The process is the same 14nm they use today and they used Core-M with all its power savings. But 30% less is very very nice especially at the same performance, you will not find more vs any other process in the past.
On a preliminary process and stepping and without any other power saving architectural changes taken into account.
The 14nm process from mid-2013 is a lot different from the 14nm process today...
Transistor and interconnect hadn't even reached goals in November.
This is probably the case. It's unlikely that Intel lowered or raised its standards in regards to what qualified as being a "good" die -- they were simply got better over time at producing dies that met those standards.The process is the same, only think different from a year ago are yields.
This is probably the case. It's unlikely that Intel lowered or raised its standards in regards to what qualified as being a "good" die -- they were simply got better over time at producing dies that met those standards.
It means that their goals were not met by most or even all of the dies they were producing.Then what does the yellow box of not meeting transistor and interconnect goals mean according you?
That a pretty vague statement... you could draw dozens of hypotheses from that.And then there's still the case of architecture:
So the effect was that our slow learning on yield in fact delayed the entire product development cycle. --William Holt, Intel, IM13
It means that their goals were not met by most or even all of the dies they were producing.
That a pretty vague statement... you could draw dozens of hypotheses from that.
FYI, the Dell XPS 13 with the 5500u is on display at Microsoft stores (at least the one near me).
The one I saw had the lower-resolution non-touch screen. Very nice looking device and it appeared well built. I didn't have time to play much with it. Next time, I'll check about running some quick benchmarks (e.g., Octane).
David Kanter estimated 30% more performance at the same power, IIRC.30% less power consumption at the same performance as 22nm.
Also, he has posted Titanfall:
http://youtu.be/bHhzjvirzDE
Dragon Age Orgins:
http://youtu.be/GGFwX_rIJjE
Minecraft:
http://youtu.be/MnXhDTLeqJk
Sims 4:
http://youtu.be/hKytVS_hGgs
It would be nice if he'd tell us which system he is using.
Finally, a comparison between HD 5300 (HP Envy x2 13"/5y10), HD 4400 (SP2/4200 U), and HD 4200 (SP3/4020Y)
http://youtu.be/1ntnHlkgtkQ
Edit: Found 5y10 running Call of Duty Advanced Warfare:
http://youtu.be/wlNXQcWAxbo
Do you have driver 4080 installed? Could you make a AF flower screenshot? Maybe there are some differences to HSW.
What would you use for the AF flower?
There are some cache changes in Gen 8 that will help Broadwell make improvements without using DDR4. Part of why AMD has hit such a bandwidth wall is because they do not make such extensive use of caches like Intel does, but they're expensive, of course.Honestly I didn't expect any bigger improvements in graphics considering that BW is still using 128bit DDR3 memory and at a measly 1866MHz at most I would like to see DDR4 at 2400/2666MHz I think those speeds should be doable in laptops. BW-U is already extremely expensive I think we could live with +60$ per laptop and 30% more performance. They could also work on their color compression, NV managed to achieve better Bandwith utilization with Maxwell. AMD also improved in that department with Tonga. Radeon 285 in iMacs looks nice.
14 nm Broadwell vs 22 nm Haswell mobile @ 15 W TDP:
Am I correct in that on average this will result in ~20% higher iGPU performance, and ~4% better CPU performance, at the same TDP?
Isn't that far lower than expected? I remember some saying that the frequency wall was not hit. I.e. FinFet @ 22 nm was a one time penalty, so that 14 nm and beyond would provide increasing frequencies again. Did that not happen after all?
That was in regards to overclocking. Regardless, frequency is higher for Broadwell in most cases. GPU clocks are a bit lower, but that's to be expected, given the thermal constraints and the substantial expansion of the GPU.I remember some saying that the frequency wall was not hit. I.e. FinFet @ 22 nm was a one time penalty, so that 14 nm and beyond would provide increasing frequencies again. Did that not happen after all?
5200u Benches from the XPS 13:
CB 11.5 Multi = 2.85
Google Octane = ~12,000
Ice Storm Unlimited Physics = ~36,000
The Ice Storm physics score matches the 4650u in my SP3.
Compared to the 4200u, there is a boost, although the Octane score is unchanged. In CB it's 15%, in Ice Storm Physics its about 25%.
arent broadwell laptops reporting higher battery life compared to haswell?
i read dell xps13 may have 15hr battery life. thats a possible 5hr increase
That was in regards to overclocking. Regardless, frequency is higher for Broadwell in most cases. GPU clocks are a bit lower, but that's to be expected, given the thermal constraints and the substantial expansion of the GPU.
Anyway, I'm not seeing much frequency increase at the same TDP yet for Broadwell 14 nm compared to Haswell 22 nm so far. So far everything points to a frequency wall having been hit after all, so that newer nodes no longer provide much higher frequencies.