×

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 Claims Haswell Architecture Offers 50% Longer Battery Life vs. Ivy Bridge

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the just-don't-use-a-screen-or-any-other-hardware dept.

Intel 120

MojoKid writes "As with any major CPU microarchitecture launch, one can expect the usual 10~15% performance gains, but Intel apparently has put its efficiency focus into overdrive. Haswell should provide 2x the graphics performance, and it's designed to be as power efficient as possible. In addition, the company has further gone on to state that Haswell should enable a 50% battery-life increase over last year's Ivy Bridge. There are a couple of reasons why Haswell is so energy-efficient versus the previous generation, but the major reason is moving the CPU voltage regulator off of the motherboard and into the CPU package, creating a Fully Integrated Voltage Regulator, or FIVR. This is a far more efficient design and with the use of 'enhanced' tri-gate transistors, current leakage has been reduced by about 2x — 3x versus Ivy Bridge."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

120 comments

Well then (-1, Troll)

KublaCant (2847303) | about a year ago | (#43815921)

I will be able to watch pr0n for the entire 3-hour train ride home to mommy ! WTG, Intel !

Re:Well then (1, Informative)

mallyn (136041) | about a year ago | (#43816105)

So what? Amtrak has seat-side power for your computers. What you say does not make sense. (

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816143)

Yeah, but I also bet Amtrak frowns on nerds jacking off in public, so I guess he spends the 3 hour trip in the can. AFAIK there's no power socket in the toilets.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816255)

Of course there is. How do you think people use electric shavers?

Re:Well then (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43816273)

Yes, but they don't have a ground plug, so jacking off in the can while plugged in greatly increases the risks of severe electric shock.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816635)

Some would find that a compelling feature.

Re:Well then (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43817123)

Yes, but they don't have a ground plug, so jacking off in the can while plugged in greatly increases the risks of severe electric shock.

You've obviously never tried electric stimulation...

laptops are dc and I don't think ground pass thoug (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43818227)

laptops are dc and I don't think ground pass though the power brick to laptop.

Re: laptops are dc and I don't think ground pass t (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#43818513)

The Y capacitor [imgur.com] can leak enough for an uncomfortable tingle on sensitive skin like your bare lap (eg wearing shorts) or the underside of your forearms.

Re:Well then (1, Funny)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#43816193)

If you're watching 3-hours of porn in a single sitting you're doing it wrong.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816743)

He is doing it just right. If you are doing "it" with a Victoria's secret catalog in 3 minutes then you are doing it very, very wrong.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43818287)

Tantric Porn

OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (0)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#43815957)

Early last year some Lenovo Thinkpads had issues with lockups due to a voltage regulator being off spec.

Not terribly on-topic, but it was either that or scream: "I just bought an Ivy Brigde laptop dammit, Dammit, DAAAMMMIT!!!"

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816181)

I'm actually going to buy an Ivy Bridge convertible today. I checked with the vendor and they won't have Haswell machines until early next year. The model I am getting just became available last week. It seems that, when you need (want) a new machine, you just need to get one. If you wait, you end up chasing the "new thing" forever and never get your new shiny toy.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43819079)

WRONG! The Ivy Bridge mobile processors run to HOT, so it'll slowly burn-up all components in about two years.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#43816499)

Source? This is the first I've heard of this, I haven't seen any articles on the subject, so this would be very enlightening. Generally Thinkpad quality is very high, even if their screen quality went to garbage starting around Thanksgiving 2012... It would be interesting to see more details on this, as I have been tracking the downward spiral of Thinkpad quality ever since the Lenovo CEO Yang Yuanqing announced that they were going to square off the Thinkpad vs Ideapad brands under lenovo at the cost of giving users worse quality products under both brands....

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#43817075)

Check out the Lenovo forums regarding the "stop code" problem on the T430s model. They rectified the production problems in early September.

Incidentally, coming from Macbooks I have to say that press coverage of Windows/Linux systems and their performance issues is very scanty. It feels like no single model sells enough units to garner a critical mass of attention. With Apple stuff, every model has 3rd party teardown videos, other online guides and press attention just days after hitting the shelves. Maybe the difference is the typical Apple user cares more... I can't figure it out but wouldn't be surprised if the non-Apple segment was suffering from fragmentation.

Thinkpad quality is still some of the best in the business, and I think their low extended warranty prices are proof of that. But it does appear that the ideapad consumer focus has pulled them off track a bit; The 'Thinkpad' brand is being spun off into a separate division to address that problem.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43816765)

Early last year some Lenovo Thinkpads had issues with lockups due to a voltage regulator being off spec.

Not terribly on-topic, but it was either that or scream: "I just bought an Ivy Brigde laptop dammit, Dammit, DAAAMMMIT!!!"

But putting the voltage reg in the CPU seems to be fraught with peril as well.

This means you are going to have to 1) have redundant regulation on the mo-bo for other components, and 2) subject your CPU to much higher (and unregulated) voltages. You've added another heat generation source right there on the CPU, and power excursions are likely to take out your processor.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about a year ago | (#43817047)

But higher voltages means less current, which helps.

Plus if the voltage regulators are in the CPU package, they can use the MUCH better thermal solution provided for it.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#43817139)

If that's true then maybe Intel is making this move so they can sell more product: Power breakdowns to stand in as a replacement for technological obsolescence (which has been petering out in recent years).

And before anyone calls me cynical, I know for a fact that Intel is concerned about keeping the replacement cycle going. They have stated it at times when investors were getting jittery, and they even had a TV ad in plain view that admitted they wanted to entice people who "thought" they were perfectly happy with their existing PCs.

Re: OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#43818631)

You already have a separate, programmable regulator for Vcore (overclockers fiddle with it all the time) and in both cases if the regulator fails the CPU is toast so there's no advantage in keeping it outside. I'm not sure how they integrated the reactive components, but they're surely more reliable than current electrolytics, plus shorter paths mean less voltage drop meaning less stress.

Re:OEMs don't always get voltage regulation right (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43818825)

This means you are going to have to 1) have redundant regulation on the mo-bo for other components,

Nope. Motherboards already had dedicated regulators just for the CPU.

High-speed CPU core logic needs very low supply voltages, around 1.0V these days. Lower speed parts built in older processes need higher voltages -- 1.2V, 1.5V, 1.8V, or more. There's not much on the motherboard which even can share supplies with the CPU. Also, CPUs now dynamically vary their own core voltage (by sending commands to the regulator) in order to save power. That wouldn't work so well with other chips sharing the same regulator.

It's been a very long time since the regulators which powered the CPU core also powered any other chips on the motherboard.

and 2) subject your CPU to much higher (and unregulated) voltages. You've added another heat generation source right there on the CPU, and power excursions are likely to take out your processor.

Who said the input to a regulator must be unregulated? Current x86 systems already convert one regulated voltage to others. The ATX power supply outputs regulated 12V DC to the motherboard, which is then converted to several low voltages to supply the CPU and other devices. Haswell's integrated voltage regulators accept 1.8V input, so in practice they're going to be fed by a 1.8V regulator on the motherboard.

Heat doesn't appear to be that big a deal. The top desktop TDP bin is going from 77W (Ivy Bridge) to 84W (Haswell). The total system power is going down, not up -- despite the extra conversion step, the integrated voltage regulators offer efficiency gains.

(One is that it's now practical to have a lot of independent power domains. Haswell apparently has no less than five independent power planes. This makes it possible to dynamically adjust the voltage of different portions of the chip independently, giving a better match between activity level and power use. Another gain is that it's difficult and inefficient to supply a very low voltage at very high current over long distances. This is why nobody was ever even slightly interested in extending the ATX spec to supply ~1.0V directly to the CPU. Haswell puts the high current / low voltage supply as close to the load as it possibly can go.)

Nice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815967)

That's fantastic. I love seeing efficiency, but I imagine that the screen would eat most of the battery life in consumer applications.

Re:Nice (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816013)

Depends on the screen you have, I would guess. https://www.google.com/search?q=laptop+screen+wattage&aq=f&oq=laptop+screen+wattage
If you look at the first link there, you'll see that the LCD screen takes up on the order of 5W of power at full brightness. The same paper says that the power usage roughly doubles when you start blasting the CPU. If you use your laptop like I do (I'm in an engineering program at college), that's some nice savings there if they can trim the CPU usage.

Re:Nice (3, Insightful)

niftymitch (1625721) | about a year ago | (#43816433)

Depends on the screen you have, I would guess. https://www.google.com/search?q=laptop+screen+wattage&aq=f&oq=laptop+screen+wattage [google.com] If you look at the first link there, you'll see that the LCD screen takes up on the order of 5W of power at full brightness. The same paper says that the power usage roughly doubles when you start blasting the CPU. If you use your laptop like I do (I'm in an engineering program at college), that's some nice savings there if they can trim the CPU usage.

Yes screen technology is important.... Pixel Qi technology seems to be ignored and should not
Especially on laptops that mate well with a docking station for "work".
A big quality display at the office is a good thing. Especially on that has been rotated to be tall. The ability to have a very low power transmissive/ reflective display while mobile and a serious display at a desk at work is under served.

Docking station tech is lame at best. First the battery charging logic is flawed. The charger should disconnect from the battery once it is charged. It should test the battery once an hour thereafter and decide what to do. I cannot tell you how many batteries I have had die from long term over charging and lack of correct dynamics in use.
A docking station should have cooling designed to keep the battery as well as the CPU/logic cool. Most obstruct air flow and do neither well.

Re:Nice (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#43816921)

Docking station tech is lame at best. First the battery charging logic is flawed. The charger should disconnect from the battery once it is charged. It should test the battery once an hour thereafter and decide what to do. I cannot tell you how many batteries I have had die from long term over charging and lack of correct dynamics in use.

Or simply not charge the battery. I think this is a software problem as opposed to hardware issue.

A docking station should have cooling designed to keep the battery as well as the CPU/logic cool. Most obstruct air flow and do neither well.

I think this was the purpose of Thunderbolt. You don't need a docking station anymore. Just the charger and one cable for connections. As far as I know Apple is the only one that fully embraces TB. Not surprisingly I think this is because Apple doesn't have a docking station. Maybe it was for aesthetics that Apple never designed one. Other manufacturers are more hestitant to use TB as it means they can no longer charnge $150-200 for a docking station any more.

Re:Nice (1)

patchmaster (463431) | about a year ago | (#43817515)

Docking station tech is lame at best. First the battery charging logic
is flawed. The charger should disconnect from the battery once it is charged.
It should test the battery once an hour thereafter and decide what to do. I cannot
tell you how many batteries I have had die from long term over charging and
lack of correct dynamics in use.

A docking station should have cooling designed to keep the battery as well
as the CPU/logic cool. Most obstruct air flow and do neither well.

This depends entirely on the laptop/battery. The last two Lenovos I've had both offered smart charging where the battery would optionally not begin charging until below X% and would stop when the battery signaled it was full. The charging threshold could either be directly specified by the user or determined by the laptop based on usage pattern.

My previous machine I set to not recharge until below 85%. It was a power hog so the battery was pretty much a pack-along UPS. 15% represented a fairly small number of minutes of operation.

My current Thinkpad is vastly better on battery. I can get well in excess of 4 hours of casual use from a single charge. I quite often use it unplugged so I have the threshold set higher since I'm more likely to need that extra capacity.

Re:Nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43817353)

That's why the next time someone says "I'm glad Apple embarrassed the rest of industry toward more pixels" you need to be of two minds: agree with them on desktops, and violent disagree with them and call them fuckwits, in regard to anything mobile (laptops, tablets, handhelds). "Retina" is a two-edged sword. So.. where can I get the Haswell laptop (yeah, I know, Intel wants to call them "ultrabooks" but they're really fucking laptops so drop the bullshit) with a 1024x600 display? They will exist, right? Right?? If having that few pixels means they can't call it an UltraBook(TM) then all the better because what I actually am starting to need, is a useable laptop. And when will the 320px wide phones come back? Any day now, right? Please? Please? Am I the only person who isn't walking around with a nuclear generator in their backpack? I can't be; I just can't!

Nuke Mecca (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43815995)

Hey, hey, Ho, Ho! Jihad Joe has got to go!

No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816003)

According to amdahl's law we are know this is not happening. Screen is sucking up most battery power in the system (by a wide margin). So unless Haswell has some magic that's working on the screen....

Re:No way (2)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816125)

Amdahl's law applies to performance, not really geared toward power. Unless you would like to enlighten the class with a mathematical explanation of your assertion?

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816225)

I'm afraid you misunderstand Amdahl's law. Its original frame of mind was for performance, certainly, but the principle applies generally to any mathematically similar performance metric.

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816281)

To make an argument that something is impossible due to Amdahl's law you need to know the overhead that you can't get rid of. How much power is the rest of our reference laptop consuming?

Re:No way (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816373)

Still waiting on that math.

Re:No way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816513)

here is an imaginary i5-3439Y laptop power budget:
screen : 12W
board :1 W
cpu : 15 W
HDD : 1W
Wifi : 1W
Total : 30W

To slash that by 50% you would have to have a magical CPU that consume no power, so there is your upper bound on power reduction...

Re:No way (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816533)

That's nice and all, but that is not Amdahl's law.

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816599)

the sequential part is the rest of the computer, the cpu is the parallel part. it is plug-gable into Amdahl as it is a law to compute an upper bound on an improvement metric. That concept applies as soon you have a fixed cost item and a variable one.

Re:No way (3, Insightful)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816711)

Really? Amdahl's law is:

Tn = a + (1-a)/N

Where Tn = Time with N cores
N = Number of Cores
a (should be alpha) = fraction of instructions in serial code.

What you are talking about is:

Bp = (1-((Pt - Pc)/pt))*100
While Amdahl is significant to the computer science world, are you claiming he invented percentages?

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816791)

In my temporary office (they are renovating my private office...), I am in close proximity of 3 guys from the scientific calculus center and they are working on parallel algorithms speedups. I guess I adopted it subconsciously, but I cannot talk for Kjella or the OP

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43817067)

First of all, if you improve battery life by 50% you cut power usage by one third (1 / 1.50 = 2/3). That would mean you need to go down from 30W to 20W. If you have a CPU that consumes 5W that is most certainly not magical. In fact, Haswell massively improves idle performance and most laptop CPUs will be idling anyway.

I don't see magic, I see people that did more math than you.

Re:No way (1)

Swarley (1795754) | about a year ago | (#43818211)

Don't hold your breath. He obviously could have just said that the screen eats enough power that you couldn't possibly cut total power consumption by half with just the CPU. But that doesn't make him sound as intelligent and mysterious as citing a mathematical argument for which he has no idea how it would actually work out without actual numbers and isn't really relevant in the first place.

Re:No way (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43816451)

The analogy is sound, the "parallel" part is the processor and the "non-parallel" part the rest and it'll approach the same power baseline with increased processor efficiency as it does the performance baseline with increased parallelization. But I feel it's a rather silly complication of the obvious, unlike parallelization. Yes of course if the screen is the biggest power hog, then it has the most potential for improvement. Note that it would be a fallacy to think it will always have the greatest improvement, if the screen takes 60% and the processor 40% but you can only reduce screen power by 10% to 54% and the processor by 50% to 20% of the original you gain more with the processor.

Re:No way (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816495)

My point being is that Amadhl's law is not some generalized law of diminishing returns (we already nave one of those) and it's not 1-(1/) * 100, which the OP seems to think. It applies to a vary narrow set of problems in parallel processing. Can't just go around smearing it all over everything like a Canadian with a jar of mayo.

More to the point, however, the OP's assumption that the screen uses the most power is dead wrong.

Re:No way (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816507)

ugh. nave=have and that should read 1-(1/{insert some part specific performance factor here}) * 100

Re:No way (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43816659)

Amdahl's laws are many.

Here are four of them.

0. Amdahl’s parallelism law: If a computation has a serial component S and a parallel component P, then the maximum speedup is (S+P)/S.
1. Amdahl’s balanced system law: A system needs a bit of IO per second for each instruction per second: about 8 MIPS per MBps.
2. Amdahl’s memory law: alpha=1: that is, in a balanced system the MB/MIPS ratio, called alpha, is 1.
3. Amdahl’s IO law: Programs do one IO per 50,000 instructions.

Corollary:

In any discussion of computer architecture, at least one member of the set of Amdahl's laws is bound to be relevant.

Re:No way (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43817725)

But only what you listed as the 0th law is credible and broadly accepted, as a fundamental rule. There is great doubt as to under what conditions those other 'laws' can or will continue to hold.

Re:No way (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#43816401)

Screen is sucking up most battery power in the system (by a wide margin).

Maybe with the old fluorescent backlights, but not these days. A typical LED backlight on a laptop draws something like 3 watts at maximum brightness. It isn't lost in the noise, but it is by no means the main power draw. The CPU, chipset, and RAM take way more current.

Re:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43818413)

The CPU, chipset, and RAM take way more current.

Yay, this is Slashdot, so I get to stroke my inner Pedant... ...take way more power.

FTFY

=)

Re:No way (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#43818999)

Considering that everything is ultimately running off a battery that provides only a single voltage, the distinction is moot.

What about the display? (1, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43816035)

The biggest battery drain on my phone is always the display, followed by "Cell standby". How is a CPU and chipset able to promise a 50% increase in battery life when it's not even the biggest power user in the phone?

Re:What about the display? (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43816073)

I'd be interested to know what phone you have, that uses an Intel Ivy Bridge server/desktop/laptop processor.

Re:What about the display? (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43816093)

For starters we are talking about laptops, with x86 CPUs that are much more power hungry than the ARM based proc in your phone.

Re:What about the display? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816161)

Phone CPU's vs laptop and desktop CPUs are in different leagues.

It is no surprise the biggest draw is your screen in a phone. On a laptop the biggest ones are CPU then video card/chipset then screen.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Many phones are SoC's these days or at best 2-3 chips. Laptops are not there yet. Your phone cpu measures its draw in milliwatts the laptop/desktop crew measure in watts.

They had a very decent boost last year with ivy. I went from a sandy bridge laptop to an ivy and the battery life doubled. I regularly get 3-4 hours out of my laptop. This means they can go with a slightly smaller battery (yeah less weight) and hit the same hour runs.

Re:What about the display? (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43817163)

They had a very decent boost last year with ivy. I went from a sandy bridge laptop to an ivy and the battery life doubled.

That's nothing, wait till you see the Tacoma Bridge chips they're planning for the next year. I've heard they've made a real break-through with them.

This is about the cpu gpu? (2)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year ago | (#43816279)

Without checking the source, i bet it is only the cpu/gpu/power thtat is getting lower values. It is the old intel story again. First it was the atom cpu that was supposed to be super low power. However they forgot to mention you needed a chitset along with it for the video networking pci that was not so super savy with power.

Now the cpu/gpu is super power savery. But the wifi/display/battery/2g/3g/nfc/audio/cam/gps might still drain your battery in 3 seconds.....

Re:This is about the cpu gpu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816427)

First it was the atom cpu that was supposed to be super low power. However they forgot to mention you needed a chitset along with it for the video networking pci that was not so super savy with power.

The crappy chipset was only for desktop Atoms, which wasn't really a market Intel wanted; much better margins selling a Core Duo instead.

I have four Atom systems. The original dual-core Atoms with crappy Intel chipset take about 40W at the wall, the same dual-core Atom with Ion chipset takes about 25W from the wall, and the netbook with single-core Atom and less crappy Intel chipset takes about 8W from the battery according to the Linux battery monitor.

Re:This is about the cpu gpu? (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#43816745)

Seconded with Atom netbooks. I had one that lasted from LA to Tokyo at one point; it drew about 6W from the battery.

Although we're close to that now. Now I have a 14" gaming laptop with an i5 Ivy Bridge in it, and powertop reports that I can run the whole shebang (obviously with the GPU off) on 8W or so.

Re:What about the display? (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#43818013)

The biggest battery drain on my phone is always the display, followed by "Cell standby". How is a CPU and chipset able to promise a 50% increase in battery life when it's not even the biggest power user in the phone?

I would guess that you suffered a brief lapse in reading comprehension. My take on this is that the Haswell uses 50% less power for the same performance / capability as an Ivy Bridge. Whether or not that cuts battery consumption overall by 50%... well I highly doubt it.

First Post! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816077)

Darn. At least it would have been if I had a Haswell. My Ivy Bridge's battery ran out.

Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816085)

Is this seriously 50% increase in battery life? Or just 50% reduction in power usage by CPU? The article wasn't clear on this. I'm assuming the power usage thing.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816177)

Very likely, they're talking about the CPU using 50% less power. Intel doesn't make laptop batteries, and battery technology is on a plateau right now since we're hitting the very limits of chemistry in Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries at the moment.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year ago | (#43817029)

Very like they are talking about the CPU using 33% percent less power, thus increasing how long it can run on given about of Wh by 50%.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43817601)

Very likely, they're talking about the CPU using 50% less power.

Very likely, they aren't, since they make specific claims about CPU power under different regimes and all of them are much more significant than that, and then go on to say that the CPUs will enable laptops using them to have 50% greater battery life.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816257)

"As Marco mentioned in his report from IDF, 'The goal during Haswell’s design phase was to not only increase performance per watt, but to do so while improving power efficiency by roughly 20x with some workloads' - that's rather staggering. As we can now share, the company has further gone on to state that Haswell should enable a 50% battery-life increase over last year's Ivy Bridge."

Unless they're grossly paraphrasing, that's battery life. That would equate to about ~2/3 the power usage on average. They say elsewhere that they were able to reduce the leakage current by 2x to 3x. CPUs idle most of the time anyway, so between that and the 20x power efficiency on some workloads, seems plausible as long as Intel's numbers are right.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816869)

FYI the 20x figure refers to idle power. For workloads where the system is awake but mostly idle (think web browsing etc) you'll see enormous gains in energy efficiency; the less idle it is the less gain. So when they talk about a 50% gain in battery life there's some assumption about average CPU load hidden behind that. (Not an unreasonable assumption, but if you were expecting it to last 50% longer with all cores maxxed out and fans howling, prepare to be disappointed.)

The technical advance behind this is that Haswell adds a new idle power state which is similar to an older one in terms of entry/exit speed and operating system interface, but is able to shut down a lot more of the chip than the old power state in Ivy (and earlier) could.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43816331)

> Is this seriously 50% increase in battery life? Or just 50% reduction in power usage by CPU?

Assuming the CPU was the only element consuming power, a 50% reduction in power usage by the CPU would equate to a 100% increase in battery life. But, yes, what they are claiming is that the net effect of the various improvements is that it should enable a 50% increase in battery life, not that it will merely reduce power consumption on the CPU by the amount that would do that if the CPU was the only power draw.

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816391)

I'll bet what they'll do is just halve the battery capacity (or reduce by whatever is the proportion CPU power consumption). You're happy with what you get with ivy bridge, right?

Re:Barry Life or CPU Power Usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816487)

Fuckasses make everything political on this site.

Re: How is Barry Life Formed? (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43818711)

How is Barry Life Formed? How Usage get Consemption?

they need to do way instain comsumer> who kill thier barrys. becuse these barry cant frigth back?

it was on the charger this mroing a user in ar who had kill their three divice.
they are taking the three barry back to zero charge too lady to rest.
My parry are with the tickle chrager who lost its powre ; i am truley sorry for voltage lots.

Really? Maybe when asleep. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816211)

My laptop consumes most of its power via the discrete GPU, display and other peripherals. I know, since if I switch from the good GPU to the crappy one, and dim the screen, my battery life goes from 2.5 to 5 hours. Thus, with everything on, at least half the power draw can't be CPU, so there is no way this could double my battery life.

But, when idle, with a dimmed or off screen, yes, it could help a lot. Apparently Haswell has some major improvements to handling network (including wifi) packets when in low power modes, and this should be a big win. I assume this kind of situation is where they got the 2x number, since they would choose the case that would produce the largest improvement for marketing.

Re:Really? Maybe when asleep. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816265)

Oh, thats 50% longer, so 150% the length, so 2/3 the power draw. I guess that kinda wrecks my numbers, so pretend my numbers were slightly different, ok?

No, that's not it. (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43816413)

My laptop consumes most of its power via the discrete GPU, display and other peripherals. I know, since if I switch from the good GPU to the crappy one, and dim the screen, my battery life goes from 2.5 to 5 hours. Thus, with everything on, at least half the power draw can't be CPU, so there is no way this could double my battery life.

Math tip: A 50% increase in battery life (what they actually claimed) isn't the same as doubling it.

Also, since a big selling point for Haswell (aside from power efficiencies) is the claimed greatly improved (~2x for laptop-oriented models, ~3x for desktop-oriented models) improvement in graphics performance, I'd be very surprised if their claims for about battery life were focussed on systems using discrete GPUs rather than relying on the integrated graphics on Haswell.

But, when idle, with a dimmed or off screen, yes, it could help a lot. Apparently Haswell has some major improvements to handling network (including wifi) packets when in low power modes, and this should be a big win. I assume this kind of situation is where they got the 2x number

Well, except that they explicitly claimed that was overall battery life, and it was a 50% increase not 2x, and they actually cited numbers for improvement in idle life and it was much higher than the +50% claimed overall (or even the 2x you pulled out of who-knows-where), since their claimed idle-mode improvement was twenty times (TFA is less clear on this, but Computerworld covers the same event with more specificity: "And in idle or standby mode the chips will do even better, extending battery life by up to 20 times, [Rani Borkar, Intel's Architecture Group VP] said." [emphasis added])

I've got FIVR (1)

mpdolan37 (675902) | about a year ago | (#43816301)

FIVR in the mornin' FIVR in the evenin', FIVR all through the night!

Re:I've got FIVR (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43816509)

FIVR in the mornin' FIVR in the evenin', FIVR all through the night!

Yeah, but the biggest benefit it seems they got in sleep states and I don't think sleeping in the morning, sleeping in the evening, sleeping all through the night is what the song is all about...

Desktops? (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#43816317)

Is this a laptop only chipset, or does intel have goodies for those who like to be chained to their desks?

Re:Desktops? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | about a year ago | (#43816377)

Haswell is a laptop/desktop/server microarchitecture, but Intel doesn't care very much about the desktop anymore, so expect little press coverage of that angle.

Re:Desktops? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43817077)

Haswell is a laptop/desktop/server microarchitecture, but Intel doesn't care very much about the desktop anymore, so expect little press coverage of that angle.

Yeah, its not like most of the stories on this announcement have covered Intel's claim of tripling the integrated graphics performance on desktop systems (and doubling it on laptop systems.)

Well, except that that is exactly the case.

Yes and No. (2)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year ago | (#43816369)

Like most CPU's these days, they produce a lot of variants.

For this article they are likely talking about the "U" variant with 15W TDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Mobile_processors [wikipedia.org]

You can't really compare that with the (or say in same breath) desktop "K" variant with 84W TDP (also has twice the cores and threads).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors [wikipedia.org]

I am pretty sure the benchmarks will be wildly different. Anyway the summary makes it sound like it is all one thing. I am sure it will be very good and all, but I know I won't be getting one of those power saving versions. POWER! (To quote Clarkson)

10% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816493)

Which translates to 10% longer battery life after factoring in your whole laptop, in best case.

I wonder how they compare (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about a year ago | (#43816653)

I wonder how the performance vs power consumption compares to the old Transmeta chips that started the trend.

Not much left for the motherboard to do (1)

Darkmane (767114) | about a year ago | (#43816737)

Soon motherboards will be just wiring for the I/O and CPU

Re:Not much left for the motherboard to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43816877)

It were ever thus.

Re:Not much left for the motherboard to do (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43817769)

Soon motherboards will be just wiring for the I/O and CPU

And despite that, there is no price decrease to be seen in motherboards... if anything, they are getting more expensive, despite having less silicon and intelligence on them <G>

Re:Not much left for the motherboard to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43818573)

In the manufacturers defense though they are adding heat pipes and sinks as standard, whereas before they were only on high end motherboards.

"Transistors maintain the same operating frequency (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year ago | (#43817915)

Is that marketing speak for "we were unable to increase the operating frequency"?

Re:"Transistors maintain the same operating freque (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43818595)

Not really, no.

There's a reason desktop CPU's have been limited to around 3GHZ since 2005, transistors can only change voltage so fast.
Overclockers can accomplish significantly better, but the life of a CPU is considerably reduced in these situation, and that's not just because of extra heat.

Re:"Transistors maintain the same operating freque (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year ago | (#43818931)

AMD CPUs run 4.4GHz stock. There must be a different reason. It might be a tradeoff between complexity and pipeline depth.

And yet... (4, Informative)

RMingin (985478) | about a year ago | (#43818047)

Too bad CPU power consumption hasn't been the biggest consumer of watts in many years.

Hint; the biggest amount of consumed current in most laptops is the glowing part you look at.

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...