MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,124
15,931






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
 

kinless

macrumors regular
Apr 2, 2003
162
232
Tustin, California
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).
 
Comment

Kalach

macrumors member
Jan 11, 2011
79
0
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! :)
 
Comment

Jimmy James

macrumors 603
Oct 26, 2008
5,468
4,050
Magicland
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.
 
Comment

BigMac2

macrumors newbie
Jul 31, 2002
15
0
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.
 
Comment

Fogmeister

macrumors newbie
May 19, 2011
2
0
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?
 
Comment

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,519
1,282
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?
 
Comment

NT1440

Contributor
May 18, 2008
12,803
16,632
This is great news! Its about time mobile really meant mobile, not 4-7 hours from a power source.
 
Comment

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
16,222
5,000
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.
 
Comment
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 :)
 
Comment

apparatchik

macrumors 6502a
Mar 6, 2008
512
1,562
For me as a student who lives in two places during a week, this is also my setup. Small and portable with some grunt. :p

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
 
Comment

ciTiger

macrumors 6502a
Jan 25, 2011
626
0
Portugal (Porto)
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! :D

Now these are good news!
 
Comment

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
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.
 
Comment

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
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.
 
Comment
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)
 
Comment

Shanpdx

macrumors 68020
Sep 24, 2008
2,476
301
Blazer town!
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
 
Last edited:
Comment

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
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.
 
Last edited:
Comment
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. :rolleyes:
 
Comment

azentropy

macrumors 68030
Jul 19, 2002
2,856
2,324
Surprise
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.
 
Comment

Shanpdx

macrumors 68020
Sep 24, 2008
2,476
301
Blazer town!
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.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.