LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Now packs in four cores and eight threads into 15W U-series chips.
Read more.Now packs in four cores and eight threads into 15W U-series chips.
It can also be argued that a certain company might be feeling the heat in other arenas so is having to release some of the innovations it's had parked on the shelf for the last 5 years while lumbering people with hamstrung tech to try and force sales of their more powerful chips. Were it not for AMD's recent strides I wouldn't mind betting these U-series chips would be dual core again.It can be argued that innovation has stalled in the desktop space, yet it is alive and kicking in the notebook arena.
As an XPS13 owner with a hamstrung i7 "premium" cpu - I'll hold my breath regarding any performance boasts until I see the thermals and throttling behaviour in independent tests of retail consumer units. Don't care what the headline values are if it throttles to the point of uselessness
The major problem I have with MacBook and iMac is the price which start at $1000 then you see "with intel HD graphics" Does it make sense to have an i7 processor with intel HD graphics?
Thank you AMD!
yes. Mine does. Have enough threads for sound recording and photo editing but without the penalty on battery life that a dGPU would bring. Not everyone buying an i7 wants to game.Originally Posted by lumireleon
photo editing works better with a better GPU. AMD offers better graphics horsepower on low tier chips, intel customers suffer because of intel's bad graphics.yes. Mine does. Have enough threads for sound recording and photo editing but without the penalty on battery life that a dGPU would bring. Not everyone buying an i7 wants to game.
yes, not saying it doesn't, but for what I need to do on the move I prefer the battery life and no GPU weight or battery hit. I do heavy photo editing on a laptop a couple of times a year. I do daily commuting and basic work stuff much more often. For my needs no GPU is the better option, even if performance in the extreme case is a little bit lower. Quite often consumer mobile GPU don't qualify for full CUDA/similar support anyway.
Solidworks seems to prefer intel graphics over low end nvidia cards, or at least it did when I was looking for a laptop (HD 520 vs 940MX, that was all that was available).
Also, what's the point of the i7s now? 10% extra boost clock isn't enough for intel to charge the normal i7 premium, tbh I'm quite surprised that we got hyperthreading on the i5s
Running sub-2GHz on all cores means it shouldn't be too hard to fit in the same thermal profile
over inflated chips. just cause it has hyper-threading, does not mean you have to jack up the prices. BUT their are ALWAYS idiots who by without doing research.
I think people are as usually confusing desktop and mobile parts as mobile i5 have 'always' had HyperThreading. In fact (ignoring mobile quads which were rare until now), for mobile parts i3 / i5 / i7 has just been a matter of 'no turbo' (i3), or lower turbo speeds or less cache (i5 vs i7) but all with 2C/4T.
You're right that it isn't too dissimilar to the previous setup, but now mobile i5 has more logical cores than desktop i5 which seems odd
You're a few years out of date there, AMD's existing integrated graphics is slower than Intel's on 15W chips.photo editing works better with a better GPU. AMD offers better graphics horsepower on low tier chips, intel customers suffer because of intel's bad graphics.yes. Mine does. Have enough threads for sound recording and photo editing but without the penalty on battery life that a dGPU would bring. Not everyone buying an i7 wants to game.
Short of the much higher power recent GPUs from AMD and nVidia it's hard to beat Intel's GPUs generally. One of the older low end dedicated GPUs like the GM108 might be a little faster in pure power terms but it's also typically less efficient and doesn't compare favourably for technology support.
Logical cores mean little when the desktop i5 will still have an additional +2 physical cores.
Agreed. A 15w Intel iGPU (15w iGPU not 15w SoC) will match performance with a 920-930MX which uses double the power.You're a few years out of date there, AMD's existing integrated graphics is slower than Intel's on 15W chips.photo editing works better with a better GPU. AMD offers better graphics horsepower on low tier chips, intel customers suffer because of intel's bad graphics.yes. Mine does. Have enough threads for sound recording and photo editing but without the penalty on battery life that a dGPU would bring. Not everyone buying an i7 wants to game.
Short of the much higher power recent GPUs from AMD and nVidia it's hard to beat Intel's GPUs generally. One of the older low end dedicated GPUs like the GM108 might be a little faster in pure power terms but it's also typically less efficient and doesn't compare favourably for technology support.
Unlikely. Leaks and rumours of 4-core U series and 6-core H series in 2017 timeframe (originally Cannonlake) were out over a year before Ryzen was even named.
No danger of that here, aside from with incompetent/lazy manufacturers who design cooling systems that fall far short of TDP. Intel chips currently have heavily overstated TDPs and rarely use more than 60-70% of the rated TDP under normal loads with all cores at 100%. Plenty of headroom to play around with, even if they'll push closer with this generation. If my 6th gen Skylake can manage 1.9Ghz on 4 cores at under 16W there'll be no issue of more efficient 8th gen chips having trouble, especially when only 10-12w is used by the cores and the rest by my non-low-power RAM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote