Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant Apple has used new chips with the same TDP as previous ones used in MBA, 15W. So these new MBP are not fanless.
Last edited:
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. I meant Apple has used new chips with the same TDP as previous ones used in MBA, 15W. So these new MBP are not fanless.I first read that as "Macbook Air i5/i7 doesn't have a fan, and has the same design as Macbook Core M" but am not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. :hmm:
The starting configuration at $1299 uses Core M-5Y70 which has a base frequency of 1.1GHz and a turbo frequency of 2.9GHz. The 1.2GHz Core M-5Y71 is available in the $1599 model, and a 1.3GHz version is available as a build to order option on Apple's online store. All models come with 8GB of LPDDR3 memory standard.
The only Broadwell that appears to be hitting the desktop is the Iris Pro part which should be out in June or July I think. Intel has actually demoed the chip (without giving away clockspeed info, grr) so it looks like they're ready to sell the thing.
We don't know clockspeeds or even if it's got HT, but it's a quad with GT3e + Crystalwell.
edit: It's a 65W TDP part for LGA1150
Special bin for the new Macbook?
www.anandtech.com/show/9076/apple-macbook-2015-handson
Hopefully AnandTech will test Apple's Core M implementation and the new 28W Broadwell-U with Iris 6100 Graphics (Macbook Pro 2015) soon.
Yeah, it's always cool to see refreshes that up the base by 100MHz. I remember the first Celeron N2805 laptops were 1.46GHz and not well received then got turbo and now N2808 is at 1.58GHz + 2.25GHz turbo which seems a lot better.I wonder how far they can push the 4.5 W 14 nm chips. They started at 1.1. GHz, then reached 1.2 GHz late last year / early this year, and are now at 1.3 GHz?
Perhaps Skylake will take it to 1.5 GHz, or is that hoping for too much?
Canyon Lake, you can figure it out by looking at the tags at the bottom of the page.
Canyon Lake, you can figure it out by looking at the tags at the bottom of the page.
Canyon Lake, you can figure it out by looking at the tags at the bottom of the page.
Probably Icelake here but I'm not gonna buy the article just letting you all know if you're interested.
https://semiaccurate.com/2015/03/11/exclusive-name-intels-architecture-skylake/
lol, people can make articles on that? Why not just browse LinkedIn, you'll probably find the answer there.
Probably Icelake here but I'm not gonna buy the article just letting you all know if you're interested.
https://semiaccurate.com/2015/03/11/exclusive-name-intels-architecture-skylake/
lol, people can make articles on that? Why not just browse LinkedIn, you'll probably find the answer there.
Hmm is there something on your linkedin we should know about?
Apart from per-MHz performance, which is about 5% higher in Broadwell, two questions are particularly interesting for the performance in the following CPU benchmarks: What is the maximum Turbo clock? How high can the clock rate be so that the power consumption remains just under 15 Watt?
As a result, the high-clocked Broadwell models perform especially well in long-lasting tests with full load on both cores. Apart from Cinebench this is, for example, also true for our x264 benchmark. On average, the new i7-5600U top model is just under 13% faster than the i7-4600U. The difference between the i7-5200U and i5-4200U is similarly big, while the i5-5300U only outperforms the i5-4300U by about 9%. In contrast, the single-thread performance remained almost the same. Increases of above 5% are exceptions in all pairings.
You could call the Core i3-5005U the secret star of the complete line-up: With 2.0 GHz it clocks 300 MHz higher than the old Core i3-4005U, which leads to a notable performance gain of significantly above 20%.
Just like Haswell ULV processors, Broadwell ULV processors also come with three different graphics solutions. So far, we could only test the mid-range GT2 model, HD Graphics 5500, in detail, which features exactly 20% more shader units than the older HD Graphics 4400 (20 EUs). In addition, Intel applied many changes to the architecture and slightly decreased the clock rates, which makes a theoretical estimation of the performance more difficult.
With the same RAM configuration, the HD Graphics 5500 is just under 20% faster than the HD Graphics 4400.
Those currently needing a new notebook will often face the question whether an affordable discontinued model based on Haswell might be the better alternative. It is hardly possible to give a general answer. Especially older Core i5 models tend to be attractive since they deliver more performance than a new Core i3 notebook with a Broadwell chip. However, a Broadwell i5 usually outperforms a Haswell i7 and should be preferred at the same price. In addition, the lower power consumption while idle and during partial load is a pro of the new generation. This is reflected in slightly longer battery runtimes, according to our experiences in previous tests.
If you looked 5-6 years ago, it probably was riddled with project names that I didn't know I wasn't supposed to use. Now I'm just a generic CPU designer.
With the cb performance numbers from Notebookcheck. Taking top end i7 ulv for each generation (as i can see it):
The CB 11.5 64 bit is (median numbers, not avg to remove outlayers):
Sandy Bridge 2.1 (note: tdp 17w)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2677M-Notebook-Processor.57418.0.html
Ivy Bridge 2.9 (single core 1.3)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3537U-Notebook-Processor.87766.0.html
Haswell 2.7 (single core 1.4)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-4600U-Notebook-Processor.101142.0.html
Broadwell 3.33 (single core 1.3)
To look at progress its always paramount important to look through several generations so all the pr and bs is leveled out. Doing that it does look the improvement is stalling.
For SB to IB we got a nice jump going to 22nm. It doesnt look the same way for 14nm.
With the cb performance numbers from Notebookcheck. Taking top end i7 ulv for each generation (as i can see it):
The CB 11.5 64 bit is (median numbers, not avg to remove outlayers):
Sandy Bridge 2.1 (note: tdp 17w)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2677M-Notebook-Processor.57418.0.html
Ivy Bridge 2.9 (single core 1.3)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-3537U-Notebook-Processor.87766.0.html
Haswell 2.7 (single core 1.4)
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-4600U-Notebook-Processor.101142.0.html
Broadwell 3.33 (single core 1.3)
To look at progress its always paramount important to look through several generations so all the pr and bs is leveled out. Doing that it does look the improvement is stalling.
For SB to IB we got a nice jump going to 22nm. It doesnt look the same way for 14nm.
The increase from Sandy to Ivy was 0.8 and Haswell to BW was 0.63, so I dont think that is too bad. You have to consider that as performance gets better, future gains become more and more difficult. I think these numbers are very difficult to interpret though because in this low power envelope, the cooling solution plays a large part in the score, and we have no numbers for the same chips with the same cooling.
What is surprising to me is that the single core performance is essentially the same from SB to BW.
Edit: I dont think we really have enough data to say for sure what kind of improvements BW brings. The problem is though, we should have had this performance a year ago. As I said in another post, the problem with Broadwell is that it was *both* late and didn't bring a game changing increase in perf/watt.