Intel Broadwell Architecture Preview: A Glimpse into Core M
by Ryan Smith on August 11, 2014 12:01 PM ESTClosing Thoughts
Wrapping up our preview of the Broadwell architecture and Intel’s Core M processor, the bulk of Intel’s presentation and focus today is on the latter, so that is where we’ll start.
Core M is not a make-or-break product for Intel, but none the less it is a very important one. Mobile devices – be it tablets, slates, transformers, 2-in-1s etc – are continuing to increase in popularity, and as we’ve seen with ARM based tablets so far they form a market that has continued to grow and continued to erode the x86 laptop market that Intel has dominated for so long. Though laptops as a category are not going anywhere any time soon, their erosion means that Intel needs to get into mobile devices if they want to maintain their sales and their stature. To that end it’s not too late for Intel to break into this market and turn things around, but if they’re going to succeed then they need to make their move sooner or later, and this is where Core M fits in.
It’s telling then that while Intel is going after this market with a Core architecture, they are doing so under a different Core brand. Core M doesn’t just represent a new low powered Core CPU, but in Intel’s eyes is another product entirely. One that is so different that it does away with the Core i3/i5/i7 convention entirely and gets its own brand name and own product numbers. Core M is still Core, but it is nearly unrecognizable compared to the Core of even 4 years ago.
As far as the Core M product is concerned then, while Intel’s plans are grand they are not without merit. Backed by Intel’s new 14nm process and the Broadwell architecture, Core M looks like it should finally resolve the issues that dogged even Haswell-Y by bringing down power consumption even further while improving on Intel’s already strong performance, and getting the resulting processor in an SoC small enough to be usable in even the thinnest mobile devices. In fact from a technical perspective there’s little reason to doubt Core M; we’ll still have to wait to see just how good the resulting retail products are, but there shouldn’t be any technical reason for why it can’t be put into a mobile device comparable to today’s 10”+ tablets. Intel’s own Llama Mountain reference design can vouch for that much, showcasing the viability of Core M in a 12.5” tablet that’s just 7.2mm thick.
Intel's Llama Mountain, a Core M form factor reference design
More likely what will determine Core M’s fate and Intel’s ability to completely break into the mobile device market will be pricing. Intel’s profit margins are somewhat legendary in the computer industry, and a big part of that profitability has come from the high prices Intel has enjoyed from products such as their Core processors. Core M, like the other Cores before it, will still be an upscale product – a higher priced, higher performance alternative to Intel’s mass-market Atom processors. And while that makes plenty of sense on paper, in the real world Intel has to face the AllWinners and other ARM vendors of the world who are happy to sell their ARM SoCs at significantly lower margins, which can have a knock-on effect even if they can’t compete with Intel on overall performance. At this point it’s far too early to call this, especially when Intel isn’t even discussing Core M pricing at this time, but it’s a subject that Intel will have to consider carefully as “good enough” ARM devices will continue to be the biggest threat to Intel’s position in the CPU market.
Moving on, while today’s release from Intel only offers us a preview of what Intel will be delivering with their Broadwell architecture, what Intel has presented thus far looks to continue Intel’s tradition of relentless execution. As a tick Broadwell is a small but respectable improvement in Intel’s Core architecture, with the expected 5% IPC improvement in-line with previous ticks. For more traditional desktops and laptops it won’t radically change the world, but then it never was meant to. The biggest question for these parts will be whether Broadwell will improve on Haswell’s clockspeeds at all – a clockspeed boost made possible by Intel’s 14nm process – or if we’re going to hold steady similar to what we saw with the last tick, Ivy Bridge.
Meanwhile Broadwell’s GPU improvements are more significant, and in the race to further improve what’s essentially the baseline for PC GPU performance it is always welcome. Furthermore the fact that Intel is now at API feature parity with discrete GPUs is a big deal for Intel and it is a big deal for iGPUs as a whole. What we still want to see is more performance; a single slice seems just about right for Core M, but if we’re talking about larger laptop and desktop parts it would be very nice to see something akin to GT3 become baseline, especially with the die size savings Intel will be seeing from the 14nm process.
Finally, from here the rest of Intel’s 2014 should be rather busy. Next month is Intel’s Fall IDF 2014, at which point we expect we’ll be given a deeper look at Broadwell’s architecture. Past that the first Broadwell-Y based Core M processors will be on the shelves for the holidays, and with it our chance to see Broadwell and Intel’s 14nm process in action. However that will also be our only chance to see Broadwell in action this year; while Core M will ship in time for the holidays, the rest of the Broadwell lineup will not appear until 2015.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
158 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Yeah, sure, and that's exactly what everyone was saying back when we were waiting for
the followon to Phenom II; just wait, their next chip will be great! Intel killer! Hmph. I recall
even many diehard AMD fans were pretty angry when BD finally came out.
Benchmarks show again and again that AMD's CPUs hold back performance in numerous
scenarios. I'd rather get a used 2700K than an 8350; leaves the latter in the dust for all CPU
tasks and far better for gaming.
Btw, you've answered your own point: if an 8350 is overkill for a game, giving 120fps, then
surely one would be better off with an i3, G3258 or somesuch, more than enough for most
gaming if the game is such that one's GPU setup & sscreen res, etc. is giving that sort of
frame rate, in which case power consumption is less, etc.
I really hope AMD can get back in the game, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
They don't have the design talent or the resources to come up with something genuinely
new and better.
Ian.
wurizen - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
an fx-8350 isn't holding anything back. come on, man. are you like a stat paper queen obsessor or something? oh, please. an fx-8350 and an amd r9290 gpu will give you "happy" frame rates. i say happy because it i know the frames rates will be high enough. more than good enough even. will it be lower than an i7-4770k and an r90? maybe. maybe the fx-8350 will avg 85 fps on so and so game while the i7-4770k will avg 90 fps. boohoo. who cares about 5 more frames.also, while you mention i3 as a sufficient viable alternative to an fx-8350. remember that the cost will probably be about the same. and fx-8350 is like $190. maybe the i3 is 20 dollars less. but, here's the big but, an i3 is not as good as an fx-8350 in video editing stuff and photo editing stuff if one would like to use their pc for more than just games. an fx-8350, while not as power efficient as an i3 (but who cares since we are talking about a desktop) literally has more bang for the back. it has more cores and is faster.
amd will get back in the game. it is just a question of when. an fx-8350 is already toe-to-toe with an i7-2600k, which is no slouch in todays standard. so, amd just needs to refine their cpu's.
as for talent? amd came up with x64, or amd64 before intel. intel developed their own x86-64 later.
the resource that intel has over amd is just die shrinking. that's it. architecturally, an fx chip or the phenom chip before it seems like a more elegant design to me than intel chips. but that's subjective. and i don't really know that much about cpu's. but, i have been around since the days of 286 so maybe i just see intel as those guys who made 286 which were ubiquitous and plain. i also remember cyrix. and i remember g4 chips. and to me, the fx chip is like a great chip. it's full of compromises and promises at the same time.
Drumsticks - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
I think AMD might have a way back into the game, but the difference right now is way worse than you say.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=287
FX-8350 trails the 2600k frequently by 10-20% or more (in gaming).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288
i5-2500k beats it just as badly and actually sells for less than the 8350 used on ebay. Games love single threaded power and the 8350 just doesn't have it.
wurizen - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
the games they have in that comparison are starcraft 2 and dragon age. 47 fps at 768 p for 8350 looks suspect on starcraft 2. what gpu did they use?it's not way worse as i say. omg.
i have an i7-3770k oc'd to 4.1Ghz and a stock FX-8320 at stock. both can run cod: ghost and bf3. haven't tested my other games. might do the starcraft 2 test tomorrow. i don't have the numbers nor care. what ppl need to realize is the actual game experience while playing games and not the number. is the game smooth? a cpu that can't handle a game will be very evident. this means it's time to upgrade. and there are no fx cpu's from amd that can't handle modern games. again, they will trail intel, but that is like a car going at 220mph so that car wins but the other car is going at 190mph and it will lose but realistically and the experience of going at 190mph will still be fast. the good thing is that amd or cpu don't race each other unless you care about benchmarks. but, if you look past the benchmarks and just focus on the experience itself, an fx series cpu by amd is plenty fast enuff.
omg.
silverblue - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
We're well within the realms of diminishing returns as regards standard CPU IPC. AMD has the most to gain here, though with HSA, will they bother?kaix2 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
so your response to people who are disappointed that broadwell is focused more on TDP instead of performance is to buy an AMD cpu with even lower performance?wurizen - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
well, they don't have to get the fx-9590, which has serverlike cpu of 2008 like tdp or a gpu like tdp of 220 watts. there is a more modest tdp of 125w with the fx8350. all overclockable. seems like a good cpu for tinkerers, pc/enthusiast, gamers and video editors. i don't even think it's a budget cpu. there is the 6-core and 4-core variants which are cheaper. i am also not saying that an fx-8350 is like the best cpu since it's not and falls way down in the benchmark charts. but, it's not a bad cpu at all. it gets the work done (video editing) and let's you play games (wit's a modern cpu after) even though it's sort of 2 yrs old already. the 990FX chipset is even an older chipset. there's something to be said about that and i think im trying to say it. in light of all the news about intel, which we are guaranteed to get every year with each tick and tock... there is that little AMD sitting in the corner with a chipset that hasn't been updated for yrs and an 8-core cpu that's remarkably affordable. the performance is not that low at all. i mean, video editing with it or playing games with it doesn't hamper one's experience. so, maybe one will have to wait a couple more minutes for a video to render in a video editing program versus say an i7-4790k. but, one can simply get up from one's chair and return. instead of staring at how fast their cpu renders a video on the screen.know what i'm saying?
so, yeah. an fx-8350 with an old 990fx mobo and now intel's upcoming broadwell cpu's with z97 chipsets and all the bells and whistles and productivity for either one will probably be similar. also, most video editing programs now will also leverage the gpu so an old fx-8350 w/ a compatible gpu will have help rendering those gpu's....
i guess it's like new doesn't mean anything now. or something. like m2 sata and pci 3.0, which intel chipsets have over amd is kinda superflous and doesn't really help or do much.
know what im saying?
rkrb79 - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link
Agreed!!name99 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
Oh yes, Skylake.Intel has given 5% IPC improvements for every generation since Nehalem, but now Skylake is going to change everything?
If you're one of the ten people on the planet who can actually get value out of AVX-512 then, sure, great leap forward. For everyone else, if you were pissed off at IB, HSW, BDW, you're going to be just as pissed off with Skylake.
DanNeely - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
No, the interest in Skylake is for all the non-CPU speed things promised with it. PCIe 4.0 and a bump from 16 to 20 CPU lanes (for PCIe storage) are at the top of the list. Other expected, but AFAIK not confirmed, benefits include USB3.1 and more USB3.x on the chipset than the current generation. We should have consumer DDR4 with Skylake too; but that's not expected to be a big bump in the real world.