Core M

[76ShovelHead]

Finally found an article about Core M.

Basically and from what I understand, it bridges the gap between Intel Atom and Core i series, offering performance that is closer to the latter while providing a fan-less solution and the power efficiency of Atom.

Can't wait to see real world performance on the new Macbook, I'm very tempted to pick one up when they're released.

 

[GGJstudios]

This may be helpful:

Intel’s New Core M CPU: Everything You Need to Know
Intel® Core™ M-5Y70 processor compared to Intel® Core™ i5-520UM processor
Intel® Core™ M Processors

 

[76ShovelHead]

This may be helpful:

Intel’s New Core M CPU: Everything You Need to Know
Intel® Core™ M-5Y70 processor compared to Intel® Core™ i5-520UM processor
Intel® Core™ M Processors

Thank you, the first link you posted pretty much summed it up for me.

 

[crsh1976]

What is interesting is how Intel is spinning the Core M; it's a low-power chip for fanless 'connected devices', but instead of ending up in sub-$500 products where it belongs, it's featured in $1k+ business machines and the new rMB - and that's despite offering less performance than an Ivy Bridge i3 chip from 3 years ago (keep in mind those products back then were also going for less than what the Yoga 3 Pro and the rMB).

The Core M family isn't total crap, far from it and that's not what I'm aiming at, it's just not priced right and it isn't used in the right category of products.

 

[zhenya]

I disagree. Apple has hit the nail on the head for where CoreM should be used. There is absolutely a very large market segment for whom their daily workflow has not been cpu-bound for many years. Those consumers value portability, battery life, and quiet, cool operation over having extra CPU power that they don't really need.

I really hope that Microsoft makes a line of their Surface tablets based off the Core M which will allow them to slim the device down substantially, while maintaining all day battery life.

 

[TheGdog]

I disagree. Apple has hit the nail on the head for where CoreM should be used. There is absolutely a very large market segment for whom their daily workflow has not been cpu-bound for many years. Those consumers value portability, battery life, and quiet, cool operation over having extra CPU power that they don't really need.

I really hope that Microsoft makes a line of their Surface tablets based off the Core M which will allow them to slim the device down substantially, while maintaining all day battery life.

For normal tasks, (Safari, mail, iMessage, and medium duty apps) the SSD and faster memory is what makes all the performance difference. Data speed is the normal limitation, not the processor.

However, if you were trying to say, edit a 4K video or play a video game, you might run into problems with the Core M. (to say the least). But thats not the target audience.

 

[zhenya]

For normal tasks, (Safari, mail, iMessage, and medium duty apps) the SSD and faster memory is what makes all the performance difference. Data speed is the normal limitation, not the processor.

However, if you were trying to say, edit a 4K video or play a video game, you might run into problems with the Core M. (to say the least). But thats not the target audience.

Yes, exactly. If editing video or gaming is your thing, then this is not the laptop for you!

The reality is that much of the average person's workflow routine mostly consists of office programs, email, web browsing, video, and even many of the programs that business users run operate through the web browser now. This device is more than powerful enough for them.

 

[The Phazer]

While hardcore gaming isn't the aim, there are a lot of people who'd value a portable machine that could play the odd half an hour of a relatively undemanding title while on the train or plane occasionally.

Those are the scenarios that the Macbook Air had become very good at, and which the Core M is very (very) bad at.

 

[jclardy]

My main concern is throttling...my current rMBP fans go bezerk when I open a Google Hangouts video chat, or stream HD video from a website (This is the original 2012 13"...so the underpowered HD4000)

So that is the main thing I am wondering...is it going to start crawling after a minute or two of a particularly intensive task because it has no way to dissipate heat other than slowing down.

 

[Glockworkorange]

What is interesting is how Intel is spinning the Core M; it's a low-power chip for fanless 'connected devices', but instead of ending up in sub-$500 products where it belongs, it's featured in $1k+ business machines and the new rMB - and that's despite offering less performance than an Ivy Bridge i3 chip from 3 years ago (keep in mind those products back then were also going for less than what the Yoga 3 Pro and the rMB).

The Core M family isn't total crap, far from it and that's not what I'm aiming at, it's just not priced right and it isn't used in the right category of products.

The Core M isn't in the rMB refresh---those are Broadwell Core i's.

 

[crsh1976]

The Core M isn't in the rMB refresh---those are Broadwell Core i's.

The new Macbook has the Core M (Broadwell-Y), while the Macbook Air (and 13-inch rMPB) has Core i5/i7 (Broadwell-U).

It's all Broadwell stuff, just different classes of chips.

 

[NewbieCanada]

I know it would be an oversimplification, but I wish someone would just say, "A Core M will perform like an XXX CPU and ZZZ GPU like was used in the 20XX YY-inch MacBook LLL"

I'm not going to do any processing on mine. As intense as it's going to get is extremely minor photo-editing if I want to crop or fix the white balance on a photo while on vacation. Other than that - small Excel spreadsheets, web, email and video playback. My biggest question is if it will handle h.265 encoded video.

I'd also like to know how hot it's going to get on my lap. My old 13-inch MacBook air stayed pretty cool through normal tasks. Cool enough to rest comfortably on my lap and the fan was usually at its lowest speed. MacBook Pro not so much!

 

[The Phazer]

I know it would be an oversimplification, but I wish someone would just say, "A Core M will perform like an XXX CPU and ZZZ GPU like was used in the 20XX YY-inch MacBook LLL"

I'm not going to do any processing on mine. As intense as it's going to get is extremely minor photo-editing if I want to crop or fix the white balance on a photo while on vacation. Other than that - small Excel spreadsheets, web, email and video playback. My biggest question is if it will handle h.265 encoded video.

I'd also like to know how hot it's going to get on my lap. My old 13-inch MacBook air stayed pretty cool through normal tasks. Cool enough to rest comfortably on my lap and the fan was usually at its lowest speed. MacBook Pro not so much!

The problem is that it's not really comparable to any of them. It's pretty snappy if you need processor spikes of a few seconds - certainly adequate. But the problem is that without the fan to cool it it will get throttled down very heavily and that will result in very poor performance for something that requires half an hour of decent performance (such as, say, running Starcraft II), and therefore will be worse at those tasks than some very, very old processors.

We also don't know exactly how the thermal management will work, because that in part depends on how well Apple is pulling heat out via the case. If they've done a good job that might need to be less aggressive.

 

[zhenya]

The problem is that it's not really comparable to any of them. It's pretty snappy if you need processor spikes of a few seconds - certainly adequate. But the problem is that without the fan to cool it it will get throttled down very heavily and that will result in very poor performance for something that requires half an hour of decent performance (such as, say, running Starcraft II), and therefore will be worse at those tasks than some very, very old processors.

We also don't know exactly how the thermal management will work, because that in part depends on how well Apple is pulling heat out via the case. If they've done a good job that might need to be less aggressive.

Apple hasn't made any special concessions to run this chip without a fan. It's only 5w, designed to be fanless by Intel.

If you aren't making much heat, a fanless heatsink is more than adequate to dissipate it. The fan is only necessary when you've saturated your heatsink and you need to actively cool it. If the heat sink never reaches that point, then no need for a fan.

 

[crsh1976]

The problem is that it's not really comparable to any of them. It's pretty snappy if you need processor spikes of a few seconds - certainly adequate. But the problem is that without the fan to cool it it will get throttled down very heavily and that will result in very poor performance for something that requires half an hour of decent performance (such as, say, running Starcraft II), and therefore will be worse at those tasks than some very, very old processors.

We also don't know exactly how the thermal management will work, because that in part depends on how well Apple is pulling heat out via the case. If they've done a good job that might need to be less aggressive.

There's no need to, the Core M is designed to sit in fanless products, thus it sure as hell does not have the same horsepower as your typical laptop chip - it's cooler, uses less power, but it's also a lot slower.

Think of this way: it's going to be more than enough to surf the Web and look at Youtube videos (probably not 1080p ones, but who knows), it will be fine to work in Office and do some light photo editing, but you can out-right forget about playing 3D games unless you enjoy 2-3 FPS slideshows.

It's not that it can't theoretically push all those polygons and pixels, it's because it's designed with stiff restrictions in order to not burn up in those fanless cases - it hits that wall fast when trying to get demanding work out of it.

Hence the whole performance/price issue many are speculating about since the announcement (also due to other products' less than stellar run in with the Core M chip).

 

[The Phazer]

Apple hasn't made any special concessions to run this chip without a fan. It's only 5w, designed to be fanless by Intel.

If you aren't making much heat, a fanless heatsink is more than adequate to dissipate it. The fan is only necessary when you've saturated your heatsink and you need to actively cool it. If the heat sink never reaches that point, then no need for a fan.

It doubles in clockspeed under turbo boost mode. At that time you need to shift heat out very quickly, and the turbo boost will be throttled back much quicker if you aren't able to do that.

Since Apple don't have a fan to enable, we're going to have to see how quickly their case design can shunt the heat out - the Lenovo Yoga 3 was very bad at that and could barely turbo boost at all, and was in fact run at 3.5w normally to keep heat down. And as a result it was sluggish running Chrome.

This will perform better unless Apple have really cocked something up, but not that much better. Browsing a webpage with a heavy rendering overhead (or, crucially, watching video that was encoded in H265) is not going to be super fun on this machine unless it can turbo boost, and it is probably not going to be able to do that much, depending on what Apple has achieved with heat dissipation.

 

[maclook]

Since Apple don't have a fan to enable, we're going to have to see how quickly their case design can shunt the heat out - the Lenovo Yoga 3 was very bad at that and could barely turbo boost at all, and was in fact run at 3.5w normally to keep heat down. And as a result it was sluggish running Chrome.

Looks like there's a good ventilation system going through those "speaker" holes. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

 

[GGJstudios]

Looks like there's a good ventilation system going through those "speaker" holes. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

Nope, those aren't used as vents. Apple stated there is no need for fans or vents. Heat will dissipate through the body, but speaker holes have never been used as vents in MacBooks.