Surely they could drop the base clock to 233MHz and pretend it’s a 1W TDP component?
This is the big problem I have with Intel these days, their advertising is so misleading that it is likely a crime. Saying a chip runs a XX watts at 1.XX GHz is one thing but the to suggest that a boost frequency of 3 times that meAns anything of value to the consumer is misleading. Since power is directly related to operating frequency a heat sink designed for the base frequency will be woefully inadequate for the boost frequencies.
The current MacBook Air uses an i5-8210Y rated at 7W nominal TDP. The new 2TB3 13" MacBook Pro uses an i5-8257U or i7-8557U rated at 15W nominal TDP. The 4TB3 13" MacBook Pro uses an i5-8279U or i7-8569U rated at 28W nominal TDP.
So the Y series Ice Lake would need slightly better cooling than the MacBook Air currently has, but not like twice as much cooling capacity.
The U-series Ice Lake should be drop-in replacements for the U-series in the MacBook Pro.
If you want to get the advertised >3GHz on their core m’s, you probably will.
They don't specify, but yeah, the max turbo speeds they list are probably with the "ConfigUP TDP".
cTDP UP is the TDP for bumping the base frequency.
AMD just released their 12- and 16-core processors on their “mainstream” platforms, I heard they’re throwing 64 cores for HEDTs. Unfortunately they aren’t good at the mobile technology, thus only offering quad-core for laptops.
It’s awkward for laptops, while AMD have no adequate mobile technologies, Intel is falling behind in core counts. You’re stuck either way. Thus, I think moving to ARM is the best hope for the Mac notebooks, skip the last x86 Macs, especially laptops, if you can.
Also, Intel is measuring TDP at their base frequencies, which means 9 Watts maximum for core m’s - at 1.0GHz, probably not including AVX.
These new processors are rather pathetic and for the vary reason you point out! Intel has failed badly in reducing power so they reduce frequency of operation to lower the power numbers. 1.1 GHZ is pathetic especially if your work loads involve sustained computation. No amount of boost means much if systems using the chip throttle immediately.
As for AMD and the Zen based processors I think you might be under the wrong impression. AMD for whatever reason does focus on the desktop / server market first probably because of traditional strengths there. However the Zen based laptop chips are actually a huge step forward and are more honestly specced for thermals. I’ve been running an AMD based laptop with Fedora as an operating system and actually have been rather impressed. Are far cheaper machine actually runs better than the 2017 13” MBP I had. It isn’t perfect but that has more to do with Linux than anything else.
So im not sure what the schedule is for Zen2 based laptop chips, maybe the end of the year? However I’d expect them to be the ideal choice for most laptop needs out side of the Apple niche. Considering the thermals and performance of current Zen 2 based hardware I see a good chance some very competitive laptops will arrive. That would be some place between a quarter and half year after Intel shipsin volume. Frankly in this day and age that delay is meaningless.
I don’t think they do, AMD only has quad-cores for laptops and we’re in the third generation, at least Intel tried to keep up with their desktop processors.
Now they do have 8-core Ryzen within 45 watts of TDP, though it was primarily for embedded systems. I guess they can’t produce millions of them yet. That said, AMD wasn’t known for having high-performance mobile processors.
Comments
Now they do have 8-core Ryzen within 45 watts of TDP, though it was primarily for embedded systems. I guess they can’t produce millions of them yet. That said, AMD wasn’t known for having high-performance mobile processors.