Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors

[MacRumors]

During Intel's annual investor relations event earlier this week, Intel outlined a fundamental shift in its future processor designs that will likely impact Apple's future notebooks.

Until now, the bulk of Intel's notebook chips are design to draw around 35 watts of power--many of its notebook parts are lower, and some are higher, but 35 watts is the center point for Intel's portable lines. Going forward, however, the new center point will be in the 10 to 15 watt range.

Intel's future roadmap for notebook processors will now target a much lower power draw then present chips. That means ultra-low voltage processors like those found in the MacBook Air will become the norm instead of a specialty product.




Intel seems to be clearly feeling the pressure of the growing smartphone and tablet market, According to the Financial Times, Otellini describes a future of PCs evolving into "higher performance mainstream-priced, touch-enabled device that would not compromise on features such as thinness, instant-on capabilities, permanent internet connectivity and all-day battery life." Apple's notebook line will certainly benefit from these advances.

Intel and Apple have had a close relationship since Apple switched over to Intel's processors several years ago. Apple has frequently been the first computer manufacturer to ship the latest Intel technologies. In a Reuters report yesterday, Intel said they work very closely with Apple and that Apple even influences their roadmap:

"We work very closely with them and we're constantly looking down the road at what we can be doing relative to future products. I'd go as far as to say Apple helps shape our roadmap," Kilroy said.

Article Link: Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors

 

[osx11]

Yeah!! Less Power!

 

[kinless]

I just hope the entire line isn't dumbed down... some of us still need the higher-end processors for intensive work.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a low-power machine as a secondary on the go (no, not a phone or tablet).

 

[Kalach]

I just hope the entire line isn't dumbed down... some of us still need the higher-end processors for intensive work.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a low-power machine as a secondary on the go (no, not a phone or tablet).

You read my mind!

 

[alust2013]

Sounds good as long as they can make decently powerful 15W quads...yeah, I don't think so, at least not any time soon.

 

[Jimmy James]

Agree with post #3. I use a laptop hooked up to peripherals as a primary computer. It's the best of both worlds for me.

 

[BigMac2]

FUD...

Mobile ARM CPU is more in 0.5-1 watts range... I think everyone at Intel are scrambling there plan facing the rocket fast rise of ARM cpu. For sure ARM are not powerfull as the x86 chip, but ARM cpu are within 10x mark more efficient than Intel CPU.

I think Intel plan to put x86 into mobile phone and tablet are unrealistic face to ARM cpu. Any efficiency gain Intel could get on x86 cpu by reducing the fabrication process, ARM will do even better with the same trick.

 

[Fogmeister]

So what's the bet that Apple exploit this by making thinner devices with thinner batteries with the same battery life rather than using the same devices/batteries to get the "all day" power that they probably will now allow.

Will be very good to see a fully featured tablet device though. The love child of an iPad and a MacBook Air?

 

[LegendKillerUK]

Agree with post #3. I use a laptop hooked up to peripherals as a primary computer. It's the best of both worlds for me.

For me as a student who lives in two places during a week, this is also my setup. Small and portable with some grunt.

 

[Mousse]

Yeah!! Less Power!

More power. [Tim the Toolman Grunt]Uggh, ugh, uggh![/Tim the Toolman Grunt]

More efficient processors. Always a win my book. I'm looking forward to a 24 hour MacBook without needing a power brick battery.

 

[Lesser Evets]

As usual. A push for innovation sets more people squarely within a pool of fresh urine. Because, as we know, technology has been going backwards for decades now.

I just hope the entire line isn't dumbed down... some of us still need the higher-end processors for intensive work.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a low-power machine as a secondary on the go (no, not a phone or tablet).

See?

 

[NT1440]

This is great news! Its about time mobile really meant mobile, not 4-7 hours from a power source.

 

[Mr. Gates]

Anything would be better than the first run of i7's

they overheat and suck power

 

[KPOM]

My guess is that all the rumors about Apple and ARM were just saber-rattling by Apple to get Intel to commit to more ULV processors. Intel is clearly feeling the heat from ARM and their inability to get decent performance out of Atom.

 

[toddybody]

Fantastic News. Glad to see their roadmap is focused on such principles.

nVidia (Kepler, Maxwell) and AMD are also making incredible assertions about the GFLOPS/watt efficiencies in their next two generations of GPUs.

Even if battery tech increases slowly, the culmination of these things will mean some great products for us consumers

 

[apparatchik]

For me as a student who lives in two places during a week, this is also my setup. Small and portable with some grunt.

This is also my setup, I do full web development on a 13" air hooked-up to a 27"ACD, whenever I need to work on site, make a presentation, or just to watch a movie on the bed, I just unplug the comp.

Without all the issues that come with a main and secondary computer setup, plus the added cost, I think a lot of people dream would be to have a 15" pro graphic and cpu power on an airs package... dont know if this intel move would reduce actual power between laptops and desktops... in recent years the opposite trend has been the case

 

[ciTiger]

YES! This is already coming late... But hey better late than never... It Intel wants to compete better with ARM it will need to go this way! Hoping to see the new chips on MBA and MBP asap!

Now these are good news!

 

[Hellhammer]

We will still see 35W and 45W mobile CPUs though. Reducing the power consumption means slower performance and not everyone is ready to sacrifice performance for better battery life and stuff. For an average user, even a 10W Atom is sufficient so widening the lineup of low-voltage CPU sounds reasonable.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind a low-power MBA with +10 hours of battery.

 

[*LTD*]

I just hope the entire line isn't dumbed down... some of us still need the higher-end processors for intensive work.

That said, I wouldn't mind having a low-power machine as a secondary on the go (no, not a phone or tablet).

There will come a time (sooner than you think) when all that intensive work will *not* demand a so-called "higher-end" processor, or (and more likely), that those high-end processors will require a fraction of the power they require today. Looking it what the iPad 2 is capable of today, it's pretty astounding.

 

[toddybody]

We will still see 35W and 45W mobile CPUs though. Reducing the power consumption means slower performance and not everyone is ready to sacrifice performance for better battery life and stuff. For an average user, even a 10W Atom is sufficient though.

Could this "shift in design" partially reflect the "3D" re-architecture of transistors? Not to be naive in assuming that they will have their cake and eat it too...but I dont think this lower consumption will always result in performance below current LV/ULV chips.

Im hoping this will be a general evolution in efficiency (current performance at lower TDPs)

 

[Shanpdx]

Intel is the one who set higher prices for Low Voltage and Ultra Low Voltage CPUs ...

now because of iPad and Smart phones success (ARM) they are forced to bring down the power consumption as well as price

remember the 65 watts Quad Core CPU (similar to the ones in iMac) used to cost premium price than the 95watts last year compared to now

 

[Hellhammer]

There will come a time (sooner than you think) when all that intensive work will *not* demand a so-called "higher-end" processor, or (and more likely), that those high-end processors will require a fraction of the power they require today. Looking it what the iPad 2 is capable of today, it's pretty astounding.

The power consumption has actually gone up. With Pentium 4s for instance, the maximum TDP was 115W and the CPUs we have now have maximum TDP of 130W. iPad is nothing else but a brick when it comes intensive tasks such as true video editing (i.e. more than cut&paste that you can do with iMovie) and 3D rendering.

You won't see high performance CPUs that require only a fraction of power anytime soon. There is, and will always be, a market for the fastest CPUs, even if it means more heat and higher power draw.

Could this "shift in design" partially reflect the "3D" re-architecture of transistors? Not to be naive in assuming that they will have their cake and eat it too...but I dont think this lower consumption will always result in performance below current LV/ULV chips.

Im hoping this will be a general evolution in efficiency (current performance at lower TDPs)

The Tri-Gate will transistors definitely help. I didn't mean that lowering the TDP would cause the CPUs to be slower than their predecessors What it can cause, however, is that the performance upgrade will be smaller than what it would have been if the TDPs stayed the same.

Most likely, Intel's approach will take some time so this doesn't mean that Ivy Bridge mobile CPUs will all be 10-15W. Like I said, Intel will probably offer more lineup for different usages. High-performance laptops with higher TDP and then mainstream laptops with less CPU power but longer battery life etc. Quite similar to what we have now but might be that the TDPs of all CPUs will come down (e.g. 15W for mainstream, 25W performance etc).

remember the current 65 watts Quad Core CPU (similar to the ones in iMac) used to cost premium price than the 95watts last year compared to now

LV CPUs still cost a nice premium over the SV chips.

 

[toddybody]

There will come a time (sooner than you think) when all that intensive work will *not* demand a so-called "higher-end" processor

Sorry, but this seems like a huge contradiction.

If there exists "intensive work", that is considered more processing intensive than other applications, wouldnt it then require a higher echelon of processors as opposed to less powerful solutions?

Are you saying that bottom end processors of the future will totally overkill the ever evolving complex and intensive applications of the time...seems like rubbish to me.

The only way your comment would be close to accurate, is if software development stands still.

 

[azentropy]

nVidia (Kepler, Maxwell) and AMD are also making incredible assertions about the GFLOPS/watt efficiencies in their next two generations of GPUs.

Lets hope so. The power and cooling requirements for even midrange desktop cards is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Shanpdx]

LV CPUs still cost a nice premium over the SV chips.

yeah, that is going to change based on Intel statement, $300 and above price for LV/ULV CPUs are not going to cut for $600 - $800 laptop range.

I think other than MBA no other lines up sells well with LV/ULV CPUs - i may be wrong here...

What i referring was the desktop Quad Core 65 watts CPUs.