Intel Core-M and the future of Surface

[vlad0]

Here is the full Intel presentation from Computex.

The talk on Core-M, which is what concerns most of us here since it will probably end up in the next generation (or an update to sp3) surface, start at the 20 minute mark.

It allows for a much slimmer/lighter designs, better battery life, and most importantly fanless designs which might finally silence the critics of the fan based Surface products to date.

 

[Chregu]

It allows for a much slimmer/lighter designs, better battery life, and most importantly fanless designs which might finally silence the critics of the fan based Surface products to date.

It will probably also be less powerful than the current i5 and i7 processors that are in the S3P. If it is true what I've read it's something between an Atom and a Core. Still very neat for tablets, but maybe not the same level of desktop replacement.

 

[jordanzhninja]

That 2-in-1 with the hinge kicks the surface in the balls. No kickstand but it stands up like that? Omg
Surface has got work to do in the 4th gen

 

[Poirots Progeny]

Agreed, those core mobile ("m") chips are not going to be in the same league as the I series chips in the sp 2 & 3.

But then they're not meant to be. This is Intel attempting to stomp on arm, Qualcomm et al. And it runs proper windows, so renders rt moot. Which is probably the way msft is heading, with os convergence across platforms.

These m processors should be a step up from celeron/pentium/atom chips, or whatever they're called - they should be a good halfway house for tablets, between power and battery. I'd imagine Apple is looking at this hard - in fact I recall reading this somewhere...

Either way the future looks good!

Slap one of these into a 1520 with a 41mp camera, sd card and get the camera taking shots in under a second and msft is golden!!!!!

 

[vlad0]

If they are aiming at ARM, as he said in the presentation, then those chips have to be priced in the same category as top end ARM chips like the upcoming Snap 805 ... now, if they can do that I will be even more impressed.

As far as performance, I am guessing that they will be around the current low TDP Core i3 haswell.. but we will have to wait and see. Windows 8.1 is so efficient at this point, it doesn't need all that much to run smoothly. Hopefully some of the 3rd party apps for Windows can optimize their code further as well..

I much rather have lower weight and longer battery life, but still be able to run all win32 apps on my fanless tablet : )

The Asus has built in LTE, which bonds well for future Surface products.

 

[vlad0]

Slap one of these into a 1520 with a 41mp camera, sd card and get the camera taking shots in under a second and msft is golden!!!!!

I've been thinking about that.. now that they own the tech, have the camera stack running under Windows NT already, why not start putting those camera modules in their tablets ? Maybe next gen will have a proper camera

 

[Poirots Progeny]

I've been thinking about that.. now that they own the tech, have the camera stack running under Windows NT already, why not start putting those camera modules in their tablets ? Maybe next gen will have a proper camera

That's an idea I like!!!!

Really it comes down to how brave msft are feeling. The 1020 had sold bit not super crazy well. But then msft might be able to do more with the tech...

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

It will probably also be less powerful than the current i5 and i7 processors that are in the S3P. If it is true what I've read it's something between an Atom and a Core. Still very neat for tablets, but maybe not the same level of desktop replacement.

Agreed, those core mobile ("m") chips are not going to be in the same league as the I series chips in the sp 2 & 3.

But then they're not meant to be. This is Intel attempting to stomp on arm, Qualcomm et al. And it runs proper windows, so renders rt moot. Which is probably the way msft is heading, with os convergence across platforms.

These m processors should be a step up from celeron/pentium/atom chips, or whatever they're called - they should be a good halfway house for tablets, between power and battery. I'd imagine Apple is looking at this hard - in fact I recall reading this somewhere...

Either way the future looks good!

Slap one of these into a 1520 with a 41mp camera, sd card and get the camera taking shots in under a second and msft is golden!!!!!

​"Core M" is the branding of the Broadwell-Y processor line. If you were curious about what the i5 is, it's the Haswell-Y. The i7 is the Haswell-U, so that would be a difference. But what you're saying is that the Haswell-Y is more powerful than the Broadwell-Y will be when it comes out. I don't really see that happening. It will have an upgraded GPU, though still GT2 as opposed to GT3 like the U variant does. It will also cap out at 8GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, just like the current Y variant does.

As for Apple, they use the U variant. These have a higher power use, but they're also more powerful. It's also what the i7 Surface Pro 3 is, the U variant. It has a different GPU.

Anyway, my point was that there's no reason to think this is going to be any slower than the current Surface Pro. It's an upgraded CPU and an upgraded GPU from the same variant of the architecture.

Edit: Also, they're shooting for 3.5-4.5 watt TDP.

 

[Chregu]

​"Core M" is the branding of the Broadwell-Y processor line. If you were curious about what the i5 is, it's the Haswell-Y. The i7 is the Haswell-U, so that would be a difference. But what you're saying is that the Haswell-Y is more powerful than the Broadwell-Y will be when it comes out. I don't really see that happening. It will have an upgraded GPU, though still GT2 as opposed to GT3 like the U variant does. It will also cap out at 8GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, just like the current Y variant does.

As for Apple, they use the U variant. These have a higher power use, but they're also more powerful. It's also what the i7 Surface Pro 3 is, the U variant. It has a different GPU.

Anyway, my point was that there's no reason to think this is going to be any slower than the current Surface Pro. It's an upgraded CPU and an upgraded GPU from the same variant of the architecture.

Edit: Also, they're shooting for 3.5-4.5 watt TDP.

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processors will be at least as fast as the current generation. But the Core M is neither of them.

 

[onysi]

impressed but not quite. i want my tablet to bend. :winktongue:

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processors will be at least as fast as the current generation. But the Core M is neither of them.

Core-M is a branding of the Y variant of the Core i processors. I don't know why you think they're coming up with something that's an i-# processor for Broadwell-Y as well as their Core-M. The exact processor that the Surface Pro 3 uses is the i5-4300Y. As in, to my knowledge the Surface Pro 3 uses the Y variant of the Core processors. You're telling me that the updated i5 and i7 will be faster, which would make them faster Y variant processors.

Core-M is the Y variant processor.

All they're doing is a rebranding, and people are eating it up like it's a new product. It's not. It's the tick-tock strategy at work. This is the 14nm die shrink of the Haswell Architecture that's being called Broadwell.

Edit: For the record, the i5-4210Y is only marginally slower than the i5-4200U. You'll mostly see the difference in benchmarks, not in actual performance.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Sorry for the double post

​[TABLE="class: vs_s_table ie_wfix, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: title, width: 32%, bgcolor: #C0C0C0, align: center"]Intel Core i5-4200U[/TD]
[TD="class: title, width: 32%, bgcolor: #C0C0C0, align: center"]Intel Core i5-4200Y[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Market segment[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Mobile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Intel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Family[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Core i5 Mobile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]Basic details[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1h, bgcolor: #D8D8FF"]
[TH]Model number[/TH]
[TD]i5-4200U[/TD]
[TD]i5-4200Y[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2h, bgcolor: #C0C0E8"]
[TH]CPU part number[/TH]
[TD]CL8064701477702[/TD]
[TD]CL8064701557900[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Introduction date[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]June 2, 2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]CPU features[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Core name[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Haswell[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Platform name[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Shark Bay[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Microarchitecture[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Haswell[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Technology (micron)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]0.022[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Data width (bits)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Socket[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]BGA1168[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1h, bgcolor: #D8D8FF"]
[TH]Frequency (MHz)[/TH]
[TD="class: vs_b"]1600[/TD]
[TD="class: vs_w"]1400[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2h, bgcolor: #C0C0E8"]
[TH]Turbo Frequency (MHz)[/TH]
[TD="class: vs_b"]2600[/TD]
[TD="class: vs_w"]1900[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1h, bgcolor: #D8D8FF"]
[TH]Clock Multiplier[/TH]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]L1 cache[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]64 KB (code) / 64 KB (data)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]L2 cache (KB)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]512[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]L3 cache (KB)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]3072[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Max temperature (?C)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2h, bgcolor: #C0C0E8"]
[TH]TDP (Watt)[/TH]
[TD="class: vs_w"]15[/TD]
[TD="class: vs_b"]11.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Cores[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Threads[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Multiprocessing[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]Instruction set extensions[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]AES / Advanced Encryption Standard[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]AMD64 / EM64T 64-bit technology[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]AVX / Advanced Vector Extensions[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]AVX2 / Advanced Vector Extensions 2[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]FMA3 / 3-operand Fused Multiply-Add[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]MMX[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]SSE[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]SSE2[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]SSE3[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]SSE4.1[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]SSE4.2[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]SSSE3 / Supplemental SSE3[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]Supported technologies[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]Hyper-Threading[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]PowerNow! / Enhanced SpeedStep[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]Turbo Core / Turbo Boost[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sp, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Virtualization[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sp"]
[TH]Virus Protection / Execute Disable bit[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]+[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]Integrated Graphics[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1h, bgcolor: #D8D8FF"]
[TH]GPU Type[/TH]
[TD]HD 4400[/TD]
[TD]HD 4200[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Base frequency (MHz)[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]200[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1h, bgcolor: #D8D8FF"]
[TH]Maximum frequency (MHz)[/TH]
[TD="class: vs_b"]1000[/TD]
[TD="class: vs_w"]850[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_h, colspan: 3"]Integrated Memory Controller(s)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: vs_spec_sep"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]The number of controllers[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2 vs_sm, bgcolor: #E8E8E8"]
[TH]Memory channels[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1 vs_sm"]
[TH]Supported memory[/TH]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]DDR3L-1333, DDR3L-1600, LPDDR3-1333, LPDDR3-1600[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


As you can see, the major difference between the Y variant and the U variant is the frequency, and it isn't even something that the average person would notice as the CPU isn't being taxed on anything other than gaming. Even then, a good GPU will be more important.

 

[vlad0]

​ It will also cap out at 8GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, just like the current Y variant does..

I was really hoping for DDR4, which was in the original road map, but oh well.. Skylake it is. That would've give us further power consumption benefits.

Here are some news on skylake

Some features of Skylake graphics architecture

Anyway, my point was that there's no reason to think this is going to be any slower than the current Surface Pro. It's an upgraded CPU and an upgraded GPU from the same variant of the architecture.

Edit: Also, they're shooting for 3.5-4.5 watt TDP.

I dunno.. we will have to wait and see what those 4.5 watt chips can really do. I know its 14nm and all, but still.. that is a substantial drop in power drain.. if they maintain the current productivity levels at that TDP I will be very, very impressed.

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processors will be at least as fast as the current generation. But the Core M is neither of them.

Its the Y series..

Intel announces Broadwell processors and new mobile platform

"According to Intel, the mobile Broadwell chips will be branded as "Core M", and there will be also Vpro enabled SKUs, branded as Core M Vpro. The fastest processor at launch will be Core M-70, which is probably another name for the 5Y70 model. Based on earlier reports, Intel also planned 5Y10 and 5Y10a SKUs, and it is possible that they will be also renamed to something like Core M-10 and M-10A. "

More here

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/2014060301_Launch_schedule_of_Intel_mobile_processors.html

"The first to launch will be "Y" series Core processors with model numbers 5Y70, 5Y10a and 5Y10. They will have 2 CPU cores, 4.5 Watt TDP, and 2.8 Watt Scenario Design Power. "

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

I was really hoping for DDR4, which was in the original road map, but oh well.. Skylake it is. That would've give us further power consumption benefits.

Here are some news on skylake

Some features of Skylake graphics architecture




I dunno.. we will have to wait and see what those 4.5 watt chips can really do. I know its 14nm and all, but still.. that is a substantial drop in power drain.. if they maintain the current productivity levels at that TDP I will be very, very impressed.



Its the Y series..

Intel announces Broadwell processors and new mobile platform

"According to Intel, the mobile Broadwell chips will be branded as "Core M", and there will be also Vpro enabled SKUs, branded as Core M Vpro. The fastest processor at launch will be Core M-70, which is probably another name for the 5Y70 model. Based on earlier reports, Intel also planned 5Y10 and 5Y10a SKUs, and it is possible that they will be also renamed to something like Core M-10 and M-10A. "

More here

Launch schedule of Intel mobile processors

"The first to launch will be "Y" series Core processors with model numbers 5Y70, 5Y10a and 5Y10. They will have 2 CPU cores, 4.5 Watt TDP, and 2.8 Watt Scenario Design Power. "

We do know they were able to drop the power use during the last die-shrink (32nm-22nm) to where more of their processors had the 17w and fewer had the 35. In some cases, that was cutting the power use in half while actually improving the performance (due to a variety of factors, like GPU strength, faster memory bandwidth, and so forth). I don't see this being monstrously faster than what we have now, but I certainly see it being at least as fast CPU wise, faster GPU, and amazing battery gains.

Then again, Broadwell is all about energy use.

 

[badMojo69]

I like. I want the CHI...I just hope it can run desktop apps.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

I like. I want the CHI...I just hope it can run desktop apps.

It's x86-64, so that's a big thumbs up on desktop apps.

 

[vlad0]

We do know they were able to drop the power use during the last die-shrink (32nm-22nm) to where more of their processors had the 17w and fewer had the 35. In some cases, that was cutting the power use in half while actually improving the performance (due to a variety of factors, like GPU strength, faster memory bandwidth, and so forth). I don't see this being monstrously faster than what we have now, but I certainly see it being at least as fast CPU wise, faster GPU, and amazing battery gains.

Then again, Broadwell is all about energy use.

I hope you a right.. I mean, there is no reason to believe that these will be slower than their Haswell equivalents, but I am just setting my expectations as low as I can

The other interesting thing is pricing.. if they manage to cut the price down in order to really compete with ARM, without taking a loss, it will be huge.

And the other of course is when would Microsoft implement the chips into the surface line up.. I am really hoping holiday season so I can get myself a new machine, but I dunno..

I like. I want the CHI...I just hope it can run desktop apps.

No pen support ... otherwise its very pretty

I would just wait for a broadwell surface, despite the fact that they don't want to compete with their OEMs, they are.. their product is much better than anything else out there.

 

[Chregu]

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processors will be at least as fast as the current generation. But the Core M is neither of them.

Okay, sorry about the naming thing, let me try this again.

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processor equivalents will be at least as fast as the current generation, I have however nowhere read that they will be fanless. According to my informations, the Core M shown in this fanless tablet is neither of them.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Okay, sorry about the naming thing, let me try this again.

Of course the updated i5 and i7 processor equivalents will be at least as fast as the current generation, I have however nowhere read that they will be fanless. According to my informations, the Core M shown in this fanless tablet is neither of them.

Alright, let's look at what the current Surface Pro 3 uses. It uses the i5-4300U and the i7-U (I can't remember the exact model number). Now, let's look at the only difference between the i5-4300u and the i5-4300Y. The only difference between the two is the clock speed of the CPU and GPU. The Y is the U, just clocked slightly slower to make sure it gets better battery life. Now, given the difference in power use between the two models in Haswell (11.5W vs 15W), and the barely noticeable difference ... we're going to see the Core-M being faster than the Core Y processors are now and at they should be slightly faster than what the i5-4300U is today. And that's if Microsoft doesn't take the Core-M and get it clocked high enough to keep their "revolutionary fan".

Remember, the way they keep it fanless is the power savings from shrinking and clocking it slower then what they'll clock their U variant. But the performance difference between the current U and Y is not exactly bragging material, so there's no reason to assume it will be the same this time.

In essence:
Y is U with a slightly slower clock speed, not a pansy processor
Core M is Y
Y is slightly slower than U
Haswell is slower than Broadwell
Broadwell Y should be at least as fast, if not slightly faster, than the current Haswell U

 

[Chregu]

Alright, let's look at what the current Surface Pro 3 uses. It uses the i5-4300U and the i7-U (I can't remember the exact model number). Now, let's look at the only difference between the i5-4300u and the i5-4300Y. The only difference between the two is the clock speed of the CPU and GPU. The Y is the U, just clocked slightly slower to make sure it gets better battery life. Now, given the difference in power use between the two models in Haswell (11.5W vs 15W), and the barely noticeable difference ... we're going to see the Core-M being faster than the Core Y processors are now and at they should be slightly faster than what the i5-4300U is today. And that's if Microsoft doesn't take the Core-M and get it clocked high enough to keep their "revolutionary fan".

Remember, the way they keep it fanless is the power savings from shrinking and clocking it slower then what they'll clock their U variant. But the performance difference between the current U and Y is not exactly bragging material, so there's no reason to assume it will be the same this time.

In essence:
Y is U with a slightly slower clock speed, not a pansy processor
Core M is Y
Y is slightly slower than U
Haswell is slower than Broadwell
Broadwell Y should be at least as fast, if not slightly faster, than the current Haswell U

Okay, I have looked up the article where my information is from:

Accordingly, performance will fall short of a typical Ultrabook with a Core i5 or i7 processor, though it should still be an improvement over Intel's "Bay Trail" chips, found in many of today's 2-in-1s. Beyond that, Intel isn't making any specific claims, other than hinting at longer battery life (which would make sense, given the lower TDP). Whatever the performance is, though, we suspect it'll be good enough for mainstream users -- especially at this price.

Intel's super-thin 'Core M' tablets will be cheaper than you think

Let's see if they produce a fan-less Surface Pro with the same or even more power as the current gen. It would certainly be awesome.