For all of modern Intel history, it has specified a TDP rating for all of its silicon. The TDP rating is given at a specific max core temperature (Tj_MAX) so that OEM chassis designers know how big to make their cases and what sort of cooling is necessary. Generally speaking, anything above 50W ends up in some form of a desktop (or all-in-one) while TDPs below 50W can go into notebooks. Below ~5W you can go into a tablet (think iPad/Nexus 10), and below 2W you can go into a smartphone. These are rough guidelines, and there are obviously exceptions.
With Haswell, Intel promised to deliver SKUs as low as 10W. That's not quite low enough to end up in an iPad, but it's clear where Intel is headed. In a brief statement at the end of last year, Intel announced that it would bring a small amount of 10W Ivy Bridge CPUs to market in advance of the Haswell launch. At IDF we got a teaser that Intel could hit 8W with Haswell, and given that both Haswell and Ivy Bridge are built at 22nm with relatively similar architectures it's not too far of a stretch to assume that Ivy Bridge could also hit a similar power target. Then came the CES announcement: Intel will deliver 7W Ivy Bridge SKUs starting this week. Then came the fine print: the 7W SKUs are rated at a 10W or 13W TDP, but 7W using Intel's Scenario Design Power (SDP) spec. Uh oh.
Let's first look at the new lineup. The table below includes both the new Y-series SKUs as well as the best 17W U-series SKUs:
Low TDP Intel Core Processor Comparison
  Pentium 2129Y Core i3-3229Y Core i5-3339Y Core i5-3439Y Core i5-3317U Core i7-3689Y Core i7-3517UE
Nominal TDP 10W 13W 17W 13W 17W
cTDP Down - 10W 13W 10W 13W
SDP 7W - 7W -
Cores/Threads 2/2 2/4
Base CPU Clock 1.1GHz 1.4GHz 1.5GHz 1.5GHz 1.7GHz 1.5GHz 1.7GHz
1C Turbo - - 2.0GHz 2.3GHz 2.6GHz 2.6GHz 2.8GHz
2C Turbo - - 1.8GHz 2.1GHz 2.4GHz 2.4GHz 2.6GHz
L3 Cache Size 2MB 3MB 4MB
GPU HD HD 4000
Base GPU Clock 350MHz
Max GPU Clock 850MHz 1.05GHz 850MHz 1.1GHz
Quick Sync No Yes
VT-d No Yes
VT-x Yes
Socket FCBGA-1023
Price $150 $250 $250 $250 $225 $362 $330
Compared to a similarly configured U-series part, moving to a Y-series/7W part usually costs you 200MHz in base clock, ~250MHz in max GPU clock, and 200 - 300MHz in max turbo frequency. Cache sizes, features and Hyper Threading are non-negotiable when going between U and Y. The lower clocks are likely the result of lower operating voltages and a side effect of the very low leakage binning. The cost of all of this? Around an extra $30 over a similar U-SKU. That doesn't sound like much but when you keep in mind that most competing ARM based SoCs sell for $30 themselves, it is a costly adder from an OEM's perspective.
Now the debate.
Intel should have undoubtedly been very specific about 7W being an SDP distinction, especially when the launch slide compared it to TDPs of other Intel parts. Of course Intel failed to do this, which brought on a lot of criticism. To understand how much of the criticism was warranted we need to first understand how Intel comes up with a processor's TDP and SDP ratings.
Intel determines a processor's TDP by running a few dozen workloads on the product and measuring thermal dissipation/power consumption. These workloads include individual applications, multitasking workloads (CPU + GPU for example) and synthetic measures that are more closely related to power viruses (e.g. specifically try to switch as many transistors in parallel as possible). The processor's thermal behavior in all of these workloads ends up determining its TDP at a given clock speed.
Scenario Design Power (SDP), on the other hand, is specific to Intel's Y-series SKUs. Here Intel takes a portion of a benchmark that stresses both the CPU and GPU (Intel wouldn't specify which one, my guess would be something 3DMark Vantage-like) and measures average power over a thermally significant period of time (like TDP, you're allowed to violate SDP so long as the average is within spec). Intel then compares its SDP rating to other, typical touch based workloads (think web browsing, email, gaming, video playback, multitasking, etc...) and makes sure that average power in those workloads is still below SDP. That's how a processor's SDP rating is born.
If you run a power virus or any of the more stressful TDP workloads on a Y-series part, it will dissipate 10W/13W. However, a well designed tablet will thermally manage the CPU down to a 7W average otherwise you'd likely end up with a device that's too hot to hold.
Intel's SDP ratings will only apply to Y-series parts, the rest of the product stack remains SDP-less. Although it debuted with Ivy Bridge, we will see the same SDP ratings applied to Haswell Y-series SKUs as well. Although Y-series parts will be used in tablets, there are going to be some ultra-thin Ultrabooks that use them as well. In a full blown notebook there's a much greater chance of a 7W SDP Ivy Bridge hitting 10W/13W, but once again the burden falls upon the OEM to properly manage thermals to deliver a good experience.
The best comparison I can make is to the data we saw in our last power comparison article. Samsung's Exynos 5 Dual (5250) generally saw power consumption below 4W, but during an unusually heavy workload we saw it jump up to nearly 8W. While Samsung (and the rest of the ARM partners) don't publicly specify a TDP, going by Intel's definition 4W would be the SoC's SDP while 8W would be its TDP if our benchmarks were the only ones used to determine those values.
Ultimately that's what matters most: how far Intel is away from being able to fit Core into an iPad or Nexus 10 style device. Assuming Intel will be able to get there with Ivy Bridge is a bit premature, and I'd probably say the same thing about Haswell. The move to 14nm should be good for up to a 30% reduction in power consumption, which could be what it takes. That's a fairly long time from now (Broadwell is looking like 2H-2014), and time during which ARM will continue to strengthen its position.
Acer's W700 refresh, with 7W SDP Ivy Bridge in tow
As for whether or not 7W SDP parts will actually be any cooler running than conventional 10W/13W SKUs, they should be. They will run at lower voltages and are binned to be the lowest leakage parts at their target clock speeds. Acer has already announced a successor to its W700 tablet based on 7W SDP Ivy Bridge with a 20% thinner and 20% lighter chassis. The cooler running CPU likely has a lot to do with that. 
Then there's the question of whether or not a 7W SDP (or a future 5W SDP Haswell/Broadwell) Core processor would still outperform ARM's Cortex A15. If Intel can keep clocks up, I don't see why not. Intel promised 5x the performance of Tegra 3 with a 7W SDP Ivy Bridge CPU. Cortex A15 should be good for around 50% better performance than Cortex A9 at similar frequencies, so there's still a decent gap to make up.
At the end of the day, 7W SDP Ivy Bridge (and future parts) are good for the industry. Intel should have simply done a better (more transparent) job of introducing them.
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ImSpartacus - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Who said anything about performance? You just said that Vishera was "beating" Ivy Bridge. This article is about power efficiency, so Intel completely "beats" AMD in the context of this article.

    Stay on topic, Troll.
  • R0H1T - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Nice way to budge in, with an insult not to mention going completely bonkers for no reason !

    The article is about Intel advertising its 10~17W TDP parts with another moniker now "SDP" which quite frankly is a special case scenario akin to certain products running under a given set of conditions ! It has nothing to do with AMD also my reference was in context to something that was explained clearly !

    If you're an Intel employee/shareholder then what can I say "learn to read" aye, if not try to respect others & be civil for once at the very least to me !
  • ImSpartacus - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Your thread title is "Seriously grow up !" and I'm the one going bonkers? Troll harder, I'm not mad yet.
  • R0H1T - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    I'm pretty sure that was done to wind up folks like you, guess it worked better than I thought |-:
  • Wolfpup - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    You keep talking about what Intel's claiming regarding TDP, which as others have pointed out, is 100% irrelevant as these ARM solutions don't even GIVE a TDP (and if they did, would probably be calculated differently too).
  • R0H1T - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    My point of contention was just one i.e. Intel was deliberately trying to sell their stuff emphasizing on that 7W SDP marketing B$

    As far as ARM is concerned AT did test the exynos 5x with an estimated 4W SDP, do remember that its an SoC unlike Intel where Broadwell would be the first of its kind, also most ARM SoC's are well within that number. Now the other part of the story is that smartphones/tablets don't need a 300$ chip especially considering the fact that their desktop counterparts aren't running even moderately optimized software that can truly utilize 2 or more cores even after ~10yrs of multicore revolution !
  • silverblue - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Only per-core, but the performance gap is at times quite severe.
  • jjj - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    "how far Intel is away from being able to fit Core into an iPad or Nexus 10 style device"
    That's not relevant in any way with Intel's prices. A chip that costs 100$ more than the ARM SoC ads 300$ to the ipad's retail price, good luck selling that.
    The Tegra comparison is with T3 and that one is somewhat crippled by the memory subsystem. Early 20nm A15 could be half of what Intel will have then in the low clock realm ( by then ARM folks might enable using all 8 cores in bigLITTLE so the math gets more complicated). Second half of 2014 we could see A5x series although i wouldn't bet on it and maybe finFET .But core vs core perf has little relevance, you got die size and plenty of other compute units to factor in.
    Intel is stuck with huge margins ,if they give that up with nothing that adds a lot of revenue they wipe out 50B of market cap and that's money lost by someone. We'll see what the new CEO does , i hope he'll be more willing to take risks , Intel is no fun lately.
  • wsw1982 - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    You should compare product in same category. A15 only has Atom level performance so far, and is beaten by the upcoming ATOM 32nm z2580 with two 5-years-old architecture.(checkout the Antutu benchmark on Lenovo K900, and compare it with Nexus 10, and keep in mind, the z2580 is likely a less than 2w part but Exynos 5 4w part). And if you compare the price of the Atom with the ARM parts, you can see they are quite competitive. The core series could scale it's power consumption down to ARM level doesn't necessary means it's a ARM level processor. You see how they outperform the ARM level atom
  • ypsylon - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    At least from my point of view. All fine with low voltage. Would love to build that kind of system myself. Useless because I can't build such system as it is SoC. I'm one of those who will always (or as long as possible with all rumors flying around) buy motherboards, CPUs and stuff. Detest laptops/netbooks/tablets and everything connected with that family in any way.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now