Intel CEO says next-gen 'Broadwell' CPUs will launch by end of 2014

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    ascii wrote: »
    Do they really need to wait for the next CPU before upgrading computers these days? Things like faster SSDs or new ports (Thunderbolt 2) or Retina displays are more important. CPUs only go up a few percent year after year.

    True, but I think it's expected. If Apple did spec-bumped everything else, but left the CPU alone, you'd see posts complaining about that.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,765member
    Yawn.

    As a builder of gaming PC's for many years I used to look forward to new processors from Intel to see what performance would bring. It used to be that each new version brought a significant performance increase and often necessitated in me upgrading my motherboard, CPU and RAM. Not anymore. Now all we get are minor improvements each year.

    I remember Intel many years ago counting on clock speed scaling, and they created the deeply pipelined NetBurst (P4) micro-architecture around this bet, anticipating someday having 10Ghz clocks. It never happened, with Intel experiencing a thermal wall before reaching 4.0Ghz (air cooled).

    The world also changed: GPUs became more important for games, and laptops came to dominate new computer purchases, so features like an integrated GPU and SpeedStep became a lot more important. CPUs just aren't that critical any more, except to suck less energy from the overall system. They're still important for workstations and servers, but there is a diminishing return for traditional PCs (and Macs) that aren't, say, ray tracing a global illumination scene or doing some mass data crunching. The average user isn't doing that.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Are you certain of that? We do see newer RAM hit servers first because of the increased costs but it always hits the mobile markets and with DDR4 being lower power over DDR3 it makes perfect sense for handhelds.





    Here is an article from 6 months ago stating that Samsung had announced DDR4 for mobile.
    Of course, as linked in that article, Samsung also stated that the 64-bit Exynos SoC would make it into the Galaxy S5.

     

    Those articles are about LPDDR4, which is a different standard than DDR-4.

  • Reply 24 of 33
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,516member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post



    Do they really need to wait for the next CPU before upgrading computers these days?

    Generally, yes. Not always, but generally. The supporting chipsets are developed in tandem with the CPUs. The faster, more numerous I/O ports (and other nifty features) come with the new chipsets.

  • Reply 25 of 33
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    afrodri wrote: »
    Those articles are about LPDDR4, which is a different standard than DDR-4.

    Am I mistaken in thinking that is still considered DDR4 RAM?
  • Reply 26 of 33
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Am I mistaken in thinking that is still considered DDR4 RAM?

     

    Yes, 'DDR4' and 'LPDDR4' are both different standards with very different physical implementations and protocols. LPDDR is designed for low power devices and has lower bandwidths than DDR which is designed for desktops/laptops/servers. DDR consumes more power, but gives better performance.

     

    They diverged some time ago. As I recall, the first LPDDR was similar to DDR, but they have both had separate evolutions since then. They just happen to have gone through about 4 versions since they diverged. This similar to DDR4 and GDDR4 – similar numbers, but they are different standards and are not mutually compatible.

     

    Put another way, it is like an elephant and an elephant seal – both large mammals, but very different beasts. :-)

  • Reply 27 of 33
    "Apple's MacBook Pros could be candidates for a late 2014 Broadwell update, if Intel were able to ship the new CPUs in a timely enough fashion."

    A guess about a theory based on a possible prediction.

    ...and published on a rumor site...
  • Reply 28 of 33
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post



    "Apple's current MacBook Air lineup boasts up to 12 hours of battery life, which means Broadwell processors could boost uptime on future models to north of 15 hours."



    That math only works if the CPU is the only thing using the battery. There's also the matter of the screen, memory, the screen, the other non-CPU chips, and of course, the screen.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

    What laptop has 2 screens?  :p


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

    O_o

     

    The screen is in that list three times, actually, so that even if people miscount they might not also miss the point. There's other things burning through your battery life than just the CPU.


     

    "The screen, boss, the screen...!!"

  • Reply 29 of 33
    macxpress wrote: »
    ronbo wrote: »
    "Apple's current MacBook Air lineup boasts up to 12 hours of battery life, which means Broadwell processors could boost uptime on future models to north of 15 hours."


    That math only works if the CPU is the only thing using the battery. There's also the matter of the screen, memory, the screen, the other non-CPU chips, and of course, the screen.

    What laptop has 2 screens?  :p

    I don't know, but the one he was referencing has three screens. ????
  • Reply 30 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    ronbo wrote: »
    "Apple's current MacBook Air lineup boasts up to 12 hours of battery life, which means Broadwell processors could boost uptime on future models to north of 15 hours."

    That math only works if the CPU is the only thing using the battery. There's also the matter of the screen, memory, the screen, the other non-CPU chips, and of course, the screen.

    True but all of those have been continually improved over the years. It looks like the bulk of Broadwell won't get DDR4, but if they do that is another big power improvement. The screens are amazingly better than even a few years ago and the same goes for the rest of the machine. Of course there are all sorts of variables including the organic beast running the machine, in the end with 14 nm you get a choice of possibilities, faster performance, lower power or a combo of those two.

    Beyond all of that there are persistent rumors of Intel going SoC with Broadwell or possibly SkyLake. This would take the support chips off the motherboard for additional power savings. The question then becomes is any SoC Intel may deliver suitable for a laptop?
  • Reply 31 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    Yawn.

    As a builder of gaming PC's for many years I used to look forward to new processors from Intel to see what performance would bring. It used to be that each new version brought a significant performance increase and often necessitated in me upgrading my motherboard, CPU and RAM. Not anymore. Now all we get are minor improvements each year.
    Yet when I try to tell people that focusing on upgradability is silly I get violent reactions that make no sense at all. It is pretty clear from the Air update that Intel has nothing to show for manufactures of laptops this year much less desktops.
    I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but Apple are now the premier processor designers. The A6 was pretty good but the A7 is a marvel. Apple has been increasing performance by a factor of 2 for the last 3 generations. When is the last time an Intel processor doubled performance over the previous generation?
    I truly doubt that Apple will be able to realistically double per core performance again. However a process shrink should make four cores a snap. So net performance could easily double. Even a modest process shrink can easily support doubling the CPU cores.
    And in a few months we'll see the A8 processor. If Apple again doubles performance, it will not only completely humiliate Samsung, Qualcomm and ARM, but will also start challenging (and even beating) Intel's mobile processor.
    Actually I heard a rumor that Apple wasn't going to focus on performance this go around instead focusing on lowering power usage. I have no idea if that is true though.
    Intel has to be scared. Desktop sales are stagnant and mobile is taking off, leaving them scrambling to catch up.
    While complete ignored by the media they had to lay off 5000 last year so they are hurting no doubt. As for catching up that is why they punted with respect to the desktop. They came right out and said that all their efforts are going into mobile.
    Only thing helping Intel (and Qualcomm) out is that Apple doesn't maker their processors available for everyone. Imagine what would happen to Snapdragon sales if OEM's could buy an A6 or A7 instead? It would be devastating to Qualcomm.

    I have to laugh when I hear all the whine about Apple not innovating when they have perhaps the most innovative ARM chip on the market. A chip with an architecture that probably could beat many desktop chips if it didn't have to live with narrow, low power RAM arrays and small caches. I see so much potential in this chip that I'd love to get a four core machine setup in a laptop. Call it A7.5, but the idea is simply moor cores and better access to RAM.
  • Reply 32 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    In your world view that may be the case, however not every bodies needs are the same.
    macxpress wrote: »
    I think desktop/notebook processors are as fast as they need to be for the average consumer.
    The average consumer could get by with an iPad. Well a faster iPad. However you need to remember that a good portion of Apples market is not the average consumer. I would estimate that a good 40% of the market Apple sells into could use a much faster laptop. This isn't just the MBP end of the market either.
    Its getting to the point where you don't need any more power than you have and the power that you do have is not even tipping the scale of what the PC/Mac can do. So instead of making them unnecessarily faster, why not make them more efficient?
    I have to disagree with you about performance, most of these machines are slow if you take a realistic look how they operate. Even for the people that it isn't a big factor why can't they have both, that is more performance and better efficiency?
    This is where we are today. This isn't the the 90's/early 2000's anymore where MHz/GHz mattered. Today, portability and battery life matters most. The performance is already there. 
    Nope! It isn't about GHz but performance is still a very real problem with todays hardware.


    That being said, yes I think Intel in the back of its mind has to start thinking about where it wants to go with its processor/chip business. As people start purchasing more and more mobile devices such as iPads their business may start shrinking more and more every year. 

    The funny thing here is that AMD is way ahead of them. AMD arguably has better chips for the tablet and mobile market, embedded and the ARM market. The issue is simple balanced performance which sometimes Intel fails at. I say sometimes because they have come a very long way with GPU's, but AMD still out performs them where it counts.

    You are right though, Intel could see a good portion of its markets fly away on ARM powered devices and AMD Brazso derived hardware. It gets more interesting if AMD catches up to Intel at 14 nm.
  • Reply 33 of 33
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    afrodri wrote: »
    Those articles are about LPDDR4, which is a different standard than DDR-4.

    doesn't really matter nothing about DDR-4 implies servers only
Sign In or Register to comment.