While Intel Corp.’s next-generation mobile central processing units (CPUs) code-named Yonah with two processing engines are projected to deliver higher performance compared to today’s mobile chips, their power consumption is claimed to rise dramatically and become nearly two times higher compared to today’s top-performing mobile chip.
A report over CNET News.com web-site claims that Yonah processors will come in different classes: E, T, L and U. The E-class processors are expected to consume over 50W and to be aimed at gamers as well as desktop replacement notebooks. The T-class Yonah chips will, according to the web-site, have maximum power consumption of between 25W and 49W and will be intended for mainstream mobile computers. The L- and U-series chips will devour up to 24W and 14W of power respectively and are projected to be intended for thin and light laptops.
The web-site declares 27W power consumption for current Intel Pentium M processors based on Dothan core, though, 27W is thermal design power, which neither is maximum power consumption, nor is the maximum theoretical amount of power a CPU can dissipate, according to Intel Corp.’s documents.
Earlier some sources noted that Yonah processors will keep its second core suspended when on battery mode, thus, prolonging battery life. But chips with higher thermal dissipation in general require more advanced cooling systems, which will make laptops harder to carry.
Intel Yonah processor is a yet another derivative of the so-called Banias architecture, which inherits many peculiarities of the P6 architecture. Yonah will have two processing engines and will be produced using 65nm process technology late this year with commercial availability scheduled for Q1 2006. The target clock-rate for Yonah processor is 2.17GHz, while the chip’s processor system bus will clock at 667MHz. Intel also plans single-core Yonah flavours.
Intel representatives did not comment on the news-story.
Comments currently:
9
Discussion started: 10/13/05 10:13:45 AM
Latest comment: 10/15/05 12:19:36 AM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-6]
1.
this article is misleading and the author obviously doesn't kno what he's talking about. yes, there is an "E" version of yonah that will consume over 49watts but the standard "T" version will have consumption inline with current intel offerings.
[
Posted by: mav

|
Date: 10/13/05 10:13:46 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Agreed, the author doesn't have the full picture as to why.
"E" version =" Extreme" version = Extreme Edition
=> Compromise on EVERYTHING for performance.
(This includes thermal characteristics and your wallet).
I guarantee these will be unnecessarily expensive.
[
Posted by: 423

|
Date: 10/13/05 09:53:23 PM]
2.
Hmmmm... two cores... twice the heat output... imagine that!
[
Posted by: Jeff7181

|
Date: 10/13/05 12:23:07 PM]
3.
"Intel’s Dual-Core Mobile Chips to Consume More Power" ...gee...imagine that. :P
[
Posted by: boner

|
Date: 10/13/05 05:11:41 PM]
4.
Did anyone else get irritated by the word "peculiarities" with regards to the P6 core? It is misused, and implies something negative while it is arguably one of the best x86 processors ever made. Peculiarities? What is so peculiar about the P6?
I agree with the previous two comments, twice the power with twice the processor cores running at the same clock speed is not that unusual. Also, keep in mind the 2.16 x 2 has a maximum of 49 watts, not over 50. That is the for the E class, and they do not reveal the clock speeds for that. A 2.16 GHz Pentium M would rape anything AMD or Intel has at 49 watts, nothing even comes close to that type of speed per watt.
AMD and Intel had to seriously downclock their dual core processors, vis-a-vis their single cores, to exhibit less than doubling the maximum power usage. They had to, they could not handle it. The Pentium M can, so they do not have to downclock it to make it feasible. That is hardly negative.
The "E" family will hopefully be for the desktop, where low power is less important. In this light, they can use more than 50 watts without anyone blinking. This would seem low by comparison with competing products, and would be very,very attractive. It would help them win educated consumers, who by now realize the Pentium 4 is not a good purchase. The interesting thing is that with dual cores the Pentium M would benefit much more than the Athlon 64, which is much less efficient and is clock speed limited by the heat dissipation. It could be that the Athlon 64 single cores are very competitive with the Pentium M single cores, but in dual core configurations it falls short because the clock speed is limited more by heat dissipation.
Either way, this should be a very good product. Low power usage with that type of processing power is very attractive.
[
Posted by: TA152H

|
Date: 10/13/05 05:16:57 PM]
5.
Actually P-M's and A64's (1m cache versions) perform about the same at the same clockspeed. Since both will be going dual core in the mobile arena I'd expect that to continue. The question will be which will do better in clockspeed and there are voices on both sides of that fence shouting loudly.
Honestly Yonah has 2 weaknesses. If it follows the P-M performance will drop dramatically when the cache is exceeded, and it won't have 64 bit nor will 64 bit be an upgrade option for Napa (first version) platforms.
Still it should do well :) and its night and day better than a P4.
[
Posted by: Anemone

|
Date: 10/13/05 07:08:06 PM]
+ expand thread (2 answers)
- collapse thread
How can not having 64bit capability a weakness?
These CPUs are not designated for workstation/server market.
(Where 64bit apps are most useful).
They're for notebooks and low power products...
Areas where 64bit haven't even made a scratch on.
All I've heard so far is WinXP for AMD64/EMT64 being a
complete waste of time and money due to lack of driver support.
(Whether this was a delibrate act by Microsoft remains unknown,
but I wouldn't be surprised if MS did this to favour Intel).
Linux/Unix is better in this regard as you can compile the driver
for it. But not everyone is on Linux/etc.
If you made the point in regards to Sossaman, (SMP capable Yonah),
then I agree...But not for Yonah.
The generation further down: Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest are
the ones to go for if you need 64bit capability on a Pentium-M class platform.
As for Pentium-M vs A64...Of course they're about the same in performance!
One uses the P6 as its basis, but is highly modified with P4-like features.
The other is based on the K7, but modified with 64bit and other performance
improvements.
Both have met before in another life (PIII vs Athlon), and they will meet again
in the future (Pentium-M vs A64).
Pentium-M, like its distant relative, the Pentium III, benefits by consuming less
power. This offers it a wider marketing potential than A64. You don't see A64
CPUs in embedded or dense system solutions, do you? Quite a few people want
one, but it ain't happening!
Other than that, AMD and Intel will lock horns again.
(Once Intel kills the P4 completely by the end of 2006.)
[
Posted by: 423

|
Date: 10/13/05 10:13:29 PM]
My point was that the Athlon 64 and Pentium M should be close on a clock cycle basis, although the tests I have seen shows the Athlon 64 needing slightly more. Now, when we go to dual cores, with power not being the limitation that it is for the Pentium M in notebooks, which do you think will clock higher? The Pentium M is already very close in performance, and has much more stringent power restrictions. On the desktop, it will clock higher and should have no problems with the Athlon 64.
As far as 32-bits versus 64-bits, there are only a limited number of situations where you need to do arithmetic with numbers over 2 Billion, and you pay a penalty with code density which lowers performance. The extra registers help, but overall it is hardly important right now as very few applications are written for it, and even those that are generally show only limited benefit from it. Some do, but not so many it really will impact the marketplace.
The Pentium M will be a killer on the desktop, especially the "E" edition. It already is a great processor and is used in notebooks. The price is a little daunting though :(.
[
Posted by: TA152H

|
Date: 10/14/05 12:20:53 AM]
6.
This is the chip I'm waiting on to transition over mainstream notebook which will allow me to play mainstream titles and weigh around 5-6lbs.
[
Posted by: ODi

|
Date: 10/15/05 12:19:36 AM]
[1-6]