proton is running more than enough games for me.The only big problem with Linux now is the lack of support for some key professional software.
flyingpants265 - Monday, July 12, 2021 - link
Linux has a lot more problems than just that. If Linux were any good on desktop, people would be using it on desktop.They're missing what you mentioned, plus everything else.
BedfordTim - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
So really what you are saying is that your IT department are the problem not Windows. Even on the U series Windows should run without issues.mode_13h - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
> So really what you are saying is that your IT department are the problem not Windows.Wherever you point the finger of blame, it doesn't change the reality of the market to which that CPU was targeted.
TheinsanegamerN - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
I'd bet that if they loaded all that security software on chromeOS it would run like crap too.The issue here isnt windows.....
mode_13h - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
> if they loaded all that security software on chromeOS it would run like crap too.Chrome OS doesn't have the same reliance on native apps, and everything is more strictly sandboxed from the outset. The service architecture is also more locked down than Windows. So, it doesn't need the same level of bloatware to make it secure.
Tams80 - Saturday, July 10, 2021 - link
Then your IT can sandbox apps on Windows and lock everything else down.Tams80 - Saturday, July 10, 2021 - link
That's not Microsoft's fault; that's your employer's fault for loading a load of crap onto it.Perhaps they would be better off using MacOS due to its increased security through obscurity.
mode_13h - Saturday, July 10, 2021 - link
Apple isn't using this CPU, which limits it to mostly Windows machines.As for my situation, my employer is a Windows shop. I have no influence over that. They control which hardware we're allowed to buy, and they manage all the software installed on it.
Meteor2 - Monday, July 12, 2021 - link
Find this quite odd. I use a Ivy Bridge i3 laptop with a SSD running Win10 for web and office and it's never slow or "bogs down".Meteor2 - Monday, July 12, 2021 - link
Oh ok it's because your IT puts lots of "security" software on to it, and your point is that Lakefield wouldn't be performant enough if used in a corporate device and similarly configured. Fair enough.mode_13h - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 - link
Yes, thanks for acknowledging the point.At home, I still use a i7-2600K for web and other light-duty Windows tasks.
MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Between when this product launched and its called time of death, Apple launched Macs with the M1, which offered 4 low power cores and 4 big cores, and it offered a significant boost in battery life. Not only that, you could get the M1 in Macs priced the same or less than the few PCs that contained this slug from Intel, and the M1 could run circles around it. To me, Intel couldn't keep this product alive and target the segments they did while that pesky "lifestyle company" offered something substantially better, even if there was no direct competition. It just made Intel look bad.Jon Tseng - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
To be fair, even setting aside the manufacturing node disparities, Apple has had years of experience working with big.little cores, not only at the design level but also at the software/schedular level within iOS and macOS. Intel had none of this - bear in mind OS support is particularly relevant for these designs.Also M1 is a relatively straightforward monolithic SoC - quite different with what Foveros was trying to pull to do with hybrid packaging. An imperfect analogy would be to say Lakefield was taking the disaggregated approach of AMD's Rome server chips, but crunching it down to a thermally constrained laptop form factor with the added complication of PoP memory.
So while not diminishing the outstanding achievement of the M1, nor the fact that Lakefield was basically a sucky devkit marketed as a product, making the direct comparison is a cheap shot, and in no ways an apples-to-apples comparison.
MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Except all of what you mention matters very little to consumers and even OEMs. Consumers buy what's good, and OEMs want products that sell. It's not a "cheap shot" to compare 2 products in the same market segment. If Intel kept it as a dev kit, then fine, no need to make the comparison, but Intel took the product to market and set the pricing. That invites the comparison. Even on the technical side, you can't even say it is "in no ways an apples-to-apples comparison." They are both consumer grade SOCs that are found in PCs you can buy. By their very nature, it invites comparison. Blame whoever you want for the scheduler, but just keep in mind the Surface Pro X has been out on the market almost 2 years now with a big.LITTLE SOC inside.Jon Tseng - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Apologies. I assumed from the tone of your OP that you were comparing the M1 to Lakefield. Even though you were talking about core comparison and CPU performance I was clearly wrong to assume you were talking about trying to compare chips on a website which is all about chips.I now realised that I stand corrected. Obviously you were talking about Apple's ability to deliver a complete Mac system from device to OS to silicon. You are completely correct - they were far more able to deliver a complete system from device to OS to silicon. In fact its amazing that Intel were even in the game given they do not control the OS and device (although they do of course provide R&D subsidy to laptop makers - different story). But I understand your point and its very valid to compare a company to makes device, OS and silicon to one which makes just silicon because we are talking from the perspective of complete end user experience and not actually what is actually under their control.
In future I promise to try to do better and and compare what users use, not what companies produce. I will then use it to make valid comparisons for what companies produce. Thank your for your educating me, sir!
Blastdoor - Thursday, July 8, 2021 - link
It is indeed fortunate for Intel that the M1 is kept locked inside Macs. Not only need they not compete directly against it, they can also rely on other shortcomings of the Mac (mainly, poor availability of modern AAA games) as a line of attack against the M1.A greater potential worry for Intel (and AMD) is if Qualcomm were to actually succeed in turning their acquisition of Nuvia into M1-like products made available to all PC OEMs, with strong support from Microsoft. If that happens, then nobody (not Intel, not Apple) can hide behind apples-to-oranges comparisons.
mode_13h - Friday, July 9, 2021 - link
> If that happens, then nobody ... can hide behind apples-to-oranges comparisons.If that happens, I think it won't be long before AMD and Intel announce their first post-x86 products. I think these efforts are already well under way, but they're being kept secret to avoid spooking existing customers or of helping to accelerate the transition away from x86.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 11, 2021 - link
Yes, folks... you too can buy an unexpandable premium-priced Mac. After all, 8 GB is enough for anyone!Jon Tseng - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
So basically Lakefield was a devkit for the Windows scheduler team... :-pIan Cutress - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
That's a fun perspective :)Spunjji - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
It's how I've thought about it ever since the launch and subsequent limited buy-in. That, and a pipe cleaner for Foveros!Jon Tseng - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Ha I was thinking about it as a pipe cleaner for Alder Lake.. I guess we can characterise it as a pipe cleaner for whatever the Intel roadmap was smoking at the time! :-pRaqia - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
There's quite a few ambitious technologies in Lakefield but a big reason for Intel to have leaned into FOVEROS as early as it did was the lack of leading edge foundry capacity at 10nm or even 14nm had they continued to produce modems for Apple. I think they cut this part to free up 10nm foundry capacity for the ramp up of Alderlake parts, and we'll see whether these use FOVEROS (my guess is no.)niravvadodara - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Intel used Lakefield as a test chip to build a future roadmap (as per recent news article:https://www.anandtech.com/show/16653/intel-to-inve... They learned their lesson from it and they are improving themself against Apple/AMD/QualComm).Definitely Lakefield was first, so lot of issues where there.
name99 - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
Turns out Palm CEO was right about how mobile is hard -- just not about Apple!"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.” ...
Blastdoor - Wednesday, July 7, 2021 - link
I wonder if it's just hard to market one consumer product based on form factor and user experience when simultaneously marketing nearly all other consumer products based on price/performance.Maybe they should have emphasized how this design enabled more and brighter LEDs?