I'm been looking at benchmarks for the old i5-2520m vs the newer i5-X200U chips. Based on some benchmarks, the performance of the 2520m vs the 4200U seems very similar, so why go with the new U series of chips instead of the old one?
Also, how does the Core M perform compared to both the 2520m and the 4200U, about 20-30% slower?
Also, how does the Core M perform compared to both the 2520m and the 4200U, about 20-30% slower?
Better battery life maybe?
Right, but it's still stupid. Much of the battery life is taken by the screen, not the CPU, and it's not costly or weight burdensome to add a higher capacity battery.
Stupid? That i5-2520m has a 35W TDP, while an entire modern ultrabook consumes 30W under full load.Right, but it's still stupid. Much of the battery life is taken by the screen, not the CPU, and it's not costly or weight burdensome to add a higher capacity battery.
Under peak loads, a Core M should outpace the 2520M, though in extended workloads, the Core M will throttle back greatly depending on OEM configuration.I'm been looking at benchmarks for the old i5-2520m vs the newer i5-X200U chips. Based on some benchmarks, the performance of the 2520m vs the 4200U seems very similar, so why go with the new U series of chips instead of the old one?
Also, how does the Core M perform compared to both the 2520m and the 4200U, about 20-30% slower?
Stupid? That i5-2520m has a 35W TDP, while an entire modern ultrabook consumes 30W under full load.
Well, duh, but that still happens with refinements and shrinks. Let's see. The new Dell Latitude 5000 series uses standard voltage CPUs with higher than average battery capacity. My bet is the 3000 series will use ULV. So was the ULV necessarily better?Just because screens draw inordinate amounts of power doesn't mean the rest of the system shouldn't be made more efficient.
Well, simply look at the prices of ultrabooks, and you know why Intel and OEMs are going for lower power and "thin and light" instead of higher performance.
They have had 28 watt SKUs, though the OEMs haven't used them. They rather just sell the "core i7" ULV 15 watt as the flagship even if it's a 17 inch notebook.Actually, what I would like to see intel do is include some middle level of performance between the 15 watt U chips and the 45 watt quads. Maybe a higher clocked dual core or a lower clocked quad. I think there is actually supposed to be a 28 watt Skylake chip, but whether it will see any real availability is a big question.
The 28W U processors have higher TDP to accommodate the more powerful GPU. Any benefit the CPU might derive is entirely incidental. You also need to consider the form factor built around the CPU. The 28W CPUs are almost always put into "premium" thin and light form factors that have poor cooling, with the result that they throttle much more easily under load than a 15W CPU in a business laptop.
Even when left completely idle a modern ULV notebook will consume about 50% less power than an old Sandy Bridge platform.If you are under full load, then it isn't likely you are using it for portable use, or if you are, the battery will tank within 1-2 hours.
You mean most normal notebooks have 90-120Wh batteries?And as I said, it's likely that the a given ultrabook has half the battery capacity anyways.
Right, but it's still stupid. Much of the battery life is taken by the screen, not the CPU, and it's not costly or weight burdensome to add a higher capacity battery.
Simple. To save costs. And that is not good for the consumer who wants the best and now they deliver us the worst.It isn't just for the GPU. They have higher turbos/base clocks. If it meant nothing, then why do OEMs put in 15 watt i7 ULV?
Even when left completely idle a modern ULV notebook will consume about 50% less power than an old Sandy Bridge platform.
My Toshiba Z30-A has 15W TDP Haswell CPU, 52Wh battery and weighs 1.2kg. Care to share with us a similar Sandy Bridge system to match performance, weight and stamina of this model?
??? Standard voltage hasn't been normal. Many of the standard voltage CPUs have been pushed up into top end models or gaming. They have higher battery capacities. I doubt a 52Wh battery is the norm for ULV.You mean most normal notebooks have 90-120Wh batteries?
Larry, I don't want to see Atom creeping up especially in >= 15"* lolThat's what they say, but my 15.6" Dell with Atom N2830 CPU lasts for more than 8 hours on a charge, and it doesn't have an extraordinarily large battery.
No. Those use sustained power draw. If this is for hobby editing, you can get away with a dual core M or U processor. If this is for professional editing, go for a workstation with a HQ processor and, just as importantly, a nice screen with good color space.And you mentioned taht the 6y30 has better bursty performance. I know what that means, but would photoshop/video editing (not the rendering, but the actual editing aspect) be considered bursty?
Price is one. Another is, of course, that putting a 28W package in the laptop means thermal design to accommodate a 28W CPU--at least theoretically. Most ultrabook manufacturers fail to do this. And then, the 28W packages are consumer models. They lack vPro--and until Haswell, VT-d.It isn't just for the GPU. They have higher turbos/base clocks. If it meant nothing, then why do OEMs put in 15 watt i7 ULV?
The T450, T450s, and X250 can be configured with a 24+72 Whr configuration (96 Whr total) for all of $5 more than the base price. All 3 ship with ULV CPUs. The latter 2 are ultrabooks.Some good examples of my point: the Dell XPS has an 84 whr battery as an option. The cheaper 7559 has 74 whr.
You really don't get that kind of thing in ULV unless it comes with discrete graphics.
The reason they make them smaller and more power efficient is because that is the only way to squeeze the gullible consumer year after year. They cannot deliver real tangible performance increases, so they just increase the efficiency and hope the consumer laps it up anyway. For the most part they do, but in the long term it is simply a waste of resources. Most notebooks spend most of their lives plugged in to the mains anyway, so the increase in "portability" is largely moot. In every sense of the word, it is simply a scam.
Which is funny because standard voltage performs better and is cheaper.Price is one. Another is, of course, that putting a 28W package in the laptop means thermal design to accommodate a 28W CPU--at least theoretically.
I don't see how that is such a huge engineering feat. There are thin laptops with i7 quads and big discrete cards. They can easily do 28 TDP. But I'm not just specifically talking about "ultrabooks" either. The trend has been to put ULV in many notebooks.Most ultrabook manufacturers fail to do this. And then, the 28W packages are consumer models. They lack vPro--and until Haswell, VT-d.
Exceptional (I see many are going the integrated route, too), and you just proved my point showing how cheap the batteries really are. A big battery kills the point of the ULV.The T450, T450s, and X250 can be configured with a 24+72 Whr configuration (96 Whr total) for all of $5 more than the base price. All 3 ship with ULV CPUs. The latter 2 are ultrabooks.
Although benchmarks are scarce, I'm betting the i7-6920HQ has no peer when it comes to no-holds barred mobile performance while staying within the tried and true 45W TDP maximum laptop envelope.