Intel launches "Y" series ULV CPUs

Yesterday Intel announced availability of ultra low power mobile products at Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Historically, Intel's most power efficient mobile processors had 17 Watt TDP, as compared to 35 Watt or higher for CPUs, used in mainstream laptops. New "Y" series microprocessors have power consumption lowered to 10 Watt - 13 Watt TDP. If necessary, the processors can be configured to use as low as 7 Watt, albeit at a reduced performance level. Two processors, Core i5-3439Y and i7-3689Y, already appeared in the latest Intel's pricelist, priced at $250 and $362. The third model, Core i5-3339Y, is currently listed in Intel's ARK product database as launched.

Three ULV microprocessors are based on "Ivy Bridge" 22nm microarchitecture, and have 2 CPU cores, clocked at 1.5 GHz. The processors support Hyper-Threading, Turbo Boost, and VT-x/VT-d Virtualization technologies. All processors come with HD 4000 graphics, clocked at 350 MHz, which is standard for Intel ULV CPUs. The maximum GPU speed on three released chips is 850 MHz, and their TDP is 13 Watt. Despite of many similarities, there are a few differences between three SKUs. Core i5-3339Y has 3 MB L3 cache, 2 GHz Turbo Boost speed, and it lacks Vpro and Trusted Execution features. Core i5-3439Y adds support for Vpro and Trusted Execution, and increases maximum turbo speed by 300 MHz to 2.3 GHz. Intel i7-3689Y raises Turbo Boost speed to 2.6 GHz, and it has larger 4 MB L3 cache:

Core i5-3339Y 2 4 1.5 GHz 2 GHz 3 MB 13 Watt $250
Core i5-3439Y 2 4 1.5 GHz 2.3 GHz 3 MB 13 Watt $250
Core i7-3689Y 2 4 1.5 GHz 2.6 GHz 4 MB 13 Watt $362

Earlier reports also stated that Intel has one Core i3 and one Pentium "Y" series processors in the works. At this time there is no confirmation whether these CPUs launched or not.

Related News (newer articles):

Related News (older articles):


There are 12 comments posted

7W isn't a useful number

2013-01-09 14:02:59
Posted by: Anon

I believe the 7W figure is not a 105C TDP measurement.

If it is relevant to anyone, it's not the same measuring stick. It would be the equivalent of saying km/h instead of m/h, or vise versa.

7W SDP might be a more realistic representation of what is actually happening, but it is not the same as 7W TDP, and should not be compared to a TDP processor rating.

You, understandably, don't list it as either, due most likely to intel not stating so in their press release, but just figured it was worth mentioning.


2013-01-10 19:38:06
Posted by: Jon

It seems to me that "SDP" is replacing Intel's cTDP down figure.

These chips can actually be set to a TDP of 7W. Of course doing so turns a 1.5GHz part into a 800MHz part, but doesn't change the max Turbo Boost speed. Just the amount of time it can spend there.


2013-01-12 12:27:07
Posted by: Anon

I don't believe this is entirely correct. SDP is measured at 80C and TDP (and presumably cTDP) are measured at 105C. 7W SDP should be about 10W TDP. It is similar to converting imperial gallon and the US dry gallon, they are different units and represent different things.

I believe most intel chips will run 10W TDP with an "i" prefix at 800 MHz or some other reduced frequency. One may call this 7W SDP or 10W TDP, same thing. To say 7W TDP @ 800 MHz would be false.


2013-01-13 17:09:03
Posted by: Jon

You might be correct.
It just seems odd to me that they can get from 17W TDP to 13W TDP by only dropping 2-300 MHz, but to get to 10W TDP they have to shed another 700MHz.


2013-01-13 22:55:44
Posted by: Anon

It's not a linear function though, it becomes less energy efficient to run big cores at lower than optimal frequencies.

To use an automotive analogy, torque curves generally peak and are lower near the extremes. Not enough torque on the low end from power consumed in just the fixed cost of moving the parts, and not enough in the high end due to friction and vibrations.

While not identical, maybe that helps.

Look at the other (newer) Y series news article, they have a pentium with no AVX, no HT, no turbo, only 2MB of L2 cache, HD graphics instead of HD 4000, and only as high as 1.1GHz just to get down to 10W. Now imagine with these features enabled.

I could be wrong about the exact frequency number, just going off of what was said to another tech journalist, as published. But SDP really isn't comparable to TDP in any meaningful way.


2013-01-13 22:56:41
Posted by: Anon

When I say "just go get down to 10W", I mean TDP.


2013-01-14 02:19:47
Posted by: Jon

I understand all of that, I'm just trying to reconcile what the two guys from Intel told The Verge.

"The so-called 7W parts actually have a TDP of 13 watts...
Intel can actually limit these processors to 7 watts permanently, so that manufacturers can build thinner designs to suit.
At 7 watts, Intel told us, the Core i7-3689Y runs at only 800MHz by default."

If they're talking about SDP, these chips already have an SDP of 7W, so nothing would need to be changed.

It seems to me that they're saying that they can limit the TDP to 7W, that's what I'm trying to get an answer to.


2013-01-14 10:44:34
Posted by: Anon

But intel never mentions a TDP of 7W in their slides, only an SDP of 7W in their slides. SDP is not the same measurement of TDP used on all other chips. Hence the dilemma.

If they can "limit" the TDP to 7W @ 80C, it's not a measurement of TDP anymore, as TDP is generally measured at 105C. It would be clearer to say that they are limiting it to 7W SDP, not TDP. But chips that are marked as being 13W or 25W or 45W TDP don't actually run at 13W or 25W or 45W below 80C, they run lower at lower temperatures. So again, it's like using two different measuring sticks. Yes, if you limit it to 80C you can get a 7W chip, but it's not a 7W TDP (@105) anymore, more so, you would need a LARGER cooling system to be able to keep temperatures down to 80C, not "thinner designs to suit".

So what it seems like theverge is saying...

The "7W" chips are actually 13W TDP chips. (which is true, intel doesn't have separate 7W SDP, 10W TDP, 13W TDP for an i7-3689Y). It's still just 1 chip, the 13W TDP chip, configured to run how the manufacturer wants.

Now looking at intel's slides, they show "cTDP" of 10W for this i7 (still measured at 105C but performance reduced), and SDP of 7W for this i7. I'm saying that this 7W SDP and 10W TDP (the one that intel calls cTDP in their slides, with reduced performance) are the same thing.

If they could limit the chip to 7W TDP they would have provided a slide saying 7W TDP and not 7W SDP, I would think. The fact that they didn't, and instead chose to create an arbitrary measurement that isn't comparable (and causing us confusion) shows that it was not possible.

So in short, they can limit the total power use to 7W, sure, but that doesn't make it a 7W TDP chip. 10W TDP or 13W TDP chips can also use only 7W total power depending on temperature.

I could give another analogy again, but even if we come to a conclussion, you see how much confusion SDP is causing if one wants to define things correctly?


2013-01-14 10:50:10
Posted by: Anon


Intel mentions...

13W TDP for 3689y
10W TDP for 3689y (cTDP they called it, reduced performance)
7 W SDP for 3689y

All the same chip.

SDP is meaningless to compare to TDP, and is probably a fancy way of talking about the other two. They never talk of a 7W TDP chip, so there is no 7W TDP chip.


2013-01-14 19:24:41
Posted by: Jon

Again, I understand all of that. I'm looking for the answer to a simple question.

At 1.5GHz the 3689Y has a TDP of 13W and an SDP of 7W.

What is the TDP of the 3689Y when set to run at 8ooMHz?

Maybe it's 10W, I'm just looking for a more concrete answer.


2013-01-18 15:34:23
Posted by: Tim

SDP is how many watts it is consuming when the processor reaches 80C. To achieve 80C under load, the 3689Y needs to be set at a max frequency of 800MHZ.


2013-01-15 17:52:01
Posted by: hilam

there is no 7W TDP ichip

Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy · Contact Us (c) Copyright 2003 - 2010 Gennadiy Shvets