So this thread exists...why?
Despite all the claims otherwise, it's just another Intel bashing opportunity. All one needs to do is look at posting histories of those claiming otherwise and of "concern".
Or you might just look at the evidence and see that Intel is up to their usual tricks. The only reason this thread shouldn't exist is that it's now so old to see Intel treating everybody else like dirt that it's no longer newsworthy (which is precisely why some people don't think this is a big issue - it would be a huge issue if AMD were doing it though).
Or you might just look at the evidence and see that Intel is up to their usual tricks. The only reason this thread shouldn't exist is that it's now so old to see Intel treating everybody else like dirt that it's no longer newsworthy (which is precisely why some people don't think this is a big issue - it would be a huge issue if AMD were doing it though).
Yeah AMD uses ACP, also gives TDP values.
This forum is full of people making comments and threads about ACP. What's the difference here except the same people don't like reading about Intel's BS?
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?
I would think a number like SDP (or ACP) would be far more informative to an end-user than a number like TDP.
<snip>
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.
If well-defined concepts are already abused, introducing a new ill-defined concept (and hiding relevant info about it) is only giving more opportunities for abuse.
Care to explain then how the SDP number is obtained and what measures? Concrete info please, not anything vague such as it measures average power consumption in a given scenario, without defining that "scenario".
For me, as an end-user, with the current lack of info, saying that a SoC has a SDP of 4.5W is not different than saying me that it has a clock speed of 8 (without giving units) or a ZXCDFRTVHG of 3.1416, without explaining me what is "ZXCDFRTVHG".
And yet again, this means precious little to any end user. To them, SDP meaning under normal everyday usage is just fine. And I'd agree. You are far over the nitpicking mountain out of molehill sky is falling line. Your crusade is over.
IB with IGP is 77W, without 69W TDP. 8W Delta.
SB with IGP is 95W, without 80W TDP. 15W Delta.
Yes, because your declaration that it is "over", and "over the line", really makes a difference. :hmm:
SDP is a meaningless statistic- literally meaningless, as Intel won't tell us what it means. If Intel gives us a definition we can start using it to compare Intel against rival processors, but for now it is utterly useless.
Except that tablet makers will be able to make fanless tablets based on this SDP spec. Perhaps it's tough to ascertain now what a 4.5W Haswell will do, but if I see a fanless tablet I don't really care the TDP or SDP. I care about performance, battery life, and skin temperature. We'll be able to test and compare against all other SOCs in the same constraints. If Haswell can live within a fanless chassis, I don't think the 'real TDP' number of 11.5W is all that useful.
Snapdragon 800 vs. Haswell in a fanless tablet will make a great read.
Care to explain then how the SDP number is obtained and what measures? Concrete info please, not anything vague such as it measures average power consumption in a given scenario, without defining that "scenario".
For me, as an end-user, with the current lack of info, saying that a SoC has a SDP of 4.5W is not different than saying me that it has a clock speed of 8 (without giving units) or a ZXCDFRTVHG of 3.1416, without explaining me what is "ZXCDFRTVHG".
Tablet makers will be able to make fanless tablets with a 4.5W SDP spec and then be confused when they have reports of tablets melting while playing games, thermal shutdowns with multiple apps running, people being burned while running benchmarks D:... you design for the WORST CASE, not for the average case. If engineers thought like you we'd all be doomed!
Tablet makers will be able to make fanless tablets with a 4.5W SDP spec and then be confused when they have reports of tablets melting while playing games, thermal shutdowns with multiple apps running, people being burned while running benchmarks D:... you design for the WORST CASE, not for the average case. If engineers thought like you we'd all be doomed!
Engineers like me would come up with active thermal management to make sure tablet makers could specify their thermal solution and keep the processor in spec... drats, Intel beat me to it (and every other SOC vendor).
Then why is a 4.5w SDP remotely relevant to the cooling solution in place? Oh wait, it isn't.... SDP only dictates battery life perhaps, TDP dictates how large the cooling solution must be. SDP could be 0.1mW, if the TDP is 15W that sucker needs a fan.