Specs leak for 13W, 10W Ivy Bridge CPUs

[safan80]

source

Well, the folks at VR-Zone Chinese have gotten their hands on what looks like an Intel PowerPoint slide with specs for five new Intel processors?and their TDPs are as low as 10W. Ooh...

Apparently known as the "Y" series, these processors will show up in the first quarter of next year, according to VR-Zone. At the low end, the series will include a Pentium 2129Y with two cores, two threads, a 1.1GHz core clock speed, 2MB of cache, and a 10W "nominal" TDP. Neither Turbo Boost nor HyperThreading will be on the menu for that offering.

Main source with picture.

I wouldn't mind a socket 2011 xeon as one of these.

[Iconyu]

source

Main source with picture.

I wouldn't mind a socket 2011 xeon as one of these.

I'm not seeing the attraction of a two CPU, in a eight core capable socket. Even if you meant eight cores at 10w each, they are at crazy low clocks, without unlocked multi you'd be better off with a 4ghz quad for performance.

[defect9]

Hmmm... a very low power passive-cooled media pc could be on the menu with something like that.

...not that you can't already go with an atom or equivalent.

[FischOderAal]

I do not see the use of such EULV processors. Maybe it's because I'm a system engineer but the whole system needs to make sense.

And a 10 W EULV processor coupled with a chipset that smokes 20 W does not make any sense to me. This was my problem with the first iteration of Atom as well. The processor did not consume a lot of energy, but it was slow and the chipset was just an old chip gobbling energy. Just did not make sense as a complete system.

[naokaji]

isn't haswell a bit too close for new mobile ivy chips to make sense?

[bamtan2]

I do not see the use of such EULV processors. Maybe it's because I'm a system engineer but the whole system needs to make sense.

And a 10 W EULV processor coupled with a chipset that smokes 20 W does not make any sense to me. This was my problem with the first iteration of Atom as well. The processor did not consume a lot of energy, but it was slow and the chipset was just an old chip gobbling energy. Just did not make sense as a complete system.

Some system designer you are. Put this in a portable computer and get more battery life. Put in less battery and heat sink and fan and get a smaller portable computer. I guess the systems you design must not be computers.

[safan80]

I'm not seeing the attraction of a two CPU, in a eight core capable socket. Even if you meant eight cores at 10w each, they are at crazy low clocks, without unlocked multi you'd be better off with a 4ghz quad for performance.

I was thinking of a single socket 2011.. I have one in addition to my dual cpu setup.. I was thinking in the context of a file server/set top box/htpc with with registered memory.

I do not see the use of such EULV processors. Maybe it's because I'm a system engineer but the whole system needs to make sense.

And a 10 W EULV processor coupled with a chipset that smokes 20 W does not make any sense to me. This was my problem with the first iteration of Atom as well. The processor did not consume a lot of energy, but it was slow and the chipset was just an old chip gobbling energy. Just did not make sense as a complete system.

The c602 chipset only does 8 watts of power... The x79 only does 7.8 watts that's 20 watts for the two if you round up.

isn't haswell a bit too close for new mobile ivy chips to make sense?

No not if intel wants to keep wants to keep it's partners happy. It would allow those that had stock in there current generation soon be older generation parts another outlet for revenue.

[FischOderAal]

Some system designer you are. Put this in a portable computer and get more battery life. Put in less battery and heat sink and fan and get a smaller portable computer. I guess the systems you design must not be computers.

True. I do not design computers. But nevertheless it does not make sense to focus on one component of the system alone. You gain more by spreading your efforts. So if you have 10 W for the CPU and 20 W for the north- and southbridge, wouldn't it make more sense to have 15 W for the CPU and 15 W for north- and southbridge?

But well, I guess the engineers at Intel are doing their jobs and have given everything their thoughts.

[cobra_kai]

True. I do not design computers. But nevertheless it does not make sense to focus on one component of the system alone. You gain more by spreading your efforts. So if you have 10 W for the CPU and 20 W for the north- and southbridge, wouldn't it make more sense to have 15 W for the CPU and 15 W for north- and southbridge?

But well, I guess the engineers at Intel are doing their jobs and have given everything their thoughts.

According to Anand's article on Haswell they are doing just that: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/i...l-architecture.

I guess they didn't want to do the same for Ivy Bridge when Haswell is around the corner.

[safan80]

True. I do not design computers. But nevertheless it does not make sense to focus on one component of the system alone. You gain more by spreading your efforts. So if you have 10 W for the CPU and 20 W for the north- and southbridge, wouldn't it make more sense to have 15 W for the CPU and 15 W for north- and southbridge?

But well, I guess the engineers at Intel are doing their jobs and have given everything their thoughts.

You do realize that none of the chipsets for ivy-bridge goes above 10 watts, right? the c602 uses 8 watts, x 79 uses 7.8 watts, the z77 uses 6.7 watts, and the um77 (mobile) uses 3 watts of power. Where are you getting 20 watts for the bridge chip??

The math goes like this

10 for the cpu..

10 + 8 =18 watts

10 7.8 = 17.8 watts

10 + 6.7 = 16.7 watts


I'm not including the mobile chipset because I'm sure they could make a mobile cpu that would use less power... The point I was making is this would allow for a nice low powered file server that would rival current arm based solution that can't run windows 7 or server 2003 2008

[Iconyu]

I was thinking of a single socket 2011.. I have one in addition to my dual cpu setup.. I was thinking in the context of a file server/set top box/htpc with with registered memory.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...0-server-chips

It's not exactly what you wanted, but it's closer than I expected. But saying that, these are still Atoms.

[safan80]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...0-server-chips

It's not exactly what you wanted, but it's closer than I expected. But saying that, these are still Atoms.

Thank you but these are not in the context of ivy bridge. I posted wattage for each bridge for ivy bridge that are directly from ark.intel.com not some third party. FischOderAal still needs to answer his claim.

[JaD]

I do not see the use of such EULV processors. Maybe it's because I'm a system engineer but the whole system needs to make sense.

And a 10 W EULV processor coupled with a chipset that smokes 20 W does not make any sense to me. This was my problem with the first iteration of Atom as well. The processor did not consume a lot of energy, but it was slow and the chipset was just an old chip gobbling energy. Just did not make sense as a complete system.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Q/HM 76/77 have a 4.1W TDP.
Of course it's important to improve every component's power efficiency, and the indistry IS doing that with RAM, SSDs, LCD backlighting etc. You can't make incredible jumps altogether, in the current generation scraping another 4W off the CPU is the best they can do, with the next the overall CPU-NB efficiency will improve.

The real critic about this announcement should be another...
they're just limiting current products' frequencies, which is something you can actually already do with current CPUs, not to mention every U-series CPU have an official 14W mode. All this looks like another Intel scam to milk customers over ultrabook designs.

[kjeldoran]

Aren't these the chips that are going into Microsoft's surface pro?