Why is there no 6-core processors for laptops yet ?

Since there is already dual core i7, with base clock of 2.6ghz plus iGPU, and under 15w TDP.

6600U, 2.6ghz, turbo 3.4ghz.
http://ark.intel.com/products/88192

It should be possible to put 3 of those chips and the TDP becomes 45w,
why that haven't happened yet ?

 

Tdp limitation maybe.

 

I'm guessing the math wouldn't be that simple. I'm sure it is possible, but it's difficult and there probably isn't much of a market for it. If you really want a hex core processor in your notebook computer, there are some Clevos that use desktop processors and you could put a hex core in them.

 

We'd be stuck with 2Ghz chips. Good for parallel computing, which won't affect enough apps for general consumers to justify the move.

 

Turbo boost would make this a non issue.

 

easy: look at intel's development strategy in the past few years!

weve seen an increase in igpu performance of ~850% going from sandy bridge to skylake, which opposes an actual cpu IPC performance gain of 28% (over four friggin generations!!!) look at die shots of current cpu gens, the igpu takes up MORE THAN 50% of the total die area in a cpu! thats insane!!!!

intel needs to get their head out of their ass and start focussing on its actual product again, namely cpu performance! no matter how fast igpus have gotten, they still absolutely and abysmally SUCK compared to proper dgpus. so please intel, just include a simple igpu for desktop day to day operations, browsing and video playback (smartphone gpu is enough for that, basically) and get rid of those unecessary extra igpu transistors to make more space for additional or more performant cpu cores!

reasoning: if intel chose to release mainstream cpus with more cores then the software engineers for popular software would follow suit and optimize their tools for parallel computing!

theres absolutely NO excuse whatsoever to not have 8-10 core cpus in laptops nowadays!!!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I believe your reasoning is flawed. Intel does not control the software market; they are simply a part of it. If Intel took the "build it and they will come" mentality to heart and made lots of octa-core notebook processors under the belief that doing so would cause software developers to rewrite their programs to be more multithreaded, then they (Intel) would have to deal with a huge backlash of dissatisfied customers whose highly expensive 8-core processors don't work any faster than 4-core processors in existing programs. And that backlash would continue for at least 2-3 years until software caught up. Intel would not risk the poor public opinion and resulting loss in profits that would result from such a scenario.

Instead, they wait for existing software developers to come to them and say what they're looking for. And thus, Intel can then design around existing software and make minor incremental changes while still maintaining profit levels.

 

This is in the context of wattage. TB really has not much to do with it. Unless you want to pay big money for 28 seconds of 600 more Mhz.

 

- Why would there be?
- Low TDP 15W chips can draw *FAR* more than 15W. They get limited under heavy load, quite easily usually. There is a reason that the quadcore chips had far higher TDP, and even then could be TDP limited
- As said above, you'd be limited to a slow speed like 2GHz. Turbo boost is pointless if the chip gets close to touching its TDP, and you're not running say a six-core 3GHz+ CPU at 45W doing heavy CPU loads where the extra cores would matter (since most loads are single or dual-threaded, and even properly quad-threaded or higher loads are hard to find, far less the 12 cores that'd have).
- Next, there is no way somebody is soldering a 6-core, 12-thread CPU onto crappy mainstream laptop boards by the thousands
- HEAT
- Mainstream desktop boards don't even have above 4 cores/8 threads... you want mainstream, especially low power, laptop CPUs to hit 6c/12t? It won't happen for a long time
- Intel doesn't care about high performance computing in notebooks. Desktops would get it first, easily.
- Intel isn't even pushing computing performance with each generation these days in desktops. As Jaybee said, their per-clock performance has stagnated since sandy bridge for the most part. Cache, RAM, chipset, etc may have gotten better, but no way has the core been pushed greatly. iGPU and chipset are getting all the benefits, with heat barely being considered.

 

[QUOTE="D2 Ultima, post: 10169588, member: 263391"
- Intel doesn't care about high performance computing in notebooks. Desktops would get it first, easily.
[/QUOTE]

i dont think i need to tell you that they already have 6 cores in desktops, first one even in 2011. I agree with the rest of what you said tho.

No reason to compromise single core preformance if you cant get more multi core preformance back for it.

 

Yes, desktops have six cores for quite some time... but that is their Enthusiast market.

Their Mainstream market (P67/H67/Z68/Z77/etc Sandy/Ivy bridge chipsets, P87/H87/B85/Z87/Z97/etc Haswell/Broadwell chipsets, Z170/etc Skylake chipsets) does not have quadcores. There are no "enthusiast chipset" boards for mobile, and mobile uses the "mainstream chipset" silicon. X58, X79, X99 are Enthusiast Chipsets and have no counterpart in the mobile market.

 

of course there is.. and 12 core too

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox

http://uk.pcmag.com/cpus-components...md-releases-new-12-core-16-core-opteron-chips

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/308530-28-what-point-core-processor

 

with your point of view we would still be stuck with one core cpus and the development of dual and quadcores would never have happened. i never said that intel controlled the software development world. but take a look back at how dual and quads were doing during their introduction phase: they indeed werent much faster, if at all, compared to their colleagues with less cores and software had to catch up. so it was indeed intel / amd who pushed software development and not the other way round. besides, it has to start at some point, otherwise well be stuck with the status quo forever.

the existing multicore cpus prove my point: no wasted die area for igpu!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Well, there is, even up to 12 cores, if you think Clevo P570 qualifies as a laptop.

As for the high core count vs turbo agreement, it's not a problem if high turbo only kicks in with small number of threads, which is exactly what the high core count server/WS chips do. You don't lose anything.

 

If you have 8 core processor then why you want 6 core hope intel will overcome the 6 core solution .

 

i'm jumping ship from laptops to desktops when i get the funds. can't be editing videos with this 4 core i7. broadwell e is supposed to be 10 cores. leaving mobile in the dust

 

What video's are you editing? Bit absurd that a 4 core i7-4810MQ isn't enough...

 

From what i've been told, single core speed is the most important for proper video editing. Something about multicore processing degrades quality in how the frames are pieced back together supposedly, so the highest frequency you can operate on a single core is the most important factor for assuring proper quality, or so I've been told.

 

Man, my 4800MQ isn't enough. A 4.7GHz 6700K *might* be approaching close to "satisfactory" for what I'd consider a sufficient CPU for me.

Sometimes, people need powerful CPUs for things. =D.

 

Sounds like an anomaly/bug in some specific software.

It will be a noticeable improvement. But if one can clearly tell 4800MQ is too slow, a 4.7G 6700K may still feel limited at times. Maintaining 4.7G on a laptop is also very difficult, close to impossible with heavy AVX FPU load.

 

indeed, i can use 4.7-4.8 ghz for gaming no problem but when i do video transcoding i have to stick to my 24/7 setting at 4.3 ghz all cores since temps on auto fans reach high 80s when going for hours on end...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Why not use max fans? Your not Xtreme enough lol..

 

lol, i guess at some point even i can be unnerved by max fans

 

you need to enable hyperthreading in bios laptop... and have plenty fast ram like 32gb NVMe SSD

 

The real reason why? Lack of competition by AMD. If Intel had any real competition, the consumer class top end i7 would probably be a hexacore.

And on that note, P570WM is a X79 based laptop. So 10 core Xeons are available.

 

Even low-mid-tier mobile CPUs today (ie i3 level) have more power than 95% of consumers ever need, and so the focus in the mobile computing sector is on power consumption. Most people today upgrade their laptops because the battery life is no longer sufficient, the laptop is too heavy, or some hardware is broken. Power-efficient dual-core CPUs satisfy the first two requirements, and thus there's no impetus for more expensive, powerful, and power-hungry CPUs (including 4+ core CPUs).

And before contesting the above points, realize that people posting on these forums aren't an accurate reflection of the market as a whole.

 

Technically we've had six-core, eight-core, ten-core and twelve-core processors in laptops. I've owned one with 10-cores:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3684105

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9230621

The X7200 had six-cores and the P570WM had six/eight/ten/twelve cores, but they were desktop sockets.

Look how big those were.

The thing is, we won't see any "mobile" processors with six-cores unless Intel had competition from AMD in that market.

Look at the HEDT market, we're finally getting an extreme 10-core for X99. I bet you that was because of AMD's upcoming 16-core zen processor.

If AMD competes in the mobile processor market with an enthusiast grade 6 or 8-core, we'd see a Intel 6-core mobile CPU.

Also keep in mind it's a niche market. Only a small few would buy six-core mobile processors.

 

You want that, are you prepared to haul 25 pounds of so called laptop, with a 30 pound power brick, and get 10 minutes of battery life to maybe 45 minutes of battery life. This would be a server processor job.

 

The P570WM I had was about 12 pounds, with a three pound 330w power brick, could sport a 12-core Xeon processor and dual 980Ms all with an hour 1/2 of battery life with wi-fi on, 70% brightness on the balanced power plan. I think people exaggerate such machines.

I'm sporting a desktop quad core with dual 980Ms , 4K display laptop all in a 10 pound package.

As technology advances things will get smaller and lighter.

 

Yes, exactly my situation and feelings. I did say it "*might* be approaching "satisfactory" for me" above too. It's so difficult apparently for people to understand that some people want/need fast CPUs without using rendering programs.

 

xeons are actualy surprisingly power efficient, much more efficient than core i7s

 

Really? is there a reason behind it? Architecture wise, they are the same...

 

with a chip running 24/7 power consumption suddenly becomes a lot more important than the price you buy the chip for. Usualy xeons have a pretty good preformance to watt ratio

 

Top binned chips.

 

The primary reason is low frequency high core count. The binning appears to be better in general, but unless things have changed significantly since the 1366 OC'ing days, they are not that good.

 

Not very much. Their low clockspeed means low voltage and it's easier to cool. Even if they do have more cores itself. Try it with a mobile chip.

Download throttlestop. Run a benchmark or a game at your max default turbo. Then, just drop it 200MHz and run it again. JUST 200MHz. Note the lower voltage and lower heat and TDP usage.

Then, disable turbo or simply limit the clockspeed lower. Lock one to 2.8GHz or so like a Xeon often is. See how little power it draws, and how much less voltage it uses, etc. Above 3GHz, power draw and voltage usage starts to climb exponentially. Almost all Xeons top out under 3GHz.