Intel Launches First 10th Gen Core Processors: Redefining the Next Era of Laptop Experiences

[notb]

In many cases, what a high turbo means is that it will throttle like nobody's business in any half-serious use case and in all others, its practically idling and you lose any and all performance to do anything.

Throttling won't matter if you choose the right laptop for your needs. Most people don't need laptops that can boost for long. They'd rather have extra few hours in low/idle.
The importance of high boost in these CPUs is to make laptops responsive. Launching software, opening/saving files, browsing WWW, running short jobs et cetera will look exactly the same on a slim ultrabook and a mobile workstation. And these tasks define how comfortable a laptop is for a vast majority of both private and pro users.

The idea is that you should be able to e.g. edit a model in AutoCAD. Or edit a movie in DaVinci Resolve. Both are mainstream and well tested on ultrabooks. They work flawlessly.
Of course once you run a render / calculations in AutoCAD or encoding in Resolve, a mobile workstation will need a lot less time to complete. But that's the compromise and ultrabook users are aware of this.

I mean yes, in their very narrow use case, these 'U' parts shine.

I have no idea what your definition of "narrow" is here. These 15W CPUs are the best choice for almost all mobile users apart from relatively rare cases like:
a) laptop gamers
b) people who run long heavy loads and don't have an alternative (they use just a single mobile PC - no access to cloud or a workstation).

If you're even half serious about even a little productivity, you avoid this line.

Again: why?
This is the naive idea of "productivity" that is dominating this forum (but you, seriously?). It's like if people here thought "serious PC using" means zipping files or rendering 24/7, because that's what appears in CPU "productivity" benchmarks.

Correct, and the resulting performance really is just more of the same, in the end. So your battery may last 20 minutes longer, wooptiedoo That's not going to change a thing.

People underestimate the importance of these small incremental improvements, because they aren't as sexy as big numbers on slides. Just like when AMD announced >50% IPC improvement of Ryzen vs previous generations and we had so many "Intel can only do 5%" comments. ;-)
Even if just 20 minutes, it's being squeezed from CPU optimizations, which makes it a fantastic achievement. Significant battery life gains usually compromises laptop usability - worse CPU/GPU/RAM, slower or smaller drives, worse screen, slower interfaces, weaker WiFi etc.

 

[Vayra86]

Again: why?

We've been over this before. Why = personal experience with ultrabooks. I have one with a Coffee Lake i5-U. The battery doesn't last in any normal use case, its just as simple as that. If you're not straight up idling, reading a web page or something simple like that, you're presenting load and that will kick the CPU in higher gear = drain the battery just as fast as a productivity CPU like any HQ or HK. Well, sans the additional cores...

Its potato potatoe stuff, really, if you're using a machine for work. I do it every day. With Sharepoint, Azure devops, a cloud based dev environment or two open in two different browsers and a few excel sheets on the side, you're presenting more than enough load to make it sweat all the time. And this is NOT an exceptional use case for a business laptop - go figure - almost all that I do happens in the cloud! There is no serious processing going on, yet every few minutes that fan goes overdrive and the machine is hot.

I also have a Skylake HQ quad core. Yes, it doesn't last as long browsing the web as the ultrabook - although even that depends on how I'd configure its power plan (!). But in the use case of 'doing work', it gets more done in a shorter period of time and at the end of the day, both laptops need to be hooked up regardless.

See what I mean?

I also get what you're saying about the small incremental improvements but that is just it - in another topic I mentioned how every laptop that needs to perform is running into a problem wrt portability, price, performance, etc. Its always a trade off, and these ultrabooks are just more of the same: a compromise. And with that, they serve a very narrow use case - and to be fair, I really can't consider an ultrabook cost effective for what use cases it covers - after all its only perk is the battery life when doing practically nothing. Great. I've got a phone for that... and it beats any ultrabook battery life by as much as a day (at a price of as little as 300 - 400 eur these days...and then you've got a very decent device).

This is a simple case of rosy marketing theory versus practical day to day and it not being quite like the commercials. The only reason Ultrabook still exists is because it mixes well with the business segment (its 'sexier' to have a thin and light with you, and the additional cost is a non issue between large volume and favorable tax/purchase options) but the irony is, most of the time all these businesses offer wall sockets everywhere you go. Check out the average meeting room and there are ethernet and power docks all over the place

 

[bug]

We've been over this before. Why = personal experience with ultrabooks. I have one with a Coffee Lake i5-U. The battery doesn't last in any normal use case, its just as simple as that. If you're not straight up idling, reading a web page or something simple like that, you're presenting load and that will kick the CPU in higher gear = drain the battery just as fast as a productivity CPU like any HQ or HK. Well, sans the additional cores...

You do realize the only scenario in which a 15W CPU will drain your battery as fast as a 45W one is when you do multithreaded work and the 45W CPU finishes early. I doubt that's "normal use case" for many people

 

[notb]

We've been over this before. Why = personal experience with ultrabooks. I have one with a Coffee Lake i5-U.

There's a tiny problem with personal experience. It's irrelevant. ;-) Both yours and mine.
-U CPUs are an answer to expectations of majority. If people didn't want ultrabooks, we wouldn't have them. Developing a -U CPU (low idle, high boost) is more complicated than making a flat performer.

The battery doesn't last in any normal use case, its just as simple as that.

There is no "normal use case". Just define what scenario you're talking about.

It's very unlikely that there's a significant correlation between "productive" / "effective" PC using and the amount of CPU load. Especially in professional use.

If you're not straight up idling, reading a web page or something simple like that, you're presenting load and that will kick the CPU in higher gear

Exactly what I said earlier: these CPUs are designed to save energy in idle because that's the state they're in most of the time.
If someone applies constant high load to the CPU, he should buy a different notebook. If he needs ultrabooks' mobility, he'll have to think about a multi-system workflow.

if you're using a machine for work.

This is the naive part. ;-) The fact that someone spends time at work looking at an idling PC doesn't mean he isn't effective or valuable for the company.

I do it every day. With Sharepoint, Azure devops, a cloud based dev environment or two open in two different browsers and a few excel sheets on the side, you're presenting more than enough load to make it sweat all the time.

Outlook, browsers, 2-3 RStudio sessions, Toad, MS SSMS, Excel, Notepad++. 18 GB RAM used (I rarely go below 16...)
Load: 3-4% in idle and maybe 7-8% while coding.
And that's about 90% of my time at work.

And this is NOT an exceptional use case for a business laptop - go figure - almost all that I do happens in the cloud! There is no serious processing going on, yet every few minutes that fan goes overdrive and the machine is hot.

Maybe there's something wrong with your PC. Or it's rubbish by default.

I also have a Skylake HQ quad core. Yes, it doesn't last as long browsing the web as the ultrabook - although even that depends on how I'd configure its power plan (!).

Yup. Power plans can have an enormous effect. I'm always using a customized "power saver" (to ignore closed lid, don't sleep on long idle etc).

But in the use case of 'doing work'

Maybe your "doing work" applies a lot of CPU load (somehow). Someone else's may not. Don't generalize.

And with that, they serve a very narrow use case

No, they don't! :-D
This is what most people do at work: they look at idling PCs. That's the work. And that's what makes a -U CPU a mainstream and important product.

Check out the average meeting room and there are ethernet and power docks all over the place

I don't know what kind of office you're working in, but I haven't seen something like that in years.
In fact my
Also, people tend to carry laptops around. I take my work laptop home almost every day, so I really like the fact that it's small and light. And the fact that it works for >10h means I don't have to carry the power brick.