New Intel notebook Xeon processors

The most mainstream chips are the new i7 mobile processors. These include the i7-6770HQ, 6870HQ, and 6970HQ, with a base clock of 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8GHz, respectively. All three chips boast four cores, Hyper-Threading, and an 8M cache. Prices range from $378 to $623, but they’re mobile processors, so you won’t be buying them except when they’re pre-installed in a system.

Along with the consumer CPUs, there’s also a trio of new Skylake-powered Xeon chips for mobile workstations. At the top end, there’s now an E3-1575M v5, a quad-core chip with Hyper-Threading, a 3GHz Base Clock, and an 8M cache. It carries a $1,207 tray price, but no one said performance comes cheap.

The other two new Xeon processors, the E3-1515M v5 and E31545-M v5, are a bit more modest. They cost $489 and $679 respectively, with the same features as the 1575M, but with slightly lower 2.8 and 2.9GHz base clocks.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-2016-i7-xeon/#ixzz3yQcari8m

 

RE: New Intel notebook processors : non BGA procs

Where are you seeing that these are not BGA1440?

 

sorry. reread the article. i must have misread something.

can a mod edit this and remove non bga procs part. please

 

Well, almost made someone's day I'm sure.

 

Get a P771ZM/DM or even the P570WM and you can use proper Xeons and not these pieces of trash!

 

Only issue with that is these machines really are more lunchbox than laptop. Portable if you are built like Andre the Giant. However, they are the real deal. Just don't expect much battery life.

 

Sounds great. Not sure what the US$1200 price tag on the BGA brings that the DT chips at much less cost don't have.

I'm not a giant but carrying around something less than 10kgs is usually not even noticeable plus I'm always plugged in when reaching destinations.

 

I believe the highest-end mobile Xeon also has Iris Pro graphics, which drives the price up. But honestly, Intel is probably doing what they normally do and charging way more for the top performing mobile processor because they can and they know at least some people will pay it.

 

doesnt make sense to pay 700$ extra for 200mhz increase that too on a locked xeon

 

I agree, but Intel has previously charged through the roof for their top mobile processor of each generation with similar performance gains. Some people must be willing to spend the money because Intel looks like they're continuing the trend.

 

The target market of those top end processors isn't "some people" but rather "some corporations".

When you're pay someone a 6-figure salary to sit in front of a laptop, suddenly that $1200 CPU seems awfully cheap in comparison.

 

Not to mention claiming capital expenditures on taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If I were a share holder of such a company I would not be very impressed if that company were paying for processors that could be outperformed by a much cheaper processor. Also I would need to consider what kind of message that sends across to clients and investors.

 

They'd think that the Xeons are the better CPU choice, be it reliability (unsure of that v i7s), perceived performance (either true for the application at hand, or assume shareholders aren't tech savvy), etc.

All a shareholder cares about is quarterly profits or losses. That's the whole point of the process.

 

So are you saying they would be happy with a 5% profit instead of maximizing them to say 40% or more for instance?

It's not how much you pay someone, it's how much revenue they generate doing their job. Come across plenty of bean counters questioning $2 items on jobs generating 6 or 7 figures per day. Buying a CPU that costs 3 or 4 times an equivalent without producing some measurable gain is idiocy from all corners, even for the guy who's getting paid to use it as these costs need to be taken into account as well as salary.

 

Eh, maybe the Xeons do have a measurable gain over similar i7s. Performance? MTBF? Unsure myself, though the businesses buying them probably have their reasons.

As for the shareholders, I doubt most, if any, for a major non-tech company would really understand enough about the differences between Xeons and i7s to actually care. And even then, do those sort of purchases show up in SEC fillings (I actually don't know)? From the POV of a hypothetical shareholder, I'd just see a 5% profit, and I probably wouldn't have the numbers to justify saying "We'd have 35% more profit if the cannon folder are equipped with cheaper CPUS" (or something to that effect).

------------------

Personally, I don't see much of a point for most people to use Xeons. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

 

Well yes that's the so far unanswered question, what advantage do they have.

Your right the shareholders don't need to be tech savvy, just make sure there's the proper management in place to take care of that through the Company infrastructure. Someone has to authorize purchases and very seldom is there an open cheque book.

 

Yeah. If I had to know minute details like workers' computer hardware for all the companies my portfolio covers, I'd be committed to an insane institute .

 

According to notebookcheck P580 =945m > r370X, so say hello to 15" Macbook pro without AMD gfx.

https://translate.google.com.au/tra...-Notebook-Prozessor.160198.0.html&prev=search

 

Apple will be really happy for something like this but another source of possible loss of revenue for AMD...