Performance Penalty, Forcing Change
Performance Penalty
When Mooly Eden took the stage at the CES ultrabook conference he was – as always – quick to point out Intel’s performance advantage. And he has reason to be proud. Intel’s engineers have consistently delivered the fastest consumer processors in the world, offering a substantial performance improvement with each generation since the original Core architecture.
Even so, Intel’s descriptions of ultrabook performance always fail to note that these new laptops are slower than their larger cousins. Because they’re so small, ultrabooks use low-voltage versions of Intel mobile processors. The Core i5-2467M has a base clock of 1.6 GHz, which pales in comparison to the 2.3 GHz base clock of a Core i5-2410M. Sure, the low-voltage part has Turbo Boost, but that doesn’t make up for the difference entirely. In my experience the low-voltage parts usually perform 25% to 35% below a standard processor in benchmarks.
Because Intel’s processors are quick, you’ll still find that an ultrabook is speedy in typical day to day usage. But if you get into some more difficult tasks, like editing images or video, you will notice the difference compared to a modern laptop with a normal processor.
Processor performance is only part of this issue, however. The more pressing problem is graphics performance. Intel’s current low-voltage processors have the same Intel HD 3000 graphics as normal mobile parts. Let’s stick with the common parts we’ve already discussed – the i5-2467M and the i5-2410M. The 2467M has a lower base graphics clock (350 MHz vs. 650 Mhz) and a slightly lower maximum graphics clock (1.15 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). Though the 2467M is technically capable of maxing out at almost the same clock as the 2410M, in practice it achieves 3DMark 06 scores that are 20% to 30% lower. This translates to an instantly noticeable performance hit when playing 3D games.
Worse, discrete graphics are rarely found in ultrabooks for the same reason that Intel under-clocks the IGP – there’s just not enough power or cooling to go around.
This is a big problem. The company doesn’t have to worry about processor performance for now – it’s clearly the king there – but it does have to worry about graphics performance. Gaming on the Transformer Prime or iPad 2 is a great experience, and in my opinion the perceived graphics quality is much better than what you receive from an ultrabook.
Consumers are going to wonder why they can play beautiful games on their tablets and smartphones, but not on their ultrabooks. The thin size demanded by Intel is yet again proving to be a drag rather than a boon.
Forcing Change
Intel’s decision to back the ultrabook is a strange one. It’s odd that Intel has decided to take a leading role in the basic design of consumer laptops. It’s weird that the design the company has outlined creates a new class of computers that appear inspired by one of Intel’s customers, Apple. And it’s unusual for Intel to almost exclusively push products that are not its quickest, but rather its most power efficient.
That’s not to say Intel’s motivation is unexpected. It is a company, and it exists to make profit. If ultrabooks were to catch on, Intel would be able to sell more of its low-voltage processors, which are sold at rather high prices. According to a DigiTimes article published in August of 2011 the Core i5-2557 costs $250 .
Ultrabooks also call for solid state drives, which Intel manufacturers, giving the company yet another component to offer. And it’s likely that Intel hopes thinner and more attractive laptops will sell better in-general,
Intel is making a play for greater profits. The company is betting that it can move the laptop market in a direction that seems more favorable to its bottom line. In my opinion, this is a much more ambitious move than the company’s attempt to create a new desktop form factor, BTX, that would compensate for issues with Intel processors of the era. That move failed to catch on.
The ultrabook, on the other hand, may succeed. Why? Because Intel has the money and clout to make it happen and there are few alterantives. Intel can push the manufactures to favor the ultrabook in their marketing and design – in fact, they’ve already done so with the Ultrabook Fund.
Yet the flaws of the ultrabook remain, and the laptop doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In the short run, Intel’s problem will be convincing consumers that they need to spend more money on a less powerful computer simply because it is thin and sexy. But in the long run, Intel’s problem will be competing with ARM-based tablets and laptops that will be able to offer superior displays and better graphics. We can only sit back and watch how this battle plays out.
I agree that Ultrabooks are
I agree that Ultrabooks are underpowered. I don;t mind my TV being thin because I never move it. But laptops are portable and they can break. I’m more interested in something that I can game on. And not am overpriced fancy netbook with an SSD. I need my ports and discreet graphics.
This article is nothing but a
This article is nothing but a series of weak arguments.
Thin is flimsy – Yeah, if you use flimsy cheap materials and don’t know how to construct a laptop. If an engineering team took time to think a design through and used strong enough materials, this is a non-issue.
Who needs ports? – Uh, you don’t when you’re travelling. If you have half a dozen things plugged into your laptop while you’re on the move, you’re doing something wrong. If you’re worried about connectivity while at a desk, there are these things called ‘port replicators’ that usually hook into a single port on the laptop. As external connectors speed up (such as ThunderBolt at its PCIe x4 speeds), numerous external ports on a laptop will become an obsolete idea.
Performance penalty – Wait for it… (*cough*ivybridge*cough* *ahem*)… sorry, I meant to say Ivy Bridge.
Forcing change – This is not BTX. Functionally thin & light is where consumers want to go. You’re just unaware considering your focus on the 1337 users. The other 98% of the world really wouldn’t be bothered if their laptop shed a few pounds while maintaining speed.
Sincerely, an IT support specialist, using a MacBook Air 13″, supporting 5 users with ThinkPad T420s laptops, a group that supports thousands of students and faculty members.
Most of the points you’ve
Most of the points you’ve made were already addressed in the editorial. Did you read it closely?
Thin and light is not necessarily where consumers want to go. They’ve been proving that for years by consistently buying more large laptops than small laptops. They overwhelmingly prefer 14″ to 15.6″ laptops and overwhelmingly prefer big, bulky models that are cheap and powerful.
You really have the entire situation reversed. It’s the “1337” users – the tech journalists, the industry workers, the geeks – who want thin and light. Your average consumer thinks it is cool, but ultimately will go buy a $600 laptop with thunder thighs and a Core i5. Why? Because they really don’t care if their laptop is thin and light. They just see it is a tool.
As I explained in my article, Intel’s motivation here is the same as any other company. Profit. They can make more money if they sell ultrabooks. And Intel’s sway is so massive that they might just manage to make ultrabooks a common item. But that doesn’t mean there are screaming hoards of consumers just dying to buy one.
I don’t think most people
I don’t think most people buying these will notice its cpu downgrade over ssd perfomance. You mentioned cpu benchmarks differences but most people don’t push performance its capabilities. Even in a gaming situation which is quite common among consumers they’ll be bottlenecked by the low powered gpu. If a person needed the extra cpu performance they could simply buy a larger laptop. The major components they need to improve on to make this perfect for the average consumer is its graphics chip and display.
Great article, but i have to
Great article, but i have to address this confused individual.
Michael:
“Thin is flimsy – Yeah, if you use flimsy cheap materials and don’t know how to construct a laptop. If an engineering team took time to think a design through and used strong enough materials, this is a non-issue.”
When is the last time an engineering team actually took the time to think a design through and used strong enough materials? This IS a issue, if a company wants to save $ by cutting corners, they will, and they will slack on everything they can to save a couple bucks. Do you honestly believe that corp cares more about the customer, or selling a product?
“Who needs ports? – Uh, you don’t when you’re travelling. If you have half a dozen things plugged into your laptop while you’re on the move, you’re doing something wrong. If you’re worried about connectivity while at a desk, there are these things called ‘port replicators’ that usually hook into a single port on the laptop. As external connectors speed up (such as ThunderBolt at its PCIe x4 speeds), numerous external ports on a laptop will become an obsolete idea.”
The issue there is USB can only go so fast and can only use so much power, so if a port replicator can be avoided, it should be. Do you really want to have to buy a replicator just to plug in a mouse and keyboard, ect. every time? Or would you rather plug those peripherals directly into the laptop that has more than one USB port, as needed? Also if you don’t have a Mac you don’t have ThunderBolt, dumb ass.
“Performance penalty – Wait for it… (*cough*ivybridge*cough* *ahem*)… sorry, I meant to say Ivy Bridge.”
Oh is Ivy Bridge here? last i checked it wasn’t, and even when it does come out we have to wait 4+ months for it to be in a laptop, so the performance on EXISTING Ultrabooks (not Ivy Bridge) is a relevant issue. When Ivy Bridge is here and actually INSIDE Ultrabooks, we can have that discussion. Until then, were are talking about EXISTING Ultrabooks which are manufactured with Sandy Bridge processors NOW, not in 4+ months.
“Forcing change – This is not BTX. Functionally thin & light is where consumers want to go. You’re just unaware considering your focus on the 1337 users. The other 98% of the world really wouldn’t be bothered if their laptop shed a few pounds while maintaining speed.”
If you actually read the article you would have noticed that one of the issues is that they are not maintaining speed, they are low power (therefor lower speed) versions of the counterparts. Just because is says i5, i7, DOES NOT mean is is comparable to the real part, even the high end mobile parts are nowhere near the desktop parts. Why don’t you look up some benchmarks on the i7 line, performance is drastically different between the desktop and mobile parts, the title “i7” does not mean it is a good part. As mentioned in the article and ur comments, the 98% of customers are going to be wondering why they can play games on their tablet and phone, but cant play games on the 1000$+ laptop (that doesn’t sound strange to you?). Normal consumers don’t understand that Intel graphics are a joke and cant play games. Have you ever tried to play on Intels graphics? Not only are the drivers a joke, but very few games actually take advantage of Intel graphics, like the Source engine for example, does NOT use Intel graphics, it tries to run off the processor by its self.
Also using a MacBook shows that you dont know much about computer hardware (since you cant even change the battery) if you knew about hardware you would know that Apple rips you off for the same hardware that is available for any Win/Linux system(and is not any different). You got robbed.
This.
This.
Thin and light seems the most
Thin and light seems the most probable future. I think Intel is just trying to force too much too soon. Right now the ‘form’ tax is too high, and the function sacrifice is too much (for example: no discreet graphics, minimal port space), but if the form factor becomes normalized, things will improve over time.
So I agree with the article
So I agree with the article overall — ultrabooks do come with limitations..
However, I’m really hoping (optimistic) that we’ll see that ‘variable TDP’ in use later this year with a 17W ultrabook that docks with a dock providing additional cooling — giving us the full 35W performance…
Obviously there will be
Obviously there will be conflicting opinions on the Ultrabook; it’s a new concept outside of the Mac world that simply doesn’t address everyone’s needs (I’m looking at you, gamers). As an industry veteran who travels for business regularly, as well as an avid gamer with a 4-way GTX580 running a heavily OC’d 3960X, I am here to tell you the Ultrabook concept is not perfect in its current form, but it’s impressive nonetheless. I own an Asus UX31 and I love it. I’ve owned Thinkpads and gaming notebooks in the past, and I certainly do not miss them while walking through an airport with my entire computer bag weighing a mere few pounds. Do I miss gaming on it? Absolutely, but the screen is gorgeous, the design is elegant yet feels solid, and the keyboard works well for typing. The thing is blazing fast for everything BUT gaming, and since I’m traveling for business that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for this Ultrabook. Whereas a beefy gaming notebook may be a desktop replacement for a gamer, it’s not the norm, and I’ll do my gaming when I get home. (Besides, it’s tough to be taken seriously in a meeting with a painted lid on a bulky gaming rig.)
For the first iteration of a design the Ultrabook is fantastic. I’ve seen a ton of trends come and go but this is no flash-in-the-pan netbook — the Ultrabook is here to stay and will evolve into a platform capable of mainstream gaming in the future. Once Ivy Bridge does arrive in the Ultrabook I’ll be first in line for one.
What’s your problem with
What’s your problem with Ultrabooks its just one of many form factors that are available with Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. Intel developed Metro Laptop back in May of 2007, Apple made billions from the Idea and you say its flimsy, why don’t you buy a bigger bulkier behemoth laptop then, its not like Ultrabooks are the only way to enjoy a Sandy/Ivy Bridge mobile solution.
Intel’s Metro Laptop is the Thinnest Ever
May 24, 2007, The World’s Thinnest Notebook
If it catches on, Intel’s sleek laptop could be a game changer for PCs
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070523_272039.htm
http://blog.jr.com/intels-metro-laptop-is-the-thinnest-ever/
people are willing to spend
people are willing to spend 1200 + on a apple
i dont think they realize no one will spend that on a PC laptop
if they can make it for 700 then they have a chance