Intel keeps up the unethical SDP scam with “new” 4.5W parts [S|A]

[StrangerGuy]

One of the new sites found that the claimed 4.5W figure is only valid when the chip is caped at 800MHz. I think this eliminates gaming from the equation and leaves only light browsing.

Screw SDP, I'm sure there is a huge demand for tablets paired with triple digit dollars SoCs.

 

[Keysplayr]

One of the new sites found that the claimed 4.5W figure is only valid when the chip is caped at 800MHz. I think this eliminates gaming from the equation and leaves only light browsing.

Would one of you care to explain what all this means to the end user? Is it critical or just a passing nitpick? Does it have a severe impact or a virtually unnoticeable one, or somewhere in between?

 

[monstercameron]

Would one of you care to explain what all this means to the end user? Is it critical or just a passing nitpick? Does it have a severe impact or a virtually unnoticeable one, or somewhere in between?

not really, the conversation isn't really about the tech perse[which is awesome]. This is about intel flexing their marketing muscles to make their products seem more appealing when that isnt necessarily the case. This is a grab for mind share and to have bloggers on their side, because they are like a marketing amplifier.

It is great that they have a tablet ready chip but throwing out this "sdp" number into the wild will only serve to misinform users and inflate consumer demand. With headlines not stating specifically that this 4.5W number is only valid in certain scenarios[they havent even defined these scenarios] and doesnt really show cooling and power use under typical usage.

or atleast this is what I believe.

 

[galego]

Would one of you care to explain what all this means to the end user? Is it critical or just a passing nitpick? Does it have a severe impact or a virtually unnoticeable one, or somewhere in between?

From page 1, several posters have explained how this affect to users, OEMs, and even Wall Street, or more correctly to "an individual with INTC holdings"...

From post #1:

So Intel is trying surprisingly hard to keep people from asking questions about SDP because the company knows if people actually get educated about it the scam is over. So they give you half an hour or less to write-up the story or be left out. If you aren’t there when the embargo goes up, your competitors get all the page views. If you ask questions you are guaranteed to miss the embargo. If you do your job and get educated about the technical details, your story will never get read. It is a purposefully unethical game to keep the press from doing their job of informing our readers.

The saddest part is that if you look around, it worked. Every site has a story about the new 4.5W Haswell CPUs even if they are not new, not 4.5W, or anything other than a scam.

 

[bullzz]

@galego
"So Intel is trying surprisingly hard to keep people from asking questions about SDP because the company knows if people actually get educated about it the scam is over"
This guy said Apple will be dumping Intel for 2013 macbooks. and ur taking his word seriously?

"Every site has a story about the new 4.5W Haswell CPUs even if they are not new, not 4.5W, or anything other than a scam"
its not every site. u just have to google to know it. some hardware sites mentioned it right (AT, Toms) and those that give more importance to Apple's iwatch than Intels chips could care less on this topic

I am surprised this is being discussed to such extent. every freaking company bends one info or other. intel, AMD, ARM, Apple, MS.. tell me who hasnt done it. suddenly this becomes unethical and called a scam

 

[frozentundra123456]

One of the new sites found that the claimed 4.5W figure is only valid when the chip is caped at 800MHz. I think this eliminates gaming from the equation and leaves only light browsing.

Which site? Is there a link?

 

[galego]

Which site? Is there a link?

given before.

 

[Aikouka]

It is great that they have a tablet ready chip but throwing out this "sdp" number into the wild will only serve to misinform users and inflate consumer demand. With headlines not stating specifically that this 4.5W number is only valid in certain scenarios[they havent even defined these scenarios] and doesnt really show cooling and power use under typical usage.

I still think that this is incredibly reaching, and honestly, it's fishing for a complaint against Intel. What "users" do you expect are going to end up misinformed about this? Let me clue you in on why I don't care about this... because people like my mother, who is not tech savvy, will not even pay attention to this 4.5W rigamarole. That's just some weird little number that means nothing to her. However, if some OEM comes out and says that they can get 13 hours of web browsing using the Haswell CPU, she might say, "Oh, Apple says it can only get 11 hours on its latest iPad!"

Also, what consumer demand? It would have to be consumer demand for the end devices! I would hope that consumers would actually check previews and/or reviews before simply purchasing a product or waiting for applicable numbers (advertised battery life, etc.) rather than taking a nebulous number like "4.5W SDP." Heck, even if Intel were to say it had a 4.5W TDP, that still means almost nothing to the end-user. Power ceilings are nothing more than a factor in an equation to help determine usage.

 

[monstercameron]

I still think that this is incredibly reaching, and honestly, it's fishing for a complaint against Intel. What "users" do you expect are going to end up misinformed about this? Let me clue you in on why I don't care about this... because people like my mother, who is not tech savvy, will not even pay attention to this 4.5W rigamarole. That's just some weird little number that means nothing to her. However, if some OEM comes out and says that they can get 13 hours of web browsing using the Haswell CPU, she might say, "Oh, Apple says it can only get 11 hours on its latest iPad!"

Also, what consumer demand? It would have to be consumer demand for the end devices! I would hope that consumers would actually check previews and/or reviews before simply purchasing a product or waiting for applicable numbers (advertised battery life, etc.) rather than taking a nebulous number like "4.5W SDP." Heck, even if Intel were to say it had a 4.5W TDP, that still means almost nothing to the end-user. Power ceilings are nothing more than a factor in an equation to help determine usage.

you may be right but i have worked in retail[mostly cameras] and I have seen soooo many people name drop brands and features they know nothing about...it is either that they have been told that or read it online somewhere. people are not that dumb, not be able to think, most just dont want to think[or do very much of it].

 

[2is]

I buy my processors based on their performance.

 

[krumme]

Screw SDP, I'm sure there is a huge demand for tablets paired with triple digit dollars SoCs.

Excactly. Making a thread about this stupid Intel bs is nonsense when nobody cares about this halo product. Same goes for that 5ghz amd cpu.
Who even cares if broadwell is 4.5 tdp, it could be 0.8w for that matter.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I buy my processors based on their performance.

I buy my processors based on brand loyalty.

 

[rgallant]

I buy my processors based on brand loyalty.

lol:thumbsup:

 

[Lonyo]

I don't buy processors for mobile devices.
I buy mobile devices which have processors in them already.

 

[mavere]

I don't buy processors for mobile devices.
I buy mobile devices which have processors in them already.

Seriously. Either these tablets/phones/whatever have good performance and battery life... or they don't. OEMs are welcome to follow whatever marketing numbers, made up or otherwise, they choose to, as long as their products belong in the former category.

This entire thread is some masterful troll work. I'm honestly impressed, but the thread is getting embarrassingly long.

 

[rgallant]

Seriously. Either these tablets/phones/whatever have good performance and battery life... or they don't. OEMs are welcome to follow whatever marketing numbers, made up or otherwise, they choose to, as long as their products belong in the former category.

This entire thread is some masterful troll work. I'm honestly impressed, but the thread is getting embarrassingly long.

-it's been a slow tech. week not much to bash out there.

 

[Keysplayr]

I still think that this is incredibly reaching, and honestly, it's fishing for a complaint against Intel. What "users" do you expect are going to end up misinformed about this? Let me clue you in on why I don't care about this... because people like my mother, who is not tech savvy, will not even pay attention to this 4.5W rigamarole. That's just some weird little number that means nothing to her. However, if some OEM comes out and says that they can get 13 hours of web browsing using the Haswell CPU, she might say, "Oh, Apple says it can only get 11 hours on its latest iPad!"

Also, what consumer demand? It would have to be consumer demand for the end devices! I would hope that consumers would actually check previews and/or reviews before simply purchasing a product or waiting for applicable numbers (advertised battery life, etc.) rather than taking a nebulous number like "4.5W SDP." Heck, even if Intel were to say it had a 4.5W TDP, that still means almost nothing to the end-user. Power ceilings are nothing more than a factor in an equation to help determine usage.

So kind of like what I asked. It's a nitpick and has no real world impact. Kind of what I suspected.

 

[SiliconWars]

So kind of like what I asked. It's a nitpick and has no real world impact. Kind of what I suspected.

And yet Intel took the time to invent a whole new way of measuring it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest they know a helluva lot more about the impact than you do.

 

[galego]

Let me clue you in on why I don't care about this... because people like my mother, who is not tech savvy, will not even pay attention to this 4.5W rigamarole. That's just some weird little number that means nothing to her. However, if some OEM comes out and says that they can get 13 hours of web browsing using the Haswell CPU, she might say, "Oh, Apple says it can only get 11 hours on its latest iPad!"

Maybe doesn't mean anything to her, but probably will mean something to the supermarket vendor that will try to sell her one of those 4.5W things.

Does anyone here really believe that Intel is trying hard to invent a new metric, give conferences about it, give little information about it (such as what really measures), and spread the news among many dozens of sites, with the hope it will have zero impact on users? That is a very strange vision of the world.

 

[Aikouka]

So kind of like what I asked. It's a nitpick and has no real world impact. Kind of what I suspected.

I really don't think it will affect the end-user directly. The performance levels suggested by Intel vs. the real-world performance levels may sway chip makers one way or another, we don't really know.

Maybe doesn't mean anything to her, but probably will mean something to the supermarket vendor that will try to sell her one of those 4.5W things.

If anything, these numbers will be misused just like things such as clock cycles, etc. I mean... how often do you think computer salespeople like to compare two different architectures (even by the same company) merely by the clock speed?

Why does everything immediately have to become negative? Let's wait and see what happens, and if it ends up being a piece of junk, I'll gladly accept that. I'm not in this game to see one party win over another, I'm here to get awesome technology that's better than what I currently have!

Does anyone here really believe that Intel is trying hard to invent a new metric, give little information about it (such as what really measures), and spread the news among many dozens of sites, with the hope it will have zero impact on users? That is a very strange vision of this.

I would assume they hope it will have a positive impact on users.

 

[Idontcare]

I still think that this is incredibly reaching, and honestly, it's fishing for a complaint against Intel.

I get this impression as well. Mountain out of a molehill type stuff.

I would think a number like SDP (or ACP) would be far more informative to an end-user than a number like TDP.

Take my FX-8350 or my 3770K, which is more relevant to me - the max power draw (or some proxy for it like TDP) under extreme loadings that will occur infrequently? Or the typical power consumption that I can expect to come from daily usage? (the active idle stuff)

One thing I noticed with my Intel chips is that the TDP at stock clockspeeds is ridiculously over-spec'ed. Even under prime95 loads you don't get to 95W for a 2600K or 77W for a 3770K.

So what good is knowing the TDP for those SKUs? It doesn't really tell the consumer much, other than putting an upper-limit on what they'll find with their chips.

So being told your SoC has an 11.5W TDP is probably equally meaningless, but at least if you know something like the SDP value then you have a better grasp of what to expect the power consumption is going to be like.

 

[Aikouka]

One thing I noticed with my Intel chips is that the TDP at stock clockspeeds is ridiculously over-spec'ed. Even under prime95 loads you don't get to 95W for a 2600K or 77W for a 3770K.

Could that be because you're not stressing the iGPU with Prime 95? Intel has to keep the GPUs energy consumption in mind as it is a part of the chip.

 

[Idontcare]

Could that be because you're not stressing the iGPU with Prime 95? Intel has to keep the GPUs energy consumption in mind as it is a part of the chip.

Good point, hadn't factored that in.

Would the iGPU be expected to use ~25W though? Because that is about how much over-provisioning I see in Intel's TDP spec (for both the 32nm and 22nm 'bridge chips).

 

[NTMBK]

Good point, hadn't factored that in.

Would the iGPU be expected to use ~25W though? Because that is about how much over-provisioning I see in Intel's TDP spec (for both the 32nm and 22nm 'bridge chips).

For comparison, the AMD 6450 has a tdp of 27W. Obviously this is on a much less efficient process, but it gives you a rough idea of what the low-end parts use.

 

[ShintaiDK]

IB with IGP is 77W, without 69W TDP. 8W Delta.
SB with IGP is 95W, without 80W TDP. 15W Delta.