Power Consumption

Intel isn't really exploiting 22nm for significantly higher default or max turbo frequencies. While it does seem like you'll hit turbo frequencies more often with Ivy, most of what 22nm offers will be realized as power savings.

At idle, all cores are already power gated so there's not much more Ivy Bridge can offer. We see savings of a couple of watts at most over the 2600K but otherwise it's nothing significant. In notebooks I'd expect to see implementations of DDR3L help keep power consumption down, but at idle there's really not much that can be done.

Power Consumption - Idle

Power Consumption - Load (x264 HD 3.03 2nd Pass)

Under load however the power savings are significant. The Core i7 3770K pulls 27 fewer watts while delivering better performance than the 2600K. Again, translating this to what you can expect in notebooks I'd say that peak battery life likely won't be affected, but battery life under load will be better with Ivy.

Discrete GPU Gaming Performance Intel HD 4000 Performance: Crysis Warhead
POST A COMMENT

195 Comments

View All Comments

  • Valitri - Saturday, April 14, 2012 - link

    "there's also the question of which one (CPU or GPU) approaches "good enough" first."

    I was worried that my A6 3420 laptop would feel sluggish in windows and general tasks, especially compared to my 2500k desktop system. However, I've been very surprised and think it works just fine in windows.

    I was also very impressed that the iGPU lets me play most newer games comfortably. I was able to OC my A6 3420 on my Samsung 3 series to 2.0ghz. It runs Crysis 2 on low at 1366x768 in the 25-30 fps range. Now to me that is not really playable, but I was surprised it could even run it. Other games like SC2, Arkam Asylum, CSS, WOW, have all ran like a champ. Most of them even on medium settings!

    So I think if you want a cheap laptop (mine was $399), and you want the ability to play some games while still doing general tasks well, we have already hit that "good enough" stage on the CPU department. It will be interesting to see if Windows 8/Metro does anything to change this.
    Reply
  • p05esto - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link

    You are dead wrong. I need fast CPU for my work but need or care about the gpu. You realize people do more than game, right. Reply
  • SquirrelPunch - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link

    Could not disagree more.

    In fact the majority of power users do not need a powerful GPU, just lots of RAM and fast CPU.

    Graphics designers: All 2D mostly, do not need powerful GPU.

    Video Editors: Same as above.

    Software developers (not games): same as above

    Standard CAD: No intensive 3D models involved.

    Most also don't care for multi-monitor setups, or the 2x that HD series will let you use.
    Reply
  • klmccaughey - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link

    Intel needs another Larrabee. It keeps cobbling together these graphics cores, which are always well short of the mark. Either Larrabee 2 or licence from Nvidia, but something has to be done about it in the long (possible mid) term. It makes perfect sense and, to me anyway, has the air of inevitability about it.

    Why not take the plunge?
    Reply
  • MarkJohnson - Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - link

    I find it odd the AMD A8-3870K was left out of the power consumption section, but is in the others.

    I ran a quick test and my kill-a-watt meter read 126Watts max x264 HD v5.0.1 which bests all of them

    It also idles at 34.5 watts which blows them all away by a very large margin. The best is double what the AMD A8-3870K idles.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now