Intel Announces Three New ULV Processors for Notebooks Discussion

Intel has quietly added three new low-powered Core i5 and i7 dual-core processors to its lineup; they may appear in the inevitable MacBook Air refresh.

Read the full content of this Article: Intel Announces Three New ULV Processors for Notebooks

 

Cool, I wonder how the performance is.

 

Definitely fine for 99% of people. I tested a few notebooks with the old Intel ULV Core 2 Duo processors, and they performed perfectly fine even for moderate gaming. See here:
Alienware M11x Review

All processors should be ULV, in my opinion, though the full voltage CPUs should still be around obviously for power users.

 

The key difference between these ULV CPUs and the normal ones is that they have been tested to run at the higher frequencies at lower-than-normal voltages. What we don't know, however, is whether the normal CPUs would also run at these lower voltages if only Intel hadn't locked them or whether the ULV CPUs are the exception with many chips tested and only a few suitable.

Also, I haven't read the small print about the ULV CPUs but I would expect that the maximum turbo speed is subject to the power ceiling and may only be attained with one CPU core loaded and no significant graphics load. In the same way, my i5-2520M may claim to be 3.2GHz but will only sustain 3GHz when under load (with HWiNFO32 reporting a CPU package power of about 22W).

Anyone can get a feel for how the ULV CPU would perform by going into the advanced power properties and changing the maximum processor state from 100% to 99%. In my case this small change dropped the CPU speed from 3GHz to 2.5GHz with the CPU voltage at 1.11V and the reported CPU package power became around 17.5W - in the same range as the ULV CPUs.

So maybe there's not a lot of difference between ULV and normal CPUs except that they don't venture into the top performance range where the extra voltage and power is needed to ensure stability. I get the impression that some notebook manufacturers have avoided the extra cost of the ULV CPUs and just applied their own rules to throttle the normal CPUs to avoid overload the cooling system (that seems to be the case with my Toshiba R700).

John

 

There are some specification differences. I wrote at http://forum.notebookreview.com/len...cpu-options-available-x220-3.html#post7625445

 

Am I hoping too much to expect them in a netbook (or some such form factor, that is 12", less than 3.5lbs, excellent heat management and battery life) for under $500 within a year?

Mr. Mysterious

 

In a netbook under $500, doubtful, especially since these CPUs are like $200+. In an ultraportable over $800, possible.

 

Yes, as noted.

You will find AMD Fusion CPUs and older/stripped-down Intels in that price range.

 

Nice. This in a 14" notebook for under $800 would be ideal. But how is the IGP? As good as the regular mobile IGP>

 

lol. Who would have thought we would actually be able to get one of these for under $500 within a year?
I picked up a $480 Toshiba portege r835 with intel i5-2435m (2.4GHz/3GHz turbo) weighs 3.2 pounds, 13.3" screen, has dvdrw, battery lasts 7.5 hours (normal internet with power saving), and has excellent heat management (not the best, but works well when it's not loaded at 100%) from Officemax couple days ago. I also have a Samsung Series 7 Slate with i5-2467M, a ULV cpu, and I didn't really like the performance of it.

I wish Ultrabooks also used normal voltage cpus and let the customers choose the power profile depending on the usage. When all you do is office work and internet, it's much better to have the ability to boost to higher clocks for seconds.

 

Based on the perfomance alone, you'd think that ULV CPUs would fit into the price category. But no, they are very pricey. Think $200-300 retail. Poor value for money in terms of performance.

The great mystery is why 17 watt CPUs are so anemic and expensive when the P-series 25-watt CPUs were competitive with 35-watt T-series CPUs? Does the last 8 watts make that much of a difference?

Anyway, at the sub-$500 pricepoint you're looking for, AMD will predominate with the superior value and superior graphics performance of its APU line.

I think your point is well founded. If a Portege R83x can fit a full powered CPU and optical drive into a rather thin, 3+ pound for factor, what's the advantage of an "ultrabook?"

I think the easy answer is that there's no advantage to the "ultrabook" concept, and that the entire concept is a failed emulation of the Macbook Air, a product that's been successful because of OS X and the long term development of the product at Apple. In contrast, "ultrabooks" have been rushed to market and preloaded with Windows 7.

Regardless of price, the R835 represents superior performance and functionality over the Z835 "ultrabook," and at $480, it's a stellar value.

 

I agree with SemiExpert. The MacBook Air is a success because they are the only ultraportables to be able to run OS X without violating the OS X EULA. If I were a Mac user, I would prefer a thicker MacBook Air with a standard voltage CPU, but that doesn't exist so I would have to get an Air or lose portability, but Ultrabooks have to compete with faster, longer lasting, and often just as portable traditional ultraportables such as the R830 or X220.