News - Next-gen Intel Broadwell SoC reduces Haswell power-draw by 30pc

Quote:

---

Can be configured for same performance, lower power.

---

Read more.

How much more excited would we all be if that were 30% more PERFORMANCE for the same power draw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

How much more excited would we all be if that were 30% more PERFORMANCE for the same power draw?

---

Me personally not very, my computers are all more than fast enough for their purpose but the electricity bill is looking a bit painful these days and cool running with long battery would be incredibly useful to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

How much more excited would we all be if that were 30% more PERFORMANCE for the same power draw?

---

Erm, try thinking that one through. If Intel can deliver a processor that takes less power to deliver the SAME performance then that's got to be a more efficient design. So - assuming it's physically possible - you may be able to overclock to the same thermal output as the old designs, but end up with correspondingly better performance.

That said, we've already got enough cpu performance to be able to comfortably run an OS within another OS (virtualization), so I'm quite happy to take the same level (or slightly increased?) performance level and pocket the power savings. Heck, the money saved might even be enough to put a down payment on improving the other hardware in the rig... :)

I did read something the other day saying that cpu and graphics performance these days are very good, and it's "peripheral" factors like memory bandwidth and IO responsiveness that are more of a limiting factor to overall system performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

Me personally not very, my computers are all more than fast enough for their purpose but the electricity bill is looking a bit painful these days and cool running with long battery would be incredibly useful to me.

---

Laptop, yes.
Desktop, no

As far as energy bills go, it's all something of a myth. If a 100w CPU can deliver 30% more grunt than a 70w CPU, then it can do the task 30% faster which means using the same electric (or do the task at 70% capacity, which will reduce energy draw too). Low-energy idle states are preferable, of course, but that doesn't need to come at the cost of performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Erm, try thinking that one through. If Intel can deliver a processor that takes less power to deliver the SAME performance then that's got to be a more efficient design. So - assuming it's physically possible - you may be able to overclock to the same thermal output as the old designs, but end up with correspondingly better performance.

---

Ah yes, just like we can clock the much-more-efficient Haswell up to correspondingly better performance than Ivy and Sandy, you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

Ah yes, just like we can clock the much-more-efficient Haswell up to correspondingly better performance than Ivy and Sandy, you mean?

---

It would be nice if they at least spent the extra dollar/chip on the thermal compound, at least for the 'K' and extreme desktop variants. It might not be their aim to push performance, but it doesn't exactly hurt them to let people try (and makes for ridiculous OC competition speed headlines for minimal extra effort on their part). If they aren't releasing higher performance chips anyway, it doesn't even steal from the higher end of their own market.

I don't know if anyone's bothered reading the title, but this clearly says Broadwell SOC. Most desktops don't use SOCs. So this is specifically targeted at the mobile space, where 30% lower power is actually pretty significant.

They can't do it in the performance space because of the physical realities of silicon: more voltage = more heat = more leakage = decreasing returns on performance/watt. So it's a question of how little voltage you can use to make the chip run stably at a given clock speed. Besides, there's a limit to the usefullness of increasing performance at the top end now - particularly in the consumer space where 99% of the market is well served by Intel Core i3s and quad-core AMD APUs....

Yes, scaryjim, but if you bother reading the actual article, and the linked article where CEO Brian Krzanich talked about the 30% saving, he is clearly talking about the whole architecture including desktop.

The SoC bit was just a demo system (28pc demonstrated)

And if you read Krzanich's comments carefully, he's clearly talking primarily about mobile:

Quote:

---

The CEO also believes the PC is in the process of reinventing itself .... He also showed a demo laptop running the next-generation 'Broadwell' architecture, explaining that the 14nm process and general architecture improvements enable a 30 per cent decrease in power when compared to equivalent Haswell chips.

---

So maybe it's true that they'll show a 30% reduction across the whole range, but Broadwell is clearly targeted at mobile, which is the driver for power reduction rather than performance improvement. In fact, both Intel and AMD are moving towards targeting mobile computing rather than desktop. They've both invested a lot in redesigning their "small-core" offerings to improve performance/watt to the point where you can get a "full" PC experience from a very low power chip.

Of course, that does leave the enthusiast feeling somewhat short-changed. AMD have failed to advance performance significantly due to a major redesign of the architecture not performing as well as they may have liked, and Intel therefore haven't felt any need to push performance at the enthusiast level significantly. But then again, both companies care about their bottom line and both have decided that mobile is the way to go, so fair play to them - and Intel particularly - for engineering their way to significantly lower TDPs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Broadwell is clearly targeted at mobile, which is the driver for power reduction rather than performance improvement.

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Of course, that does leave the enthusiast feeling somewhat short-changed.

---

Indeed, so perhaps I speak for us all when I say how we would be....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

...much more excited ..... if that were 30% more PERFORMANCE for the same power draw

---

Which is, approximately, where I started ;)

BTW, I would contend the generally held belief that it's AMD's fault that Intel aren't pushing at the top end. The enthusiast market is shrinking; a reflection of a maturing market where the core audience is getting older (How many on Hexus are under 30?), and smaller. There are also "enthusiasts" digging their own grave by buying into the energy-efficiency propaganda.

Whilst the enthusiast market is shrinking, the mainstream is also moving away from pure performance - portable and "good enough" tech is the growth area. Intel are doing what they have to to diversify away from a receding market.

Intel, make a new Sandy Bridge. Then, I'll consider upgrading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

Laptop, yes.
Desktop, no

---

For me (and I'm not alone) its a yes on both, there are many reasons to construct desktop type machines to a lower power budget (heat, noise, cooling requirement, form factor), a desktop computer isn't always about absolute maximum performance with the power draw irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

As far as energy bills go, it's all something of a myth. If a 100w CPU can deliver 30% more grunt than a 70w CPU, then it can do the task 30% faster which means using the same electric (or do the task at 70% capacity, which will reduce energy draw too). Low-energy idle states are preferable, of course, but that doesn't need to come at the cost of performance.

---

Sometimes something of a myth, but if Broadwell also reduces idle power (not unreasonable to expect) then that calculation falls over. If a higher TDP CPU can do the same work in less time for equal total electricity and then return to an equally low power idle state then it is good, but often to sustain higher clocks often means disproportionately more power and there is an optimum efficiency point on the curve to hit, it doesn't always make sense to just push the clocks higher and higher.

Also if the higher TDP CPU requires a screaming fan to stay cool, more chassis fans, pushes power supplies into less efficient usage etc then not so great. There is a lot more to a system than the CPU to balance up.

I'm glad to read about lowered power consumption but I'm very concerned that current trend is going more and more towards SoC. I just cant imagine that one day I wont be able to replace my CPU :/.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle

Sometimes something of a myth, but if Broadwell also reduces idle power (not unreasonable to expect) then that calculation falls over. If a higher TDP CPU can do the same work in less time for equal total electricity and then return to an equally low power idle state then it is good, but often to sustain higher clocks often means disproportionately more power and there is an optimum efficiency point on the curve to hit, it doesn't always make sense to just push the clocks higher and higher.

---

Idle power draw, whilst better if lower, is really not worth worrying about.

See here;
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/t...4560k-tested/2

Total system idle power for Haswell i7 is 34w. What's 30% of that - around 10w. That means it takes 100 hours (4 days) of idle use before Broadwell would save you 1KWh. And 1KWh is about, what, 12p?

I'm not exchanging a 30% (or any significant) performance hit for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

... so perhaps I speak for us all when I say how we would be....

Quote:

---

...much more excited ..... if that were 30% more PERFORMANCE for the same power draw

---

---

Well, you don't speak for me - I've only ever bought one "enthusiast" CPU, a Q6600, and that was in January 2008 just as the Q9xxx series was being released. I've never found the need to shop out of the lower couple of brackets for CPU performance. 30% less power potentially means mainstream laptop performance in a tablet/handheld device. And I find that pretty damn exciting :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

BTW, I would contend the generally held belief that it's AMD's fault that Intel aren't pushing at the top end.

---

Oh, I don't think it's *just* AMD's fault. There are lots of other factors. But when AMD were winning the CPU wars Intel put in a huge effort and made a genuine step-change in CPU performance - not just 30% at the same TDP, but up to 100% performance increase at around half the TDP. Now, it's questionable whether they could ever get the same gains again, given how efficient the architecture they're starting from is, but it's a demonstration of what you can do with a large R&D budget and a strong driver to improve your CPU business. Intel haven't had that strong driver since Core 2 was released, and their performance related improvements have plateaued. It's hard to view that as a coincidental correlation...

EDIT to add:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

I'm not exchanging a 30% (or any significant) performance hit for that!

---

Well, no, you're not - that's the point. You're getting exactly the same performance - no hit at all.

TBH,I think people are reading way too much into the PR.

The screen,and chips associated with GPS and wireless functionality consume the most power in a phone or modern tablet,and battery technology is not really keeping pace either. The SOCs used actually in most cases,are down the power consumption list. These are the areas which still need the most work,and for desktop users your usage habits and lifestyle and far more draining on your power and energy usage.

Simply,using a sub-notebook or tablet for most of your day to day media consumption and e-mails would save a load of power,but OTH as with everything be careful of spending pounds to save pennies! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

Idle power draw, whilst better if lower, is really not worth worrying about.

See here;
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/t...4560k-tested/2

Total system idle power for Haswell i7 is 34w. What's 30% of that - around 10w. That means it takes 100 hours (4 days) of idle use before Broadwell would save you 1KWh. And 1KWh is about, what, 12p?

I'm not exchanging a 30% (or any significant) performance hit for that!

---

Idle power draw is very worth worrying about for systems that spend most of their time idle or under low load (home server, HTPC, office PC) . It might not be for your gaming desktop but for the rest of the world it's a concern and where performance is already good enough it's far better to save the Watts rather than gain more CPU speed you have no need for.

Consider a system that averages 45W rather than 50W (i.e. 10% less) and is on 24/7 for a whole year:

50/1000 * 24 * 365 = 438 kWh

45/1000 * 24 * 365 = 394.2kWh

5W saves you ~44 kWh a year, which at 12p is around £5.25. I know you're thinking that doesn't sound like much, so multiple that by 1000 for a large company, and then consider that's for maybe 5 years over the PC lifetime, suddenly thats £26,250, factor in rising energy prices, add on the corresponding savings to the office air-con or the money saved because you could increase staff and equipment density without overwhelming that air-con (top London office space can be several thousand quid per sq ft annually).

Power savings matter, even little ones that sound like nothing when that translates to wider savings where a few % can mean big money...

@ kingpotnoodle

Of course, you're right on all that.

But, to clarify, my position (and the position I was taking when I "speak for all of us" (a bit too ambitious and presumptuous a remit, admittedly)) is as a desktop enthusiast. And for a desktop enthusiast, it's a sad day when all we have to look forward to is power savings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheesyboy

@ kingpotnoodle

Of course, you're right on all that.

But, to clarify, my position (and the position I was taking when I "speak for all of us" (a bit too ambitious and presumptuous a remit, admittedly)) is as a desktop enthusiast. And for a desktop enthusiast, it's a sad day when all we have to look forward to is power savings.

---

The problem is that while people obsess about the CPU,they ignore all the other parts of the computer(even the monitor of all things) and their own usage habits. Keeping your Office PC on 24/7 is an example. Plus,you are more likely to save more energy(and probably money in some cases) by not over-filling your kettle,washing your clothes at a lower temperature,having a shorter shower,wearing an extra jumper,cooking only short recipes,using locally sourced ingredients,not leaving electronics on standby,having local holidays,driving your car at the most efficient speed,etc. It does not change the fact our western lifestyle just eats through resources anyway.

Increase Power cost = blame it all on Al Gore and climate change fraudsters. They made our live miserable. Gas will deplete faster than predicted, safe nuclear power is the way to go.
And yes don't tell me one can't make nuclear power safe.

damn... im waiting for kaveri or broadwell.... i cant waitttt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAJA666

Increase Power cost = blame it all on Al Gore and climate change fraudsters. They made our live miserable. Gas will deplete faster than predicted, safe nuclear power is the way to go.
And yes don't tell me one can't make nuclear power safe.

---

Hope you're not trotting out the "global warming is a socialist conspiracy" rubbish that we get from the more intellectually-challenged US politico's.

Then again, your point about nuclear power. It's all about risk - it makes me laugh (ironically?) when folks talk about "dangerous" nuclear power v's "conventional" sources - which, I assume, they regard as "safe". Try telling that to the relatives of folks killed in the pursuit of oil, gas, coal and even wood power!

So reducing power consumption has to be a good idea - heck, even if you don't buy into the "global warming conspiracy" then the mere fact that energy prices are increasing means that it makes personal financial sense to save what you can.

Of course, as pointed out above, there's the issue that these Broadwell chip's are SOC's - so they're destined for tablets and such like. Increased power efficiency means either lighter batteries or longer lived ones - and since the main power drain these days isn't the processor, you can say that the benefit in this case is you will be able to run compute intensive tasks for longer with the same power budget.

Am I the only one who seems happy about the fact that there's more power efficiency? Since it essentially means that there's more possibility to pack a powerhouse into a mini-ITX system; I can't be the only one thinking that full towers in this day and age are hideous for any kind of computer?

Besides, surely most of the times it's usually the graphics card that bottlenecks gaming performances anyway?

Always happy for more power efficiency. But Intel come out with this sort of stuff with *every* new process.

Remember the wonderful new tri-gate 22nm process when Intel announced it? I just looked up the figures, they claimed 50% reduction in power and 37% increase in performance. They never claimed both would be at the same time, but some people were optimistic it would be. As ever, they turned out to be cherry picked values to the extreme, and desktop chips were quite yawn worthy.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4313/i...ing-in-2h-2011

These are laptop chips, designed for a laptop centric world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Always happy for more power efficiency. But Intel come out with this sort of stuff with *every* new process. Remember the wonderful new tri-gate 22nm process when Intel announced it? I just looked up the figures, they claimed 50% reduction in power and 37% increase in performance. They never claimed both would be at the same time, but some people were optimistic it would be. As ever, they turned out to be cherry picked values to the extreme, and desktop chips were quite yawn worthy.

---

But look at if from their point of view - other than polishing what they've already got, what are their options. That said, you've also got a point that the IB and Haswell bumps have been disappointing when compared to our expectations. Maybe we need to stop thinking about single massive processors are start moving towards multi-cpu arrangements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

These are laptop chips, designed for a laptop centric world.

---

Yep, but Intel sell what folks like you and I tell 'em they want to buy. Walk into PC World, Staples, Argos or larger supermarkets and you'll see that they're really pushing laptops over desktops. And they wouldn't be doing this unless that was what the public wanted. Unfortunately the true successor to the family desktop machine these days seems to be the AIO touch driven Windows8-running monstrosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiamenguk

Am I the only one who seems happy about the fact that there's more power efficiency?

---

Nope, sign me up for some of that power sippin' goodness! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiamenguk

Since it essentially means that there's more possibility to pack a powerhouse into a mini-ITX system; I can't be the only one thinking that full towers in this day and age are hideous for any kind of computer?

---

Yes, you are out of step there. Problem with the mITX is that it's horrendously limited in terms of expansion capabilities and it's not exactly compatible with digital space heaters that masquerade as graphics cards these days. You're also limited in choice of mobo and cpu cooler, and those that are available seem to be "premium" priced versus their ATX or even mATX equivalents. I know this for a fact since I was recently trying to price up a rebuild to use a donkey's years old Shuttle case (currently running a P4!).
As a parting shot, if you're dissin' my HAF932 then you and I are going to have words!! :censored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiamenguk

Besides, surely most of the times it's usually the graphics card that bottlenecks gaming performances anyway?

---

Probably true - especially when the folks doing the complaining are wanting to run 1080P+ multiscreen setups.

Now take an AMD and try it for efficiency, AMD fan here but what chunks alot of power cannot be hidden. AMD Rocks and sucks(power).

As a desktop user my problem is the question "is it worth upgrading to?". If I am going to spent £160 - £190 replacing my overclocked Sandybridge Intel then I need more performance. I'm not going to spend this money just for power savings alone. At the moment, from what I gather, at best I'd get 20% increase in speed which is hideous considering the amount of time that has passed since I bought the Sandy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimano

As a desktop user my problem is the question "is it worth upgrading to?". If I am going to spent £160 - £190 replacing my overclocked Sandybridge Intel then I need more performance. I'm not going to spend this money just for power savings alone. At the moment, from what I gather, at best I'd get 20% increase in speed which is hideous considering the amount of time that has passed since I bought the Sandy.

---

I think that is why SSDs are selling so well atm. People are using 4 year old PCs which are still too good to upgrade from, but the hard drive is likely to die on them and an SSD *is* a worthwhile upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I think that is why SSDs are selling so well atm. People are using 4 year old PCs which are still too good to upgrade from, but the hard drive is likely to die on them and an SSD *is* a worthwhile upgrade.

---

I'm going to wholeheartedly endorse what DanceswithUnix is saying there. I upgraded two oldish laptops with Samsung 830's SSDs at the start of the year - one a C2D running Ubuntu and the other a Celeron running Windows 7 - and both are now VERY responsive as a result. And in my case, the fact that they were laptops meant that I also got a battery life boost too. Just tried a quick b'mark and my C2D/Ubuntu system launches LibreWriter in a little over two seconds and LibreCalc is faster than that (and that's also running my usual web, mail, etc progs at the same time).

If you haven't already moved your OS partition to an SSD, then I'd really recommend it highly - after you've done so then a non-SSD'd PC seems "steam powered" by comparison. Guy I know is in the same boat as you and was saying that he's going to wait until Haswell's replacement/upgrade to ditch his SB-based system - in the meantime he's going to spend that cpu+mobo budget on upgrading storage and graphics ready for his new build.