Mobile Skylake launching September 2015

As much as we'd like to see otherwise, because GT3e models of Broadwell launched now(technically a paper launch but still) I have to assume that Skylake GT4e is going to be a year later. Look at desktops, it makes sense Broadwell GT3e and Skylake GT2 is launching at same time because one focuses on graphics and other on CPU. But Broadwell GT3e and Skylake GT4e launching at the same time doesn't make sense because they are direct replacements. Tell me of ONE time when Intel did so. Or Skylake GT4e will be occupying a price point above Broadwell GT3e.

Doesn't make sense, that a company like Intel so focused on milking out every dollar that they priced the Iris Pro 5200 to be uncompetitive with the DISCRETE parts that take up much board space and seperate logic, is going to replace Broadwell 3 months later.

 

Broadwell was about right on time, some issue possibly, but possibly Intel were wanting to target lower power platforms, which the majority of people out there for their usage is all they need. They don't need to compete against anyone else for highend, so what is the hurry to them.

If Broadwell is running hot, could be due to FIVR still there which appears to be Haswell issue, and the fact Broadwell is really just a tweaked Haswell on a smaller node.

Skylake is meant to do away with FIVR, therefore is that is the heat issue, then heat should not be as bad. I have seen a few rumors pointing towards dual core with 8 threads, and quad core with 16 threads, so if that is the case then don't really need much more speed.

I would expect Intel to do the same with Skylake, just the low power mobile parts first, wait forever for the high end high power mobile parts, make do with Broadwell for the time being.

 

Are you serious? Even Intel openly admits that Broadwell was massively delayed.

As POWER8 has shown, increasing the number of threads per core has diminishing returns even under ideal scenarios. Going from 1 to 2 provides a ~30% increase, 2 to 4 provides ~10%, and 4 to 8 provides virtually nothing. And that's for high end servers running enterprise software and databases that are designed from the ground up to scale to thousands of threads - given the sad state of parallelization in Windows software, PCs would struggle to see any gains whatsoever.

All else being equal, doubling IPC > doubling clockspeed > doubling core count >>>>>>> doubling SMT.

 

But Broadwell's hotter and more power hungry than haswell, so the lower power platforms suffer more. The CintiQ companion tablets and the Yoga 3 etc had serious heating issues and such with it. The ULV market had to redesign their cooling to incorporate them in many chassis.

Maybe so... but there could be other things influencing it.

There's no data on Skylake's heat etc, but there IS data on its rated TDP, and in the desktop market, that's higher than Ivy Bridge, Haswell and Broadwell. So for all we know, Skylake is hotter and more power hungry. I'm HOPING it isn't, but I don't have a lot of high hopes due to no competition.

That's pointless. Just pointless. Hyperthreading is just meant to get a little more performance out of a single core. Adding two more hyperthreads per core doesn't do a whole lot and could actually very easily make things run worse, with the way programs hate using hyperthreads these days.

But they're not. Skylake for desktops is Q3 2015. Same for mainstream mobile chips. They have announced a simultaneous Broadwell/Skylake existence. Believe me, Intel has no love for Broadwell anymore. Skylake will be out somewhere around back to school this year.

 

Huh? Skylake is right on schedule.

 

Pretty sure Intel still love Broadwell, it will be powering their highest end HEDT processor on the X99 platform in about 6 months from now.

Anything here is just speculation.

 

Yep. Honestly, I was hoping Intel would do away with hyperthreading and offer us full on 6 and 8 core CPU's. Ditch this Iris Pro crap, and use that real estate for more CPU horsepower.

 

But then the cores will be relatively low-powered (lower voltage and frequency) which you may not like

 

I agree that it is unprecedented, but I still think it more likely than not. From the AnandTech review:

Intel has never been in this situation because they've never delayed a product this long. Broadwell was supposed to be out a year ago and, CPU-wise, it's clear that they've given up on getting any significant performance increase out of it. They can try to sell a product with basically the same functionality as it 2 year old predecessor (hey, the GPU makers do it) or they can release Skylake. Since Intel is a massive corporation and has multiple teams working on products, Skylake is ready now and it's not obvious to me that manufacturing Broadwell is a better use of Intel's fabs than Skylake (which may be an actual improvement and thus easier to sell).

 

I personally like the benefits of hyperthreading. No matter what it's extra power on the PC. Even if a game doesn't use it, the rest of the PC can use it. I much rather that benefit to speed. But so many extra threads is what the real problem is.

As for the Iris Pro... that's another tough thing to swallow, unless you simply mean "use HD graphics instead". At least for the iGPU-using machines out there.

But then again most of them I still believe shouldn't have the kind of power they're boasting, namely all those superthin models. So ehh... XD

 

I am over gaming notebooks, way to hard to keep cool. I rather Intel package in a fast Iris Pro with fastest/biggest bandwidth DDR4, to cover at least some basic gaming here and there on the go. Then if "other" PC manufacturers other than Apple can actually spend sometime making decent cooling solution in a thin platform, then can just run one processor to power all.

 

It would be nice if Apple could do it too.

Although personally, I'm more in favor of a somewhat thicker but cooler-running and more reliable system than an ultrathin designed to fit around the form factor

 

If apple could do it, they would have. But I still wouldn't spend any of my time trying for productivity with their short sighted os (le capitan... what a joke).

 

Not really, if they use the same package space as those with Iris Pro which uses up over 50% of the die. Regular HD graphics is like 20% of the die.

Iris Pro:


Haswell with HD4600:


Just make use of that Iris Pro space and add two more cores.

Well I'm thinking another chip designed for use with dedicated GPU's.... but Intel don't care about those...

 

The consideration isn't for package/die space. It's for heat and power consumption.

 

And you think two more cores, heck four more, is more than that massive heat producing and power guzzling Iris Pro?

 

If they're clocked and volted like current quad-cores, then yes

 

Considering that my disabled iGPU in my SLI model still results in quite a hot chip, I'd say yes, we need a cooler architecture first.

 

OK, give me 5-Core CPU with smaller iGPU and I'm in.

 

I just realized I didn't reply to this. I just saw this. I'm baffled at your statement.

Firstly, Apple does not know the meaning of the word "cooling". Apple throttles their stuff heavily before it overheats if it has any kind of power in it. There's a huge difference, and it's a terrible solution.

Next, you want high powered parts in an incredibly thin platform, and you expect cooling to be top notch. Let me make this clear for you: if this was possible, and existed, EVERYBODY would be buying the "perfect cooling ultrathin notebook" instead of wondering which brand to choose from. It's not possible by the laws of physics.

 

How the size of the platform it is decent, consider who else can make the perfect solution, which is almost no one. Point being, who has the best solution for thin, well that could be debatable in comparison. I found with my Macbook Pro Retina 15, i could run directly on lap without any heat or closing off any vents. Sure if i run it under some heavy load it would get hot like anything else and need something to separate it from my lap. This best thing I can see with apple is I cannot hear the fans, the vent intakes are on the sides, and the exhaust is between the hinge/lid area, near impossible to block off the vents or have hot air blasting at me.
Also I am only interest the the Iris Pro version without a dGPU, therefore in theory should run cooler providing they use similar heat sink and fans setup as something with dGPU.
And oh, tell me where else can I get a Iris Pro based thin notebook, other than the GS30 which I personally don't like. There isn't much options.

 

Yup, Biostar just said that its' Skylake desktop motherboards will be available in August.

To everyone saying Broadwell was late: well, it wasn't necessarily the architecture that was late, but the process. Intel had a hell of a time getting 14nm yields up to snuff (and they were still the first ones out of the gate with 14nm chips).

 

Because you're not even allowed to 1/4-way stress the thing, so it never actually "requires" much in the way of cooling.

That's kind of the point I'm getting at. That's a problem. Also, you might not even need to do that... as I said, you are not allowed to put that chip under any kind of load. Apple doesn't do "load". Apple puts quads in their machines but it's pointless. They're far better off using ULV chips; at least THOSE could likely achieve their full power with all apple's restrictions and terrible cooling.

See above "not letting PC hit load" for a reason.

Well, it ain't happening in that form factor. Every machine that hosts 4870HQ CPUs (never seen higher) has SERIOUS heating issues even at stock in just regular games. All the gigabytes do for sure, and most clevo rebranders won't even sell you the 4870HQ even though that laptop has the best cooling in the overall form factor as it doesn't work well enough.

The GS30 is the only one that offers it and likely because MSI didn't skimp (much) on the cooling for that laptop (despite that dangerously close M.2 slot to that heatpipe) and it doesn't have a dGPU. It's an expensive alternative to an extremely niche market, especially moreso since those CPUs are TDP limited. Honestly, if you want something in that form factor designed for iGPU only, you're going to be disappointed. And/or you're gonna have a bad time with what you get. The current gen is quite hot and power hungry. Small form factors like you want (MBP type thin) do not suit that power of CPU correctly. If you're fine with things throttling and you getting little of the power you (over)paid for, then your best bet is to stick with the macbook pros.

 

Huh? Have you seen any recent reviews?? Sure, it throttles a bit (like all notebooks do), but you still get most of the performance in Apple's quad-core laptops, as seen by Cinebench R15 multi-core results:


Above from Ars Technica.

Above from Anandtech.

Is it slower than other laptops with faster CPUs? Yes, but hardly by a lot. Comparing Apple's i7-4870HQ to the i7-4702HQ in the Razer Blade 14 (Early 2014), the Macbook Pro has a 12% clockspeed advantage (2.5GHz vs 2.2GHz), yet has essentially the same score (561 vs 563).

So, you lose ~12% performance. That's not "little of the power", "pointless" compared to a ULV chip (see the Ars Technica screenshot), "you are not allowed to put that chip under any kind of load", etc.

Where is your data supporting your claims?

 

I just want to see sandy/ivy extreme scores in there for fun. Maybe I will run cinebench.

 

12% performance loss? That is like running a platform two generations back...

Data? Yeah, I don't have any to offer. Except that when I am near a client's mbp it feels like an oven to me doing 'low end' work.

Btw, the comparison notebooks are not known for their cooling efficiency either.

 

i7-3615QM at 3.1GHz beats the 4870HQ at 3.5GHz? And the 4870HQ has a ~7% IPC boost? ALSO I just ran Cinebench on my 4800MQ at 3.5GHz. My score was 692. That's what those rMPBs with the 4870HQ are supposed to be getting. They get ~82% of what they're supposed to get, AND cinebench is a fairly short benchmark (little chance to hit super high temps and/or run out of the short turbo power limit). So no, it's not "fine". Also, in my picture you can see that they rank a 3840QM lower than a 3720QM, even though the former chip is supposed to be stronger. It means that different laptops run chips differently, and comparing like-minded laptops is gonna give you a bit of a skewed look on things.

It's slower than laptops with its same CPUs. Also, the 4720HQ in the Blade 2015 is 3.4GHz versus the 3.5GHz the rMBP has, but it actually functioned properly for that test, which is why its score is 684 and not under 600. Y'know. With a WEAKER CPU. And even then the only reason it manages that (and not say... the gigabyte) is because of how many I/O features etc it has cut out to make space for that cooling system, whereas the gigabyte left those things in but kept the form factor, and suffers as a result in the test (as you can see).

The ULV chips are what's recommended for such thin machines because they're not designed for any kind of productivity or gaming work under higher end CPUs, so the ULV chips offer good general use and light gaming that's fitting in the form factor. It does NOTHING to shove super high end hardware in a machine that cannot support/cool it properly. You're not getting what you paid for and you're definitely going to get cooling and/or power issues down the road. How cool the maxwell GPUs are is why everyone has jumped on the thin/light craze so heavily in the first place... CPUs haven't gotten there yet. If we were on Ivy Bridge I might say okay. IB is cooler and almost as strong; so much so that the 3.1GHz 3615QM beat the 3.5GHz 4870HQs in the rMBPs... but we don't have that option anymore.

That's my data =D. Also, as for "being under load"... http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/nvidia-geforce-gt-750m-throttling-fix.776503/ enjoy this user's post about his rMBP

 

I had to run to the bathroom to throw up... This is disgusting. Every day I see people come with brilliant ideas like this that shall solve their problems. Can this be be any worse?

 

ROFL this just proves how badly the Haswell rMBP is throttling

 

Now we're having a proper discussion! All I'm trying to inject is some hard data into this thread, instead of people making outlandish claims like this:

MacBook's throttle, yes. Worse than some other notebooks, yes. But, it's not as terrible as you claim or want it to be.

I never said it was bleeding-edge. All I'm saying is that

is a meritless claim.

It doesn't need to be supported/cooled perfectly for it to be a viable upgrade from ULV. You make it sound like Apple has broken some computing law from time immemorial: they just think thinness is more important than power. That fits the market in some ways. Just because the CPU isn't performing at 100% or even 80% doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. They're happy with that performance.

Cooling/power issues: that is the biggest point of concern that you should be most upset about, not all this "lost power", heh.

And nobody cared...because nobody bought a Haswell rMBP to get that 100% unthrottled speed.

You guys are approaching this like Apple has violated a covenant of computing: no, they are just limiting the TDP of a processor because Intel didn't provide the specific SKU they were looking for.

 

Yes, you can get more power than an ULV chip with a quadcore... that goes without saying. However...

This. This right here. You just said yourself why ULV chips are the best idea. If power is not the concern, then putting a suitable chip for the form factor and cooling and power delivery system (which you will find out about in that thread I linked, where they SELL A POWER BRICK THAT IS TOO SMALL) is the best way to mitigate this. You have no arguement if you're trying to tell me that "power" is not the primary concern, but you don't want an ULV chip. That's a contradiction.

That's another issue, but the fact that they designed a notebook to perform under its specifications should make you feel very disgusted.

Nobody buys a macbook expecting performance... but that's irrelevant to whether or not apple makes a respectable notebook. And they don't, to anybody who cares about more than how the chassis looks and feels. It's a non-argue-able topic about their cooling, cooling subsystem and internal build quality. They focus on outward looks and feel and they don't make good notebooks. They just don't.

Finally, intel are the ones TDP limiting the HQ chips. Apple are the ones LIMITING THEM FURTHER as far as we know. That's... why? Why not use ULV chips? Let the system do everything it was designed to do.

I wanna ask you a question. If I sold you a desktop with an i7-4790K in it and then locked you to 37W TDP, used a lower profile cooler than the stock cooler, shoved it into a mITX system and set up the BIOS so that you're not allowed to pass ~75c on the CPU, but chose a really sleek and nice-looking brushed aluminum case, with a 200W PSU and a 150W GPU... would you tell me that's a good system? Could you justify that system to me? Because if you can't, you justifying the rMBPs is a double standard.

More people need to stop defending machines that are designed from the start to not work properly.

 

Pretty dishonest to call it a MacBook Pro then, because the CPU won't even perform at spec in professional applications like Cinema 4D rendering

 

D2 Ultima, it's Apple you're talking about, they put quadcore for... marketing. =/

 

I think it was one of the ipads or something, they advertized it with quad core graphics? or was it dual core graphics? (either way they advertised a multi-cored gpu), and i found it hilarious how some people made such a big deal about it, and it was basically like "oh yeah?, well i have like 1500 of those cores in my laptop"

 

I honestly don't care if they put it because it makes them bacon and eggs in the morning. The point is that because it's a "laptop", too many people are accepting (and worse yet, defending and lauding) broken computers. It's less of an issue if something happens to be broken out of the box like... say a bad paste job. Or windows was accidentally set incorrectly. Or by default there's a BIOS or hotkey setting (that's easily toggle-able) that sets the fans to "quiet" and the laptop overheats, but you can change it to "cool" or "high performance" and it makes sure the cooling is done right etc. All of that? I can deal with.

I can't deal with the fact that most "gaming" laptops are coming out these days which are wholly designed to perform under-spec for the hardware they shove into them. If it doesn't work, I don't care if some people don't use it to the point where it DOES break... it shouldn't be broken hardware in the first place.

 

It is a disease that gaming laptop manufacturers want the same slim design as CrApple laptops. Like sheep... This is exactly the same way that Microsoft designed Win 8 most for laptops with touch screen and forgot desktop PCs. This was a failure as everyone knows today. When a laptop manufacturer begins with thin laptops so want every other laptop manufacturers have exactly the same crippled design and poorly cooling. This will be like a flock of sheep. Intel knows that PC manufacturers make gaming laptops with thin design. Therefore customize Intel and graphics producers new crippled hardware that fits this garbage(make more and more new ways to throttle their hardware). All this is a big cooperation. When one begins with something new, so will everyone else be part of the journey.

 

There hasn't been a macbook "pro" since they decided to nix discrete graphics in all models except the most expensive one. That is the only model worth being called a "Macbook Pro", but whatever. Apple is strange. But don't point that out to Apple people, they get quite flustered and try to compensate by stating their SSDs are the fastest in any laptop. I don't understand how a fast SSD is supposed to makeup for a lack of computing power

 

What's so "pro" about a GeForce GT 750M?

 

In terms of compute power? Nothing, when compared to the PC market. With respect to Apple's mobile lineup? The only thing that would be "pro"
Its actually a Radeon R9 M370X now, not a GT 750M. Should fare better with professional applications than the 750M did

 

You'd think, with that sticker price, Apple would have the sense to put a Quadro or FirePro in the MBP like the Mac Pro gets

 

One would think. Naturally, Apple does the opposite. A Firepro/Quadro definitely would be the wiser option than gimped GPUs like the 750M or M370X

 

I just want a Iris Pro Skylake Quad with DDR4 notebook in a thin form factor with the ability to run Windows 10 (I don't care much of OSX). The most probable company to provide this to me with excellent built materials and quality will likely be Apple given past history.

Personally I don't care who much what by whatever company. Quality of the build and the materials used are important to me. Also a thin form factor with a huge battery.

 

If build quality is your top priority, then Apple will probably the best. The only PC competitor I can think of is razer blade, which is pretty much a macbook pro, but with actual teeth and runs windows.

 

So you're willing to buy a broken computer because you're going to barely use it if it satisfies all these requirements? Why?

If you're talking about chassis construction... sure. As we pointed out, internal quality is nonexistent with Apple.

Why are you so insistent on asking for polar opposites? I don't get it. MUST you have something so thin? Why are you so willing to take a machine designed to perform under-spec, with terrible cooling, power under the hood it cannot take proper advantage of, and then still insist on long battery life? I am incapable of understanding your reasoning, so I'd really like you to explain it to me. Because all I need to do is substitute the word "laptop" for any other device on the planet and I will be unable to find a single person in existence who will desire and/or defend it.

 

I think you issue is with Apple brand/products. I have no such fear and are ok with all manufactures. Have already highlighted what I want.

 

You've yet to answer my question.

Next, my issue is not with "apple" brand/products. My issue is with the plethora of thin/light machines designed to work under-spec for the hardware they put in it. I.E. broken products. And the ridiculously large number of people who are perfectly fine with buying broken gear because it's thin and/or light. Razer, Gigabyte, MSI, Lenovo, HP and Acer are all under my scrutiny as well as Apple. Apple however, like Razer, charges extreme price premiums for their hardware, unlike the others.

 

Why not just buy an Ipad @T2050 ? Work just as well .

 

haters lol

 

It's not like they're additive. You see dual core CPU's running nearly as hot as quad cores with same cooling system, it's not like it's half the heat generated. It would also have a larger die with which to dissipate heat. CPU's with Iris Pro in them do not run cool by any means.

This doesn't make much sense to me. With an Iris Pro you have a CPU and GPU in a single tiny die with one fan. Compared with even a mid to low-grade dGPU with its own separate die and (hopefully) cooling fan, at least it's own heatsink.