

Analyzing Intel Core M Performance - zdw
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9117/analyzing-intel-core-m-performance

======
lewisl9029
I just bought a HP Elite X2 1011 G1 hybrid with Core M-5Y71 not too long ago.

Its very subtle but audible fan noise annoyed me quite a bit until now (since
I considered Core M a fanless chip), but after reading this I realize that I'd
prefer this over the alternative.

------
bt3
The fact that the Intel graphic appearing about halfway down the page suggests
that the Core M is more suitable for "premium tablets", and "2 in 1's" further
suggests to me that Apple has introduced the worlds most expensive netbook.
Which will likely pair well with their five-figure watches as well.

There was a comment on another similar article I read awhile back where an
Intel employee commented on how the Core M is a "premium Atom".

~~~
wlesieutre
The Intel graphic that recommends it for ultra-thin notebooks?

[http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9117/Slide%206%20-%20Choosi...](http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9117/Slide%206%20-%20Choosing%20the%20Right%20Processor_575px.png)

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Well that's his point. If you have a chip that's used in an ultra thin laptop,
whose performance-grade suits tablets, then you can slap a derogatory
'netbook' label on it.

And I can definitely see why you might say that. If you look at the Macbook
Air 13", it's a cheaper and more powerful device, despite being among the most
portable devices, without generally a need for externals like USB hubs, or
even a charger with its excellent 12h battery life. And it wasn't considered
noisy either.

Instead of improving that MBA: USB-C to make it slightly thinner. Full HD
resolution to make it slightly sharper. Butterfly keyboard and zero-click
magnetic touchpad to allow it to be thinner. Slightly smaller bezels and a
slightly bigger keyboard to make it smaller. Layered battery to make it last
longer, or use less space.

Instead of that, they said 'prettiness first, let's make it as thin as
possible', and then let's see what performance we can squeeze in. And that
performance came in behind a cheaper, older MBA, and its because uses a chip
that you find in tablets.

Now I'm excited about the new Macbook, not the first one but future
generations will likely be something quite special. And I fully understand and
even appreciate why they did it. Set a new standard, a new model, for mobile
consumers, in a world where even laptops are squeezed by tablets/phablets, and
where most consumers don't need the performance of a MBA (that blurred the
line between consumer & pro. The MBA's are popular lightweight development
machines for example). And set the stage for increasing wireless/cloud.

And I also appreciate that mocking it as a mobile chip is a bit myopic. It's
actually quite fast and seems to do nicely in the early benchmarks. But yeah I
see his point, it's still a bit weird to see a performance downgrade from the
'mobility line' in the Air, with a price bump and weird things like 1-port, or
a 480p camera that is humbled by a the 2010 iPod Touch 720p camera. Expecting
a 2nd generation of this Macbook, especially when USB-C takes off, skylake
launches and the Air stops selling, to make a lot more sense than it does
today.

~~~
freehunter
Is there anything really wrong with that approach though? Car manufacturers
often make the most powerful and high-tech cars they can make as a proving
ground, then that technology trickles into the rest of their lineup. The Tesla
Model S wouldn't exist without the Tesla Roadster, which was a pile of junk
but proved the technology. Mercedes S Class cars are horribly overpriced and
sometimes impractical, but they're the first place you'll find tech that will
be an option for all cars in 5 years and standard in 10 years. The original
Surface sucked, but they kept revising it until people could at least give it
some faint praise.

The most generous complaints are that "it came out one year too early." That's
better than never coming out at all.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
> Is there anything really wrong with that approach though?

No I absolutely get it, it's a good approach.

As a consumer, I'd love if they'd just updated the Air. It's already light and
thin with awesome battery and great performance, they could have iterated on
that (e.g. butterfly keys, layered batteries & no-click touchpad), give it a
170 PPI screen (1920 x 1200), thinning out the bezels, or add USB-C etc.

But instead they did something a bit too radical. Thin beyond necessity, a
480p camera while a 2012 ipod Touch had 720p/1080p, just a single port, and
most importantly releasing a device that's slower than an already existing,
last year, 'air' model.

But I do get it. You need to do some big sweeping changes every 5 years or so.
They iterated on the Air for 7 years, turned it into a low-performance $1800
device with 5h of battery, into a sub $1000 machine with 12h of battery, great
performance, improved screen and ports.

And now it's time for something new. If for example instead of releasing the
'air', they iterated on the Macbook endlessly, we'd probably never have gotten
the air.

> The most generous complaints are that "it came out one year too early."

Pretty much. I can make that complaint about the Apple Watch (in 2 years an
expensive Apple Watch will look dumb when a thinner device with smoother
animations and longer battery life and better sensors come out), iMac 5k
(thermal throttling?) etc. And that's indeed fine, a complement in a way.

The new Macbook differs a little bit for me because it's not a completely new
technology like the Apple Watch, or a new Smartphone or Tablet. It wasn't a
question of 'do this or do nothing'. It was a question of 'handicap the Air
and don't make a big investment in the line and do a new less capable Macbook
at $300-400 more', or 'make engineering investments to improve the air'. I
think that's a genuine consumer complaint one may have.

As a consumer I'm bummed they didn't go with the latter. Would have really
liked an Air with at least full hd, layered batteries, thinner bezels etc. Now
my options are a premium netbook, or a MBP. I went with the rMBP.

As an 'analyst' though, the rMB makes a ton of sense and if I were at the
board of Apple I wouldn't have rejected, rather, applauded the current path.

