Is the Core M not as strong as Haswell's
- Thread starter Mikewired
- Start date
Core-M is aimed at the ARM high end if you consider the typical high end ARM SoC is in the same 4-5 W TDP range. This is where Core-M should really shine as it should perform considerably better then an ARM SoC but have similar if slightly higher power usage and heat generation. Atom is a different play... aimed more at the ARM mid to low tier.
Compared to Haswell U it will have slightly better CPU performance, a good increase in GPU performance and significantly lower power usage. Actually that depends on whether your comparing against Y, or U series Haswell parts or like for like. i.e. Core-M (i5Y70) to Haswell Y you should get much better CPU/GPU performance and much lower Power usage (4.5w TDP vs 11.5w TDP).
Compared to Haswell U it will have slightly better CPU performance, a good increase in GPU performance and significantly lower power usage. Actually that depends on whether your comparing against Y, or U series Haswell parts or like for like. i.e. Core-M (i5Y70) to Haswell Y you should get much better CPU/GPU performance and much lower Power usage (4.5w TDP vs 11.5w TDP).
My input would be that Haswell U vs Broadwell M, to be neck and neck. Some area Haswell better, some M better. Only actual benefit from Haswell U to Broadwell M is battery life and GPU gains.
Which in my best guess and what I believe to happen, will be that Microsoft will wait for Broadwell U to come out mid next year, and Surface Pro 4 will benefit from the Broadwell U. No actual news on Broadwell U performance/battery. But battery will be better without a doubt, and if Broadwell M was bumped up to be comparable with Haswell U, I can only imagine what Broadwell U will have in store for us, and hopefully the Surface Pro 4.
Which in my best guess and what I believe to happen, will be that Microsoft will wait for Broadwell U to come out mid next year, and Surface Pro 4 will benefit from the Broadwell U. No actual news on Broadwell U performance/battery. But battery will be better without a doubt, and if Broadwell M was bumped up to be comparable with Haswell U, I can only imagine what Broadwell U will have in store for us, and hopefully the Surface Pro 4.
With the B U it may not be that much better on battery, it has some additional power optimizations but the B U series has the same 15W TDP as H U. Performance gains definitely but it may burn through as much battery because we'll do more. If we limited ourselves to doing exactly the same work then in theory we would get done sooner thus using less battery. However, we always fill the time even if we waste it.
While I do totally 100% see your point. I think that Broadwell M, and SP mini/Surface 3 with full windows would fit perfectly. I think the pro should stay as powerful as this new form factor allows. 15w tdp or 5w tdp. If battery even stays around 7-8, I can only assume performance would be drastic. As new m design cranked up from competing against arm, to competing against u. I for one would vote U series all the way with Surface "Pro". And let surface mini/surface pro mini be the M series. And I for one think if Microsoft continues with the 'surface' device, skip RT as that alone is dead, throw in the M lower power/charge more $ but gapped enough away from "pro" series.
Just like Air vs pro Mac wise.
If you think about it like this.
*Surface (maybe pro) mini/surface 3 = MacBook air
Powerful enough to get the light stuff done, yet give great battery
*Surface "pro" = MacBook Pro Retina
More powerful, still respectable battery.
That's truly where I think microsofts direction should go, and truly where I think the most gains would be had.
The problem with Full Windows is its not as reliable/problem free as RT, thus its not a good fit for a non Pro device. I would NEVER give one to my mother nor would I give one to the person in the corner office. There's just been no comparison between the Surface 2 being rock solid and the SP3 which by many accounts has been better on reliability than Pro 2 or 1.
Again, a very solid and valid and factual point. In which my only response/reply, would be based on a if and/or when argument. But if/when Microsoft makes the whole full windows/pro versions rock solid (which one could hope is soon), my whole surface/mini being the M powered theme (powerful enough for most/exceptional battery/MacBook air equivalent), and the Surface Pro being the U powered theme (most power you can get given size/current technology/acceptable battery/MacBook Pro equivalent).
I for one see RT as something I wouldn't even give/recommend for my family/friends. As its app store in minimal, potential limited, lack of advanced apps.
I look at it this way, one problem is fixable the other problem is not.
The app situation for Win RT is fixable, might cost 500 million or a billion dollars but its fixable.
Getting rock solid reliability when you permit apps vendors to do what they can do is not possible. The only way to do that is through an architectural change ala Win RT. Its a circular situation.
the only thing stopping surface 3 from being full windows, is the arm processor. If they included an Intel broadwell m processor, this would allow full windows. As for reliability. Full windows on a surface is/would be as reliable as it is on a desktop/laptop/surface pro. As for apps, yes alot of time and money is needed. And I would almost guarantee that the app situation will not be fixed during the entire lifespan on the surface 3.
A Billion dollars would buy a lot of Apps. However, it doesn't seem MS is willing to go there. Why I don't know... they spent two billion on hardware which only lasts a year. The Software would last several years and can always be updated once its in the correct form. Being a software company you'd think they understand that.
