Intel Broadwell Thread

[Sweepr]

Another T300 Chi score. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1902998

It is similar to the first on in this thread. It appears it wasn't a fluke.

Outstanding scores for Core M. It actually beats all 15W TDP Core i5 5200U submissions @ single-thread and all but one @ multi-thread in a fanless package. New revision + improved thermal design by ASUS (and others) could unleash the performance all of us were expecting. Single-Core score is more than 50% faster than Apple A8X.

This acer is mentioned in another thread, and i asked the same question. The base clocks are much higher, and supposed it maintains turbo longer, but the performance only improves 12 percent. This actually seems like a terrible result.

Turbo clocks are similar and Haswell probably can maintain Turbo clocks long enough so the difference will be small (mostly due to Broadwell's IPC bump). Perhaps Broadwell's advantage would increase in longer benchmark sessions?

 

[dahorns]

Outstanding scores for Core M. It actually beats all 15W TDP Core i5 5200U submissions @ single-thread and all but one @ multi-thread in a fanless package. New revision + improved thermal design by ASUS (and others) could unleash the performance all of us were expecting. Single-Core score is more than 50% faster than Apple A8X.

What this indicates is that the 5Y71 is maintaining its max turbo (2.9 GHz) while running Geekbench. The 5200u has a lower max turbo of 2.7 Ghz. Other Core-M designs clearly weren't.

Turbo clocks are similar and Haswell probably can maintain Turbo clocks long enough so the difference will be small (mostly due to Broadwell's IPC bump). Perhaps Broadwell's advantage would increase in longer benchmark sessions?

I think that is certainly the case. It is possible Intel neutered Broadwell by not increasing the turbo clocks because it was releasing Skylake near the same time. Or, it may be that Intel couldn't raise clocks with Broadwell. But hopefully architectural changes in Skylake will allow higher clocks.

 

[witeken]

Does anyone remember this slide?

As far as I'm aware, we're not yet spring.

Conservative roadmaps from Intel are conservative?

 

[ninaholic37]

Conservative roadmaps from Intel are conservative?

You're right, and the groundhog saw his shadow so that can't be it. :hmm:

 

[dahorns]

VR-Zone has posted some benchmarks of the t300 Chi:

http://chinese.vr-zone.com/143405/a...th-intel-core-m-5y71-hand-on-review-02152015/

PC Mark 8 Accelerated
Home = 2671
Creative = 3238
Work = 3590
Storage = 4579

PCMark 8 Battery Life
Home = 3:24:43
Creative = 3:27:20
Work = 3:54:52

AIDA64 Extreme
CPU Queen = 18176
CPU PhotoWorxx = 10031
CPU Zlib = 117.4
CPU AES = 5898
CPU Hash = 1410

CB R10
OpenGL = 3222
1 CPU = 5368
x CPU = 10856

CB R11.5
OpenGL = 19.71
CPU = 2.33

CB R15
OpenGL = 21.41
CPU = 203

Geekbench 3
Single-Core = 2975
Multi-Core = 5744

The Cinebench and PCMark 8 scores are fairly close to the scores of the i5-4260U found in the current MacBook Air 13. Cf. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-...-2014-06-Notebook-Review-Update.119805.0.html

I'm not sure how to judge the battery life numbers from PCMark 8. I know the SP3 with an I5 scores 2 hours and 38 minutes. In my use, my model with an I7 lasts significantly longer (~6-7 hours). So, I'm going to assume that over 3 hours for the T300 is pretty good.

 

[dahorns]

Another review, this time from the Chinese Engadget site, contains some graphics benches: http://cn.engadget.com/2015/02/12/asus-transformer-book-t300-chi-review/

 

[jdubs03]

VR-Zone has posted some benchmarks of the t300 Chi:

http://chinese.vr-zone.com/143405/a...th-intel-core-m-5y71-hand-on-review-02152015/

The Cinebench and PCMark 8 scores are fairly close to the scores of the i5-4260U found in the current MacBook Air 13. Cf. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-...-2014-06-Notebook-Review-Update.119805.0.html

I'm not sure how to judge the battery life numbers from PCMark 8. I know the SP3 with an I5 scores 2 hours and 38 minutes. In my use, my model with an I7 lasts significantly longer (~6-7 hours). So, I'm going to assume that over 3 hours for the T300 is pretty good.

Those are some pretty damn good scores, its up at i7-5500u levels for Geekbench. We need more benchmarks for this device to have a better idea of performance; and it seems like the T300 Chi will have the best implementation with this SoC.

Maybe the A9 won't be able to challenge the 5Y71, performance is a bit higher than expected in this particular device. Of course it is more expensive, but that's another conversation.

 

[Sweepr]

Thanks for posting dahorns. Compared to one of the most common 15W Haswell-U - Core i5 4200U (using average scores from NotebookCheck):

CB R15 MT: 225
CB R15 OpenGL: ~20
CB 11.5 MT: ~2.4
CB 11.5 OpenGL: ~16.7
CB 10 MT: ~9700
CB 10 ST: ~3700
Geekbench 3 Multi-core: ~4500
Geekbench 3 Single-core: ~2300
PCMark 8 Home: ~2450

Which means Core M brings Haswell-U Core i5 level of performance (if not better, especially the iGPU) inside a thin and fanless device. Pretty impressive.

 

[dahorns]

Thanks for posting dahorns. Compared to one of the most common 15W Haswell-U - Core i5 4200U (using average scores from NotebookCheck):

CB R15 MT: 225
CB R15 OpenGL: ~20
CB 11.5 MT: ~2.4
CB 11.5 OpenGL: ~16.7
CB 10 MT: ~9700
CB 10 ST: ~3700
Geekbench 3 Multi-core: ~4500
Geekbench 3 Single-core: ~2300
PCMark 8 Home: ~2450

Which means Core M brings Haswell-U Core i5 level of performance (if not better, especially the iGPU) inside a thin and fanless device. Pretty impressive.

The 2nd review makes clear that the high performance is limited to short-burst work loads. Not terribly surprising, but it needs to be noted.

 

[Sweepr]

The 2nd review makes clear that the high performance is limited to short-burst work loads. Not terribly surprising, but it needs to be noted.

I think that's Core M's proposition given the very low TDP, too bad some of the early designs failed to deliver this kind of performance even in short workloads.

Compared to the fastest ARM tablet SoCs:

Tegra K1 Denver

Geekbench 3
- Multi-core: ~3800
-Single-core: ~2200

3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited
- Overall: 31180
- Graphics: ~37000
- Physics: 20430

Apple A8X

Geekbench 3
- Multi-core: ~4500
-Single-core: ~1800

3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited
- Overall: 21700
- Graphics: ~31500
- Physics: 10380

Core M 5Y71

Geekbench 3
Multi-core = 5744
Single-core = 2975

3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited
- Overall: 41568
- Graphics: 44495
- Physics: 33790

Core M did very well in this new 12.5'' ASUS device and Intel should have Skylake-Y out around the same time Tegra X1 and NVIDIA A9X arrive later this year. That's the kind of product Broadwell-Y makes sense, 10-12.5'' premium fanless tablets/notebooks/convertibles IMHO.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Well if Intel had released Core M in a device with these kind of performance figures in mid 2014, like they were supposed to, this would be pretty impressive. It's scoring more than 50% higher than A8X across the board, granted at much larger power draw, but that's still worlds better than the Yoga 3 Pro.


I have my doubts about the power efficiency of this device; It's obviously maintaining much higher boost frequencies, but how will that affect battery life? I also would like to point out that many claimed that Geekbench was anti-intel, but it appears that intel is doing pretty well here.

 

[dahorns]

Well if Intel had released Core M in a device with these kind of performance figures in mid 2014, like they were supposed to, this would be pretty impressive. It's scoring more than 50% higher than A8X across the board, granted at much larger power draw, but that's still worlds better than the Yoga 3 Pro.


I have my doubts about the power efficiency of this device; It's obviously maintaining much higher boost frequencies, but how will that affect battery life? I also would like to point out that many claimed that Geekbench was anti-intel, but it appears that intel is doing pretty well here.

Do we actually have any information to indicate Core M uses more power than the A8x? I thought they both have a TDP of 4.5 W?

I'm not sure its right to say that Geekbench is anti-Intel, just that the scores across architectures are necessarily comparable.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well if Intel had released Core M in a device with these kind of performance figures in mid 2014, like they were supposed to, this would be pretty impressive.

I agree.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Damn that's pretty good. A pity they couldn't bump the memory to 4 gb though.

By the way, Jarred fixed it again to say its not Core M.

"The tablets will be using Bay Trail processor, Z3735F (quad-core up to 1.83GHz with dual-channel RAM."

"Text has been updated today. Dell emailed me to apologize and let me know they sent out the wrong specs; the Venue Pro 10 will be Bay Trail, which fits the pricing model a lot better. Too bad...."

If they wanted it for $330, it probably would have needed contra-revenue, but rather than being $20, it probably requires $50.

 

[jdubs03]

By the way, Jarred fixed it again to say its not Core M.

"The tablets will be using Bay Trail processor, Z3735F (quad-core up to 1.83GHz with dual-channel RAM."

"Text has been updated today. Dell emailed me to apologize and let me know they sent out the wrong specs; the Venue Pro 10 will be Bay Trail, which fits the pricing model a lot better. Too bad...."

If they wanted it for $330, it probably would have needed contra-revenue, but rather than being $20, it probably requires $50.

Well ain't that crappy. Looked like a good device.

 

[witeken]

Which means Core M brings Haswell-U Core i5 level of performance (if not better, especially the iGPU) inside a thin and fanless device. Pretty impressive.

The comments about Core M seems vastly different than a few months ago.

 

[kimmel]

The comments about Core M seems vastly different than a few months ago.

It wouldn't be the internet without overreacting.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Another nice Broadwell Y Core M based laptop announced, Asus UX305:

http://www.pcper.com/news/Mobile/AS...nBook-UX305-Notebook-Core-M-and-1080p-IPS-699

As impressive as the slim profile of the aluminum design might be, it is more impressive to look over the main specifications of the $699 UX305:

• Intel Core M 5Y10 processor
• 8GB of LPDDR3 memory
• 256GB SSD
• 13.3-inch 1920x1080 IPS display (matte finish)

Since there are no fans to expell heat ASUS has made it a point to promise that the palm rest will always stay cool thanks to their “IceCool technology” (whatever that is - but I really hope it’s an ice cube cooling system). The UX305 is powered by a 45Wh Lithium Polymer battery that has a claimed 10-hour battery life, and the notebook features 802.11ac wireless, three USB 3.0 ports, and includes a USB Ethernet adapter (a nice touch).

The notebook weighs in at 2.6 Lbs, and this configuration of the UX305 is available immediately (listed on their official store).

$699 for that is a really good deal. Apparently you can also get it with 5Y71 and 3,200 x 1,800 touchscreen for a bit more, but with less battery life.

If anything, I'd like to see slimmer bezels. And if I can wish anything, also an integrated Ethernet port.

I'm long due for a new laptop, but I think I'll be holding out to the Skylake Y Core M models show up to see what they will improve upon. Reading witeken's earlier post they do seem like a big leap ahead. But you never know.

 

[Fjodor2001]

--

 

[North01]

Another T300 Chi (5Y71) review (link):

Street Fighter IV benchmark - YouTube

Diablo III game test - YouTube

 

[North01]

More T300 Chi (5Y71) reviews:

Link 1

Link 2

 

[dahorns]

One of the reviews mentioned that the keyboard dock provides additional cooling. Presumably, that is how it achieved a CB score of 2.78.

Also, sounds like battery life on the QHD device may be mediocre (4-5 hours of movie playback). The lower res display would likely be a better choice for most.

That said, this is clearly a much better implementation of Core-M than previous devices. For all the teeth gnashing about Core-M being disappointing, even under previous benchmarks it was the most powerful tablet processor available (CPU or GPU). This ASUS kicks it up a notch. You basically have performance between the i5 and i7 found on the SP3, in a smaller, fanless package.

 

[dahorns]

Someone just posted Geekbench scores for Venue 11 Pro with 5y71 running GB 3.2.2 Pro, 64 bit.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/1923507?baseline=1834798

Roughly a 10% increase across the board compared to the best 32-bit runs.

 

[North01]

Although it wasn't mentioned in other reviews, one website posted a picture of the T300 Chi's stylus (link):

EDIT:

For reference, here is the Synaptics stylus from Dell:

 

[Abwx]

Interesting 18W package TDP.

2.5 ghz prime 95 + 900 mhz igp.

31.5W total power under prime + furmark

I would say its mainly P95....when looking at the pic, what happened, or rather what did not happen to the fur despite roughly one hour of rendering?
Curious that Ncheck doesnt display the FPS, must be something like 0.5 FPS when comparing to what a Beema had rendered after 47min of Furmark...