Specs leak for 13W, 10W Ivy Bridge CPUs

Remember that rumor about Intel rolling out some lower-wattage Ivy Bridge CPUs ahead of the Haswell launch? Well, the folks at VR-Zone Chinese have gotten their hands on what looks like an Intel PowerPoint slide with specs for five new Intel processors—and their TDPs are as low as 10W. Ooh…

Apparently known as the "Y" series, these processors will show up in the first quarter of next year, according to VR-Zone. At the low end, the series will include a Pentium 2129Y with two cores, two threads, a 1.1GHz core clock speed, 2MB of cache, and a 10W "nominal" TDP. Neither Turbo Boost nor HyperThreading will be on the menu for that offering.

The series flagship will be known as the Core i7-3689Y. That model will have two cores, four threads, a 1.5GHz base clock speed, a 2.6GHz peak Turbo speed, 4MB of cache, and a slightly higher 13W power envelope. Both the low-end Pentium and the high-end Core i7 will have a 850MHz graphics speed, but the i7’s IGP is labeled "Intel HD Graphics 4000" in the spec sheet, while the Pentium’s is just marked "Intel HD Graphics." The Pentium’s IGP may simply have a few units disabled.

10W is the exact figure Intel is targeting with its next-gen Haswell mobile chips. Getting there ahead of schedule with Ivy Bridge would definitely be unexpected. VR-Zone doesn’t speculate on the kinds of systems these power-sipping Ivy CPUs will drive, but I expect slimmer ultrabooks and even some tablets may be in store. Exciting stuff. (Thanks to X-bit labs for the link.)

Comments closed
    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    What socket are these??

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    A double speed turbo clock totally wont change the TDP. >>

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    Y U NO MEAK SOMETHING BETTER?

    • internetsandman
    • 7 years ago

    Core i7 with two cores and four threads….marketing department shenanigans.

    LOOK AT THIS SHINY NEW CORE i7-3000 SERIES POWERED TABLET! AMAZING!

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 7 years ago

      You realize that Intel has been shipping ULV dual core i7s for two generations already, right?

        • internetsandman
        • 7 years ago

        Sadly now yes, I do remember, but the point still stands, it is mildly deceptive marketing

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]deceptive marketing[/quote<] That's redundant

            • TaBoVilla
            • 7 years ago

            ba dum tssss

        • rrr
        • 7 years ago

        Just because it did, doesn’t mean it isn’t confusing for consumers.

        Desktop i7 – 4C/8T
        ULV i7 – 2C/4T

        less than half performance.

        If mobile GPUs already caught criticism for that, it’s consistent to criticize those CPUs as well.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    Intel HD Graphics, lol.

      • cartman_hs
      • 7 years ago

      what’s so funny about that?

      Is it too good compare to PowerVR SGX than you couldn’t bear the excitement?

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        He’s right: Intel HD graphics are nothing to laugh about! (maybe cry though….)

      • mnecaise
      • 7 years ago

      Intel HD 4000 is not all bad. You won’t be playing Crysis on it but it should do fine for most general purposes. If the mfg wants to sell you faster graphics, they’ll stick an nVidia or AMD graphics chip on the board along side the processor.

        • link626
        • 7 years ago

        you can still play crysis on it. It’s a sucky game no matter how you play it anyway

    • DPete27
    • 7 years ago

    Ummm, why is that called an i7-3689Y? I thought i5’s were dual core with hyperthreading and Turbo Boost.

      • PopcornMachine
      • 7 years ago

      I7s are quads with hyperthreading.
      I5s are quads without hpyperthreaing.
      I3s are dual with hyperthreading.

      Why break this already broken pattern?

      These should be I3s.

      The world is run by marketing majors. 🙁

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      It’s just because of differences in the way laptops / tablets and desktops are used.

      Mobile parts have always had dual-cores run the full range, from Celeron to i7, since they came up with the iX branding. Desktops have i5 quad-cores for that range, instead, which mobile has never offered.

      When a mobile dual-core is branded i7, it has the largest L3 cache size, and the turbo boost is higher than the i5s.

        • internetsandman
        • 7 years ago

        Yet there are laptops with physical quad cores, some of which even have hyperthreading, so with an i7, if that’s all the info you get, you don’t know for sure if you’re getting 4 or 8 threads

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 7 years ago

          All i7s, mobile or desktop, always have HT and turbo.

          i7 never meant X number of cores or threads. There have been 2, 4, and 6 core i7s. Soon, there will be 8 and 10. Haswell will go up to 14.

          Designating an entire brand to one specific number of cores or threads would be much more confusing than the existing system. There are way too many possibilities.

          It suggests the price range, more than anything.

            • internetsandman
            • 7 years ago

            I’d rather they use i# to denote the the core/thread count;

            i3: dual core, hyperthreaded
            i5: quad core
            i7: quads core, hyperthreaded
            Etc.

            And use M and L to denote laptop versions and ULV versions within those categories, so instead of a dual core i7, you would have a mobile core i3 or a ULV i3 (or even i1, though that’s not as nice to market I’m sure)

            I’m clearly not the only one to have associated i# with thread/core count when the new naming scheme got settled in, and for consumers who don’t know much about these sorts of tech spec, what would be jargon to them, they may have heard once that i7’s power high performance desktop rigs, and then a tablet is advertised with an i7, and their expectations are risen more than they should be

    • brucethemoose
    • 7 years ago

    Cut the i7-3689Y in half to make a single core chip with half the graphics power, and you have a 6.5W core at 1.5ghz. Clock it down to, say 800mhz – 1.2ghz at the same voltage, and the “power envelope” would be in the 4W-5.5W territory. Lower the voltage with clockspeed, and you could have a single core IVB bumping into ARM’s territory while VASTLY outperforming it.

    Unfortunately, the southbridge/rest of the circuitry would render these power savings pointless, but haswell SOCs are set to solve that next year, and it’ll bring additional power savings.

    I’d be scared if I were ARM Holdings. They can compete with Atom, but the monstrosity that is the core architecture is simply in another league, and this headline shows that Intel is very, very eager to push it into the low power territory.

      • nico1982
      • 7 years ago

      You are way too much simplistic. Peak performance and TDP are a tiny part of the equation. Just cost and die area put them in another league, and not for the better. On top of that, the simple fact that Intel has a next gen Atom chip in the pipeline is a proof that even Intel knows that the Core architecture isn’t viable for the mobile market.

        • brucethemoose
        • 7 years ago

        Cost and idle power consumption are issues, yes.

      • HibyPrime
      • 7 years ago

      I can definitely see them making an even lower power Haswell (or possibly Broadwell) shooting for the 4-6w envelope. That said, I can’t see Intel making a single core processor this late in the game. It’s just too hard to market a single core, even if it is the fastest thing around (see atom in cell phones).

      With the high end ARM SoCs advancing at a pace not even Intel can match, and Intel 1-2 years away from having something that sits perfectly fine in a low power tablet, it will be interesting to see the match up in a few years time. I have no idea who will win.

      I read somewhere that Cortex-A9 CPUs are roughly clock for clock the same performance as a pentium 4. If that’s true, then I wouldn’t be so quick to count out the Cortex-A50 series vs Haswell/Broadwell at the low power end.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      Disabling those parts doesn’t get you too far because they’re already running near minimum voltage, as if they are locked in the idle power state.

      Intel doesn’t adjust the TDP for single-core ULV parts, as it doesn’t make enough difference to change the cooling system’s design, even for a tablet.

      You still have the memory controller, ring bus, and L3 cache to deal with, which are large and busy portions of the chip.

      In all likelihood, they have disabled a memory channel already. That is what will be done with 10w Haswell.

    • cartman_hs
    • 7 years ago

    if they make their way into surface pro…it would be a near perfect ultra-tablet!!

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    That’s interesting.

    Doubling cache, increasing clocks by 400 MHz, adding HT, adding turbo up to 2.6 GHz and increasing graphics power only takes an additional 3W.

    Edit: With such a small change in wattage to add so many more performance features, is 10W some kind of power floor on IB at 22 nm?

      • bcronce
      • 7 years ago

      What I was thinking. I bet it has more to do with idle power draw than peak.

      • Goty
      • 7 years ago

      I wonder if it’s more appropriate to look at this as a 30% increase in TDP rather than “just 3W”?

        • jdaven
        • 7 years ago

        I was thinking this too but at these low power levels, just adding a functional unit like XD can increase power by a significant amount, let’s just say 1W for argument sake. This is a 10% increase in power however, when we are talking about 77W processors this is only 1.2%.

      • brucethemoose
      • 7 years ago

      It’s all about binning… while Pentiums are like reject silicon, the i7s are the best out of the factory. They can probably run at a higher frequency with all those other features at a lower voltage than the pentiums do.

      There’s certainly no power floor. If you clocked Ivy at 800mhz or less, you could lower the voltage and power consumption drastically.

        • kalelovil
        • 7 years ago

        This.
        Those 13W i7 won’t come cheap, nor in large quantities.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 7 years ago

      Turbo can significantly increase power use. It doesn’t increase the TDP rating because it only works when the chip is cool.

      The trouble with these super low TDP CPUs with turbo boost is that it barely works at 17w. For example, if you play a game, the GPU may still run 1 GHz, but the CPU will instantly drop to its lowest speed. It has no room to really build up heat. This is why Bobcat could beat ULV Sandy Bridge.

      Higher TDP CPUs may still use the same amount of power in [b<]most[/b<] cases, but the difference is that they can maintain a higher, or even the highest, speed under a sustained load. The laptop quad-cores can actually max out the CPU and GPU turbo at the same time and keep it going.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        The other problem with depending on Turbo is that it depends heavily on the cooling system too. Slim notebooks naturally have weaker cooling systems so the amount of time at Turbo speeds is never that great, especially for sustained loads.

        I’m not saying Turbo is bad because you could just say that the CPU wouldn’t be any faster without Turbo, but you have to be careful when reading benchmarks.

      • DavidC1
      • 7 years ago

      It likely is. Because you still have the System Agent, Memory Controller, I/O, and LLC to deal with. So you need a new design to drop it further. What isn’t sure is if Haswell will allow such to happen, or it’ll just optimize it better for the new low power points.

    • Thatguy
    • 7 years ago

    Depending on pricing these could make for some powerful laptops with great battery life where we currently see compromised performance.

    • Meadows
    • 7 years ago

    I can’t see why they would call it the “Y” series. I mean, Y?

      • homerdog
      • 7 years ago

      rimshot

      • brute
      • 7 years ago

      interestlY

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      PurportedlY

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    These chips could certainly be used in some interesting applications, but the sudden push to move the heavyweight Core series chips into ever smaller power envelopes tends to cast more doubt on how well next-generation Atom chips are expected to do too.

      • Narishma
      • 7 years ago

      Atoms should still be cheaper than even the low-powered Pentiums.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 7 years ago

        I’ve seen that the dual-core Atom SoC runs $40. Intel still charges almost that much for southbridges by themselves, which Atom no longer has.

        Of course, those are advertised prices, and some Pentiums and Celerons are dirt cheap, but even a $20 difference becomes significant when we’re talking about $200 devices.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      You’re discounting the probability that the Core team is doing this because it can, not because Intel fears the next-gen Atom can’t.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This