New Apple 12" MacBook - competition to SP3 ?

[zhenya]

Anandtech's review of the Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro is out (using the same 5y71 processor as the new MacBook.)

As said before, for many workloads, it out-performs the i5 in the SP3.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9061/lenovo-yoga-3-pro-review/4

Just to put the numbers in a bit more context, I also ran the benchmarks on my Core i7-860 based Desktop (running Chrome, as were the Yogas) and it is pretty clear just how far we have come. The i7-860 is a four core, eight thread 45 nm processor with a 2.8 GHz base clock and 3.46 GHz boost, all in a 95 watt TDP. It was launched in late 2009. Five years later, we have higher performance in a 4.5 watt TDP for many tasks. It really is staggering.

There seems to be a general concensus that Core M equates slow, but clearly this is not the case. For some sustained workloads, yes, the 4.5 watt TDP limits how much performance you are going to get from the CPU, but for many tasks, especially short burst loads, the performance of the 5Y71 is very competitive, often outperforming the Haswell Core i5-4200U from last year’s Yoga 2 Pro. This says a tremendous amount about the Intel 14 nm process, because the IPC improvements of Broadwell vs Haswell are fairly limited. Clearly the CPU has quite a bit of headroom on the 14 nm process to keep the clock speeds up.

I really can't wait until Microsoft releases a Surface Pro based on this chip.

 

[GreyFox7]

EveryMac posted specs for the two models of the 2015 MacBook.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/specs/macbook-core-m-1.1-12-early-2015-specs.html
The MacBook "Core M" 1.1 12-Inch (Early 2015) features a 14-nm 1.1 GHz Intel "Core M" processor (M-5Y31)

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/specs/macbook-core-m-1.2-12-early-2015-specs.html
The MacBook "Core M" 1.2 12-Inch (Early 2015) features a 14-nm 1.2 GHz Intel "Core M" processor (M-5Y51)

 

[GreyFox7]

Anandtech's review of the Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro is out (using the same 5y71 processor as the new MacBook.)

As said before, for many workloads, it out-performs the i5 in the SP3.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9061/lenovo-yoga-3-pro-review/4


I really can't wait until Microsoft releases a Surface Pro based on this chip.

This review of Core-M is interesting, especially the Performance conclusion:

"The Core M-5Y31 offers a very wide turbo range from 0.9 - 2.4 GHz; We expect the actual frequency to be largely limited by the TDP. While the CPU is similar to a Core i5-4200U (Haswell, 15 W) in short benchmarks, its performance will begin to degrade under continuous full load. Accordingly, the main purpose of Broadwell's higher power efficiency is to reduce power consumption instead of improving raw performance."

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-M-5Y31-SoC.129328.0.html

A short benchmark gives the appearance the Core-M is similar to a Haswell U it crumbles over an extended duration. Hmmm...

 

[zhenya]

Core-M is optimized to meet the needs of the average user's workflow. It can burst to very high frequencies for a short bit of time, giving performance similar to or better than much more powerful CPU's, but it cannot maintain that performance over time. This is a reasonable tradeoff for many people today. Obviously if you have tasks you do that tax the CPU for longer periods of time, Core-M would not be a great choice for you. For me, it'd be perfect, and I'd welcome the reduction in thickness and weight that it could bring to the Surface Pro.

 

[theveterans]

That's why I bought SP3 rather than quad core full voltage slim notebook. Most people won't need a sustained clocks. Even on a highly specced laptop, turbo still drops to base frequency after a while. It's a lot better to CPU intensive tasks on a desktop IMO.

 

[GreyFox7]

Core-M is optimized to meet the needs of the average user's workflow.

Arguable most SP3, SP2, SP users are not average users, rather they tended to be more high end. i.e. it appealed to a certain demographic which may not be the same demographic in the event a Core-M is used. So which market will MS chase??? The average users or the high end users? In chasing the average users the market is much larger but that's not the market they have had success in nor is it what the Surface Pro is known for. There's a great debate here and adding to it are many other issues such as maintaining the form factor to preserve compatibility with accessories. By making statements have they locked themselves into a box or is there room for more than one solution? Knowing Microsoft the logical answer may be an illogical one on many levels.

ETA: The MacBook is, it would seem, targeted at the "average user" where the SP3 is not. Except that the price of the MacBook is not targeted at the average price conscious buyer. They are however aiming right at the traditional Apple market demographic, the average user who is more affluent, doesn't care about price but is influenced by style. i.e. the most profitable segment of the market, not the biggest market, not the high end spec market, the low spec, high style, high price, high profit market. No it's not competing with the SP3.

 

[zhenya]

It is my hope that Microsoft expands the Surface line to include both i5/i7u and Core-M in different form factors - each optimized to the strength of the respective platforms. Stuffing the Core-M into the standard chassis would be counter to the point of the chip, so I hope they don't go that route.

 

[GreyFox7]

It is my hope that Microsoft expands the Surface line to include both i5/i7u and Core-M in different form factors - each optimized to the strength of the respective platforms. Stuffing the Core-M into the standard chassis would be counter to the point of the chip, so I hope they don't go that route.

That would be logical.

 

[tat3406]

Samsung Ativ Book 9 is more apple to apple competitor to new Macbook.

 

[ptrkhh]

That's why I bought SP3 rather than quad core full voltage slim notebook. Most people won't need a sustained clocks. Even on a highly specced laptop, turbo still drops to base frequency after a while. It's a lot better to CPU intensive tasks on a desktop IMO.

Dropping to the base frequency of a quad core CPU is one thing. Dropping to the 1 GHz base frequency of Core M is on a whole lot different level

Arguable most SP3, SP2, SP users are not average users, rather they tended to be more high end. i.e. it appealed to a certain demographic which may not be the same demographic in the event a Core-M is used. So which market will MS chase??? The average users or the high end users?

I can't see the reason why they can't chase both. They have a deep enough pocket, and one heck of an amazing team to make it happen. I expect Surface 4 to be a Core M or even Atom x7 based, while Surface Pro 4 will maintain its performer Core i heritage

 

[theveterans]

Dropping to the base frequency of a quad core CPU is one thing. Dropping to the 1 GHz base frequency of Core M is on a whole lot different level


I can't see the reason why they can't chase both. They have a deep enough pocket, and one heck of an amazing team to make it happen. I expect Surface 4 to be a Core M or even Atom x7 based, while Surface Pro 4 will maintain its performer Core i heritage

If SP4 won't have a fan, it can't house a Core i ULV chip due to 15 W TDP. If MS can produce a thinner SP4 with fan, it can certainly have a Core i ULV. The thing is that Surface is advertised as a tablet capable of long connected standby life. It's been known that Core i ULV eats a lot of battery during connected standby. Core M has the potential to have a very low power state that will certainly improve connected standby battery life.

 

[ptrkhh]

If SP4 won't have a fan, it can't house a Core i ULV chip due to 15 W TDP. If MS can produce a thinner SP4 with fan, it can certainly have a Core i ULV. The thing is that Surface is advertised as a tablet capable of long connected standby life. It's been known that Core i ULV eats a lot of battery during connected standby. Core M has the potential to have a very low power state that will certainly improve connected standby battery life.

Well, thats exactly my point, they could make the Surface Pro 4 with Core i and a cooling fan that Apple wants you to believe that its already obsolete while they themselves are still selling $1000 laptops with 1440x900 screen.
As well as the regular Surface 4 with Core M or Atom with no fan, and more tablet-like feel like long connected standby power consumption as you mentioned. After all, Surface RT is dead, and this could be its spiritual successor.

Speaking about the connected standby, the SP3 uses less than 1% per hour asleep (in my case its 0.6%). Unless you leave the device on CS for a full day (and even then, the 4-hour hibernation kicks in by default), I don't see the reason why its such a problem for anybody other than, once again, what Apple or Samsung Google with its shitty-coded Chrome want you to believe