×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Core i7 For Laptops — First Benchmarks

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the context-switching dept.

Intel 196

Barence writes "PC Pro has benchmarked the first Intel Core i7 processors for laptops. The chips mark the debut of Intel's Turbo Boost technology, which ramps up the speed of the working cores if two or more cores are sitting unused. For the quad-core i7-820QM, this can take the stock speed of 1.73GHz up to a maximum of 3.06GHz. The 2D benchmarks show comparable performance to Core 2 Extreme chips running at 2.53GHz. Power consumption and processor temperature is dramatically lower, which should lead to significant improvements in laptop battery life."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

196 comments

Turbo Boost technology? (4, Funny)

leathered (780018) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479545)

Seriously, couldn't the marketing droids come up with a better name?

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479579)

Hey, the 80's clothing styles are coming back. Why not the phrases too?

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480665)

Wasn't that the fighter drive in Battlestar Galactica? That would make it 70s.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29481037)

To me Turbo Boost is a reference to a function button in KITT (Knight Rider) that propels it over barriers (or other vehicles).

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479605)

Turbo Boost defines exactly what it does: propel it over other its lesser siblings.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29481035)

Except everyone knows, superchargers make WAY more power than turbos, and cleaner. So nya, car/intel nub.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479667)

It scored better with our target demographics than "SuperUltraMoreFaster Maker".

Why not? (4, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479827)

"Dynamic Load-based Overclocking" just doesn't sound as good as "Ultra Speedburner" or "Turbo Boosters" on the tin.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479831)

Reminds me of Turbo Cache. Who else remembers those slow as dirt GF6200's?

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (2, Interesting)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480197)

It reminds me of the old PCs with a turbo button on the front.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480879)

I remember those - our PC's (IBM PC clones that had the monitor on top) had the Turbo Boost button that would give your PC that extra bit of oomph when you needed those spreadsheet tables calculated in a jiffy or that word processor macro processed in a hurry. It would boost the clock speed up from 8 MHz to 16 Mhz. With Later models of PC tower units, there would have a couple of LED digits that displayed the clock speed (20/25/33/40/50/60 Mhz).

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (5, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479843)

Probably the same people who came up with USB 3's "SuperSpeed mode".

Apparently marketing is now in the hands of 11-year old boys.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480481)

I don't know the specifics, but it does seem that Intel is heavily involved in USB.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480691)

Beats having it in the hands of 11-year-old girls, because then it'd be "OmGz LiKe WaY2FaStTt" Mode

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479917)

I'm just waiting for them to tag an Ultra Extreme on top of that.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480333)

I'm sure the Intel Core i7 Extreme with Turbo Boost Technology will be a reality sooner rather than later.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (5, Informative)

dserpell (22147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479995)

Seriously, couldn't the marketing droids come up with a better name?

Sadly, this technology was called "Intel Dynamic Acceleration" (IDA) in Core-2 CPU's, but nobody noticed it. So, Intel tried with "Dual Dynamic Acceleration" (DDA), but again, nobody noticed. At last, renamed it to "Turbo Boost" and now everybody thinks it's something new.

So, after three attempts, it seems that the current name is the best.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (5, Interesting)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480101)

Maybe because (from what I can tell), IDA and DDA only boosted one core by ~200 MHz or less, TFS suggests that Turbo Boost can take one core of a 1.73 GHz chip to 3.06 GHz, which is substantially better. Maybe that's why people are noticing now?

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480557)

On desktop i7's, Turbo Boost still only gives an extra ~200MHz (albeit to all cores). I'm not sure if they actually mean the Turbo Boost on the mobile i7 chips will upclock by up to 1.33GHz, or if they just mean that the chip will be available with base clock speeds in that range.

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481107)

On desktop i7's, Turbo Boost still only gives an extra ~200MHz (albeit to all cores). I'm not sure if they actually mean the Turbo Boost on the mobile i7 chips will upclock by up to 1.33GHz, or if they just mean that the chip will be available with base clock speeds in that range.

      --- Mr. DOS

The new Lynnfield i-7s see a much bigger boost. My i7-860 goes from 2.8 to 3.46 gHz, which is fairly significant.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480315)

Don't forget the even less well-known Dual Virtual Dynamic Acceleration...

HAHA (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480009)

HEY SUPER FASTER WAS TAKEN. CARTOONS ARE ON

KTHXBYE

ROXXOR MARKETING INC

(brought to you by the lameness filter, which ruins every joke worth telling)

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480161)

Seriously, couldn't the marketing droids come up with a better name?

No problemo!

Turbo Boost+
Turbo Boost xTreme!
iTurbo Boost
Turbo Boost ][+ (or //e)
Turb0 B005t - L33t 3d1t10n
Turbo Boost 3000
Turbo Boost 3000++ Gold Pro Enterprise Edition...For Kids

Intel Marketing Deparment: We Look for Things. Things to Make Us Go.

Re:Turbo Boost technology? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480205)

Turbo Boost+
Turbo Boost xTreme!
iTurbo Boost
Turbo Boost ][+ (or //e)
Turb0 B005t - L33t 3d1t10n
Turbo Boost 3000
Turbo Boost 3000++ Gold Pro Enterprise Edition...For Kids

Almost forgot one:

Suck It, AMD!

Goobers still saying Core This and Core That (4, Insightful)

Informative (1347701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479553)

They must have the most shameless shit-for-brains in their marketing dept.

Re:Goobers still saying Core This and Core That (4, Interesting)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479771)

It was an attempt to distract from the superiority of the AMD chips at that time, especially the Opteron.
What can you do when you are trying to keep X86 to 32 bits so only your Itanium is the sole 64 bit chip, when along comes AMD and creates a 64 bit x86 chip. You have no choice but to use AMD's 64 bit instruction set in your new 64 bit Pentium, AKA Xeon.
Oh, oh; AMD created a memory controller far more efficient than yours, OK copy that too.
Now Intel had caught up.

Re:Goobers still saying Core This and Core That (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480365)

Jerry Sanders III, is that you?

Re:Goobers still saying Core This and Core That (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479795)

Intel started using the Pentium brand back in 1993, and they're still selling chips under that name even today.
Core is probably their most recognized brand since then, so I expect it to be with us for quite some time to come.

battery life? (4, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479623)

"Power consumption and processor temperature is dramatically lower, which should lead to significant improvements in laptop battery life."

compared to? Because from the graphs the core2duo had much better battery life, and core2duo battery life sucks imho. Wish they'd focus more on improving the battery life of two cores because 4 cores in a laptop is overkill 99% of the time, I'd rather have a extra hour of battery life and suffice with two cores.

Re:battery life? (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479743)

Did you not even read the summary? That seems to be the entire point. They make two cores run at full speed, and the other two go into low-power more. So two cores, lower battery life.

Re:battery life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480455)

Push it to its limits, however, and our heavy usage test drained the battery in a mere 46 minutes.

When your laptop is drawing 80 watts, yeah, that'll happen. Also burned flesh.

Re:battery life? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480179)

If you want battery life - consider a netbook. If you want a beefy portable desktop replacement, consider this thing. If you want both, get an aftermarket battery extension kit.. it'll bulk out of the bottom of your notebook, however.

Re:battery life? (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480193)

You say that like battery life at the extreme expense of performance, or performance at the extreme expense of battery life are the only two choices at hand.

I'm sure netbooks fit an important need, the same goes for the desktop replacements, but it would be nice if some battery life attention was paid in between the extremes.

Re:battery life? (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480641)

No, what I am saying is you can't have both without making some manner of compromise at the moment.

There's currently no real incentive for Intel to make more energy-efficient Core 2 Duos because the market -is- very segmented between those who are perfectly fine with the Core 2 Duos as they are (fairly powerful and reasonable battery life, though not fo true mobility), and those who really need longer battery life and are on the go a lot, who are fine with a netbook using a Core 2 Solo or Atom (or any of the AMD equivalents) processor.

Of course it -is- possible to get something in between, but you have to accept (unless you have millions to pursuade Intel otherwise ahead of any schedule they might have to introduce a more efficient platforms after all) that it is a fairly niche market.

Companies do cater to that niche market, however; Lenovo, for example. The Lenovo T400 runs a nice Core 2 Duo. Its battery life is a bit above that of the average notebook - but you -can- even extend that by upgrading from a 4-cell (~4 hours) to a 6-cell or even a 9-cell battery (~10 hours) and go beyond that if you add the external bay battery.
Take the figures with a pinch of the usual 'battery life claims' salt and you should still be very comfortable with the 9-cell w/o bay battery.

No, adding batteries doesn't make the platform more efficient, but it -is- the next best thing available right now, especially if the desire is for 'longer battery life' and not necessarily a more efficient platform.

Re:battery life? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480259)

Yep... the Turbo Boost is a great idea for desktops, it always gives you the maximum performance within a given thermal envelope. But to laptops, it's pretty much the anti-steedstep, making it spend as much power as possible when it's almost idle. However, it seems they didn't test the real minimum by disabling turbo. I'm assuming the laptops can control this from software, anything else would be silly. Sure, it'll also drop your performance from 3.06 to 1.73GHz but since power is roughly proportional with frequency squared it should also lower the CPU to about (1.73 / 3.06)^2 = 32% power consumption.

Re:battery life? (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29481055)

Using Linux' frequency controls, the Turbo just increases your maximum multiplier by 1, and that's it. If you're configured to maximum performance, you get the Turbo, otherwise you don't. Maybe it's more complicated in Windows, but it's clear that the feature is controllable from the operating system.

Who needs that? (4, Insightful)

wasabioss (1196799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479639)

Although faster is better and will be every Slashdotter's wet dream, but I'd rather have power-efficient laptops rather than a gazillion Ghz laptop. I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web, which is what most people have and what most people do now. And now they're going to put i7 on the laptops. There will be some people who needs it, but not the majority of casual laptop users, who don't do video encoding or kernel compilation (which should be the work of a desktop IMHO).

I have two atom powered laptops and I even sold my laptops because I was so in love with those machines, which wouldn't burn my lap and my balls whenever I have to sit them on my laps. Other than the pitiful 950 graphics, I have nothing to complain about.

And I heard they fixed it with the Z5x0 chipset - on Windows at least, but as I don't have one, I can't verify it.

Re:Who needs that? (5, Insightful)

xigxag (167441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479661)

Lots of people use their laptop as their only machine. In that case it's helpful to have a device that can sip power when away from the mains but whilst plugged in can run with the big dogs.

Re:Who needs that? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479701)

Add an SSD and a good I7 laptop will certainly blow the socks of most desktops out there. Laptops are now just a few MHz and disk spins away from desktops really. Add an SSD and this kind of processor and the gap is as good as gone. I'm already planning on using my PC just for development, my other tasks just don't need (cheap) 8GB of memory and a stack of hard drives.

Re:Who needs that? (3, Interesting)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479833)

Laptops have generally kept up with their desktop in terms of speed- as long as you're willing to pay. There are already quad-core laptops with dual GPUs (SLI or Crossfire) that would mop the floor with the majority of desktops. The only problem is, battery life is crap, and they're too hot to actually use on your lap (while gaming at least). Oh, and they cost 2-3 times as much as an equivalent desktop.

Re:Who needs that? (4, Insightful)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480063)

Add an SSD and a good I7 laptop will certainly blow the socks of most desktops out there. Laptops are now just a few MHz and disk spins away from desktops really. Add an SSD and this kind of processor and the gap is as good as gone. I'm already planning on using my PC just for development, my other tasks just don't need (cheap) 8GB of memory and a stack of hard drives.

That makes zero sense... if a laptop with an SSD is good, then an SSD in a good i7 workstation will be even better, for 1/2 the price. In practice, laptops will always be behind desktops, because of the compromises they have to make for weight, size, cooling, and power consumption. They're not catching up to a stationary target.

For example, I have a laptop with 8GB of memory, a high-end SSD, and a dual-core CPU. It rocks. It's so fast, it gives me tunnel vision. However, the RAM was expensive, 8GB is the upper limit, and the CPU is anemic compared to what I'd like to have in it.

Meanwhile, my friends and coworkers are getting 3GHz quad-core desktops with 12GB of memory, an SSD, terabytes of disk, etc... Those machines are beasts. If you do real work, like running multiple virtual machines, databases, and heavy-weight development environments, they're a real time saver. Unfortunately, I'm a consultant, so I need my work machine to be portable. 8(

The real difference is that my laptop cost me about AUD 6000 all up, but you can have almost 2x that performance for AUD 3000 if you buy a workstation instead. I don't know what the US price is like, but here in Australia, you can have 12 GB of DDR3 memory for AUD 400. That's just... wrong. In the same price range as my laptop, you can get a dual-socket (8 core) workstation with 24GB of memory, an SSD, and 8TB of spinning disk. In 6 months, when octo-core CPUs are available, up that to 16 cores! A laptop with an even remotely similar spec won't be available for at least a year and a half.

Re:Who needs that? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480201)

My computer is 85% toy, so I can't really justify a big budget to myself, but still, I'm sitting here wondering what someone from 2003 would say reading your comment.

Re:Who needs that? (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480721)

I'm sitting here wondering what someone from 2003 would say...

Probably something along the lines of:
"Duke Nukem still isn't out?!?!"

Re:Who needs that? (1)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480159)

Lots of people use their laptop as their only machine.

... lots of people don't actually run with the big dogs, ever. They think they should have the capacity, just in case. In order to prepare for this extremely unlikely eventuality, they spend way too much money for way too much power, thus encouraging companies like intel to produce even higher end chips... and ignore (until recently) the low-end segment that will satisfy the majority of users.

Even if a computer is extremely capable ... the most people with powerful machines do is brag about how wonderful iLife is..

Re:Who needs that? (5, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479681)

wouldn't burn my lap and my balls whenever I have to sit them on my laps.

LAPS? I've heard of multiple chins, but LAPS?

Re:Who needs that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29479857)

Sure, why not? Since my apartment rental agency charges by-the-cat, I have one cat... with 16 legs, 8 eyes, 8 ears, 4 noses, 4 mouths, and 4 tails, discorporated into 4 sections with different coloring. So, sure, one "cat" could have four laps ;)

Re:Who needs that? (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480337)

Your apartment rental agency *charges* for cats? I must be spoiled living in the ghetto - my landlord doesn't give two shits about what's in my apartment.

Re:Who needs that? (4, Insightful)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479723)

I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web

Joe's flashtube can peg a core at 100% but he can use the other one to kill it?

Re:Who needs that? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479961)

I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web, which is what most people have and what most people do now.

Because Flash is terribly inefficient? Yeah, surfing static HTML webpages are simple, but the Flash plugin tends to eat up CPU like theres no tomorrow.

Plus, the "average Joe" usually games casually. Even "simple" games like the Sims require a decent CPU/graphics card.

Myself I want a machine that can handle whatever I throw at it. I want a machine to be able to play most games without too much difficulty, to run whatever programs I want without having to worry about the specs. I think most people are in the same boat.

Re:Who needs that? (1)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480119)

I think most people are in the same boat.

If this were true, why do integrated graphics persist? Ohhh... perhaps there are people who choose another boat (Either the "I'm too cheap" rowboat of thrift, or "I prefer battery life" yacht of longitivity.)

Re:Who needs that? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480659)

The main reason is cost. If I could get real graphics at the price of one hour battery life, but still have my laptop only cost $300, I'd switch in a heartbeat. But for $300 or less, the best your are going to get is integrated graphics.

Re:Who needs that? (3, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480255)

Although faster is better and will be every Slashdotter's wet dream, but I'd rather have power-efficient laptops rather than a gazillion Ghz laptop.

That's you. You're at peace with the world, and feel compelled to announce it.

. I don't get why an average Joe needs a Core 2 Duo laptop for Word processing and surfing the web, which is what most people have and what most people do now. And now they're going to put i7 on the laptops.

Ah, Joe Average is a man of limited aspirations. Web and Word. Web and Word. All day long. Joe Average doesn't need to game, But then, Joe Average runs Linux. There are no games for Linux.

And now they're going to put i7 on the laptops. There will be some people who needs it, but not the majority of casual laptop users, who don't do video encoding or kernel compilation (which should be the work of a desktop IMHO).

Video encoding-- everybody wants to encode video. Why? Maybe that's why they keep the old word processor around, to draft letters to attorneys. Now kernel compilation-- that's real work there-- though someone who was hacking the kernel instead of recompiling the latest point release would probably appreciate a lightweight, portable machine for coding. Does emacs count as a "word processor"?

I have two atom powered laptops and I even sold my laptops because I was so in love with those machines, which wouldn't burn my lap and my balls whenever I have to sit them on my laps. Other than the pitiful 950 graphics, I have nothing to complain about.

Quite. Because any games that would put a dent in Core 2 Duo wouldn't run very well on a gma 950.

I know, I know. We're in the middle of a depression, and one's aspirations must be humble. But in buying a laptop, which can't be expanded very easily, it's often wise to plan for future needs.

Re:Who needs that? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480877)

The CPU isn't the only power hungry component in a laptop, but I will stick to only talking about it for the sake of staying on topic with the article. For most people what you are asking for is accomplished by using the slower version of the current CPU. It also saves them money, so they have little to complain about. The hardcore people buy the fast CPU and force throttle it down in the BIOS.

Having said that, I think you are asking for an expensive CPU where the development dollars are mainly focused on power consumption. Your best bet is probably something from the ARM architecture as Intel has shown time and time again how they work. It started with the P4's focus on megahertz, and now the new thing is adding a bazillion cores to processors. If you don't like it, stop buying Intel. I don't see them changing any time soon.

macbook pro? (3, Insightful)

MrBallistic (88770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479649)

coming to a macbook pro near you in january, i'd guess....

Re:macbook pro? (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479963)

haha you're funny

Re:macbook pro? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480707)

Apple has gotten a several new Intel procs before anyone else. The OS and most OS X apps can actually take good advantage of quad core right now unlike Windows. That and 8GB of ram with an SSD will be really nice and we can expect it to be available soon.

Re:macbook pro? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480261)

While I wouldn't bet against it, I'd tend to doubt it.

Apple prides itself on it's thin, lightweight, and attractive notebooks/desktops. They're not necessarily into the whole "faster is better" concept--if you're concerned with speed above all else, consider the Mac Pro.

While I'm far from an expert, from what I can see from the graphs, these appear to run hotter than the Core 2 Duos that Apple uses now. I'm not sure that MacBook Pros can stand to get much hotter than they already are.

Maybe you'll see them in the iMac. They appear to be better in regards to power than the Core 2 Quads and are pretty close in the benchmarks.

Re:macbook pro? (0, Troll)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480349)

and Dell and HP laptops which will run half the price of the MBP for the same performance

Probably sooner than that, even (1)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480451)

HP is releasing a Core i7 based laptop in mid-October. Apple is known for getting new Intel processors sooner than anybody else, so I do expect an announcement in the next three weeks, and it will include the phrase "shipping NOW".

Idle power consumption (4, Interesting)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479659)

I really like it when chips have small idle power usage, and this chip seems to run pretty cool when it is not taxed. Intel always had the lead in manufacturing capability, and it seems that this is one of the nice results.

I'm really waiting for the day when you (can) just leave your computer on at all times. Most of the times the chips are doing nothing anyway, so why should it use any power? Where is the technology to switch off memory banks when they are not used? Just page the stuff to my SSD (yes, I'm talking about the future here). Why don't processors have a small power efficient core for running the OS and applications at idle? Gigabit ethernet is getting power saving functions as well, and Wifi N has power saving features as well. Having the computer almost idling without having the fan of my PSU or processor switch on should be a killer feature.

One thing missing seems to be software support. I don't like it when my laptop drains much power just because one core is using 100% power because of a friggin flash ad on one of the tabs in my browser. We need more ways of restricting processes to use as many resources. What use is a computer that runs on almost no power when idle when it is never idling? And we'll need OS support for cores with different feature sets as well.

Re:Idle power consumption (2)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479913)

What we need is a better Flash plugin. Really, Adobe, you can't do better for your own software?

Adobe Flash stops Vista from going into sleep mode (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480217)

Flash is even worse for power consumption than you think. On Vista if you have Flash loaded in your browser (maybe you watched youtube or an advertisement or something), it prevents Vista from going to into sleep mode per your power settings. Even if the video is over (e.g. youtube is showing the "replay?" button).

I'm guessing they did this because they had a suspend-resume bug that was hard to debug, and decided to burn lots of (our) coal instead of fixing their bug. Way to go Adobe!

Re:Idle power consumption (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479957)

Intel always had the lead in manufacturing capability, and it seems that this is one of the nice results.

This time it's little to do with their manufacturing capability in terms of process size, it's R&D specifically to achieve this. They basicly created a new "shut-off" form of transistor that effectively blocks off everything behind it. You can read more about it here [anandtech.com].

Now give me the dual core... (4, Interesting)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479673)

The article doesn't seem to suggest that this will really be enough to bring quad core laptops out of their current niche - we're talking an expensive machine which will clock in a bit over 3 hours battery life if you don't use its power, and potentially under an hour if you do. This would presumably be even worse with the higher clocked chip mentioned. I just don't feel there's much demand for such portable workstations - I can't see a good case for doing anything that processor intensive on the go. What does look very interesting is the 32nm dual core version - if they can carry over a comparable power consumption improvement to what they've achieved at the quad-core level that could be a very fast, very power efficient machine.

Re:Now give me the dual core... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479941)

Gaming. I know a lot of gamers who would live with keeping it plugged in 95% of the time just to have a mobile rig with a decent framerate. Yeah, with an external mouse plugged in all the time, and the AC adapter its not going to be as portable as a netbook, but for a gamer who travels a lot, its a whole lot easier than taking a desktop + monitor on the road.

Re:Now give me the dual core... (1)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480103)

The Core 2 Duos that will provide perfectly adequate battery life are fine for gaming - no games can really take advantage of four cars, and few are particularly CPU bound in the first place. The issue there is GPU power, and there's simply no way to come close to a desktop, regardless of budget, in that department. In that sense, you have to accept sacrifices and go for a decent mobile chip, and there's no point throwing four i7 cars at something like that. Even then you could buy a good laptop (with moderate gaming capabilities) and a gaming rig for a similar price, and cover all your bases.

Where are the asymetric multiprocessors? (5, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480125)

How about pairing one of these with an Intel Atom? The atom turns on cores within the Core I7 when it is pegged, and turns them off (potentially turning off the entire chip) when things quiet down.

Re:Where are the asymetric multiprocessors? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480571)

I would love to see that happen, perhaps even integrating the atom into the motherboard? I got fed up with high electric bills, so i replaced my desktop with a $300 eeepc 1005ha. Hooked up a kvm and only boot my desktop when I'm gaming. The eee can handle pretty much everything else I do and it draws less than 32 watts when in full power mode.

Re:Where are the asymetric multiprocessors? (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480647)

Seriously? It would probably take me a $100 years to recoup the cost of the eee in electricity savings. I still want one but not for that reason.

Re:Now give me the dual core... (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480233)

I can't see a good case for doing anything that processor intensive on the go

That isn't the only use case for such a laptop. I don't often need to use my laptop "on the go" but I do need to bring my work home with me.

Battery life (2, Funny)

N!NJA (1437175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479755)

From TFS:

Power consumption and processor temperature is dramatically lower, which should lead to significant improvements in laptop battery life.

worry not. Microsoft and Adobe will find a way to offset that....

Re:Battery life (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479967)

What do you mean, "will find"? Adobe flash is already the single app using most of my computers power, simply because one page with a flash ad can take all the resources of a single CPU core.

Re:Battery life (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480149)

It's the ad author, who used a loop for polling or delaying until the next frame instead of a wait or sleep, who's to blame. Anyway, just run Firefox with Adblock Plus and you'll see hardly any of those ads.

Re:Battery life (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480213)

Flashblock (or equivalent - something is available for most browsers) is even better for this - it blocks legitimate (non-ad) Flash until you want it playing. Great if you have a few tabs open to something like YouTube.

Re:Battery life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480671)

Or click2flash for Safari.

Damn! (1)

bakedpatato (1254274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479813)

Turbo from 1.73ghz to 3.06Ghz? Wow...that is impressive. i5 and i7 8xx for desktop don't have anything on this baby. And it's a good solution to the age old problem of high performance lappies requiring a bunch of fans to cool, and their poor battery life. Wonder what AMD has to counter that.

Re:Damn! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480493)

Why you even have to ask retard?! AMD does not have shit, everybody knows that when you buy AMD you are supporting Arab terrorism. How do you even dare to mention that crap in an intel article, what are you? a reverse astroturfer? Does AMD makes you smarter when you buy that chip? Only nigers and spics use AMD because they can't afford a real chip you Niger

Re:Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480719)

So, what, do you use a fucking Cryix or something?

We have low end, now the high end... (4, Interesting)

tetsukaze (1635797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479815)

Where is the middle? Atom based equipment is changing how we define portable computers and is very exciting. These new chips are going to bring amazing power in a portable format. The problem for the average user is that these are two extremes that currently don't help them. The middle of the road laptop that can be used for everyday use has not had any major innovations or significant price drops for some time. I understand diversifying is important, but where is the new tech for that more middle of the road work load?

Re:We have low end, now the high end... (2, Insightful)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479845)

You mean those devices with LED screens or multi-touch touchpads or SSD drives or smaller units without optical drive or devices with much longer battery life or Bluetooth/Wireless N or 500 GB laptop drives? Those with eSATA and HDMI connectors and high end cameras and microphone arrays? The ones with usable fingerprint reader devices?

Yes, I agree, no innovations to be found for those devices.

Re:We have low end, now the high end... (1)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480131)

I understand diversifying is important, but where is the new tech for that more middle of the road work load?

Yes, someone should invent a pentium/celeron/AMD/core solo market.

Re:We have low end, now the high end... (1)

ctmurray (1475885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480321)

As a preface - I am not well versed in chip architecture or PC design...

What about two chips? One runs when on battery mode - gives the best power savings. One that runs when the laptop is plugged into the wall for best performance.

Re:We have low end, now the high end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480583)

Sounds like the dual-GPU setups some laptops have now (including the newer MacBooks, I think) where there's a switch between an Intel GPU and an nVidia/ATI GPU. Someone actually suggested above having an Atom and Core 2/i7 in the same computer... I am not sure how much work that would take. I see no reason why it couldn't be made to work, but I always hear about multiprocessor machines using the same types of processors. Also, the Atom and Core i7 do not support the exact same instruction set.

I think... (1)

Yeff (1108747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29479981)

...I just had an orgasm. I don't even own the chip yet so I guess that was a bit premature... (yeah, I went there.)

FRiST STOP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480037)

Survive at all And exEcutes a

yu0 fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29480061)

Lereson and chosen, whatever you get distracted fueling internal

Hot Chip... Literally! (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480445)

Battery usage is fine and all that, but the current rage is thermal management. This has gotten more than one manufacturer (literally and figuratively) in hot water. The biggie was Apple with their 175-200F Intels in their MacBook Pros. All they had to say was don't run them so hard.

Heh.

Next you got Dell and their weenie-cooking laptops that seared some poor Padre's phallus, giving him 2nd degree burns.
No comment from Dell's higher-ups... What a way to make it right with the Lord guys...

And last, but not the least, HP and their tabletop scorching units that don't seem to quit cooking until some poorly designed component that can't stand the heat finally either cooks or fall off the board. No comment from them either, not even a canned statement with some instructions about how to keep your laptops cool.

Laptop rigs (1)

michaelleung (1335645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29480767)

Obviously, laptops have caught up to desktops in terms of power. Now it seems like a good buy to get a high end laptop instead of a desktop. Hell, I'll do that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...