Tock-Tick: Haswell-Broadwell

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by fac183, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. fac183, Oct 29, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013

    fac183 macrumors newbie

    Oct 29, 2013
    How big of a concern is iVR in regards to the new Haswell rMBPs?

    According to multiple sources, the integrated voltage regulator (iVR) is being moved off-die and back onto the motherboard for the Broadwell tick.

    Some people go so far as to even claim that Sandy Bridge is faster and more efficient than Haswell when overclocked.

    It seems to me that sacrificing CPU performance and temperature in favor of battery life may not be such a favorable trade off.


    "Intel wouldn't be drawn on the subject, but rumours from some motherboard manufacturers are that the integrated voltage regulator (iVR) is being moved off-die and back onto the motherboard. Some people have claimed that the extra heat generated by shifting the iVR onto the CPU has been responsible for the weaker over clocking performance of Haswell versus Ivy Bridge." -- PC Gamer: Intel reveal new Broadwell CPU technology, due out next year

    "Broadwell will adopt the Multi-Chip Package (MCP) design. New layout might be also moving the integrated voltage regulator (iVR) off-die and back onto the motherboards, in an attempt to reduce CPU's heat production." -- Wikipedia: Broadwell microarchitecture
  2. 827538 macrumors 65816

    Jul 3, 2013
    From what I've seen there hasn't been much of an improvement since Intel came out with Sandy Bridge which really blew everyone away. When they went down to 22nm + 3D transistors they also switched to using thermal paste instead of solder between the chip and the metal cover. Hence why overclocking was so much harder with Ivy and Haswell.
    I've seen people de-lid their post Sandy chips and reapply good paste correctly and it massively improves overclocking - back to Sandy levels.

    Although I'm starting to get a bit concerned with Intel direction, it makes complete sense focusing on power efficiency, seeing as performance of modern i5's and i7's is so good. But if they continue to let raw performance stagnate in the push for lower and lower TDP's we will quickly run into problems of not having enough CPU grunt to meet our ever more demanding needs.

    How I see it is, once Intel reaches their TDP goals, probably with Cannonlake. Ivy was a fab shrink which improves power efficiency greatly, Haswell was designed to be a power efficient architecture, Broadwell is another node shrink with improved power efficiency (30% supposedly) so performance will not improve then Skylake will further improve efficiency with a small performance boost (I imagine this will really take aim at tablets and maybe even phones), Cannonlake will finally see Intel with ultra low TDP's in relatively powerful chips. After that they will begin to refocus on improved performance.

    All the while Intel will increase their iGPU performance on both tick and tick cycles - which carries risk. We'll see 8 core and perhaps 12-16 core implementations for the consumer and enterprise markets. Essentially Intel has only one more architecture build to really focus on power efficiency, the other two are simply process shrinks which inherently improve power efficiency. Plus the PC market will bottom out and start improving again. I love tablets and smartphones but they are simply not as useful to get much serious work done on and I can't see that changing much.

    Edit: I'm actually really excited to see what GPU improvements Broadwell brings. As Nvidia's Maxwell should be quite impressive in performance per Watt, so I wonder if Intel will finally go full iGPU or decide the improvements offered by an 850M warrant it's inclusion. It will be a lot different compared to 650>750!

Share This Page