[w-m]

“With Series 3, we are laser focused on improving power efficiency, adding more CPU performance, a bigger GPU in a class of its own, more AI compute and app compatibility you can count on with x86.” – Jim Johnson, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Client Computing Group, Intel

A laser focus on five things is either business nonsense or optics nonsense. Who was this written for?

[pritambarhate]

It's all the things Apple's processors are excellent at and AMD is not far behind Apple. So unless Intel delivers on all those things they can't hope to gain the market share they have lost.

[throwaway81523]

Can't we just focus on everything?

[DannyBee]

I think you mean laser focus on everything. Maybe they have a prism.

[simulator5g]

I’m sure they have something like a prism. Perhaps, a PRISM.

[HDThoreaun]

Well this is the consumer electronic showcase so I would say consumers who are looking at buying laptops

[sidewndr46]

Somewhat ironically if they were laser focused using infared lasers, wouldn't that imply the company was not very specific at all? Infared is something like 700 nm, which would be huge in terms of transistors

[davidmurdoch]

State of the art lithography currently uses extreme ultraviolet, which is 13.5nm. So maybe they are EUV laser-focused, just with many mirrors pointing it in 5 different directions?

[undersuit]

Sounds very expensive.

[davidmurdoch]

Only like $400 million per fab.

[dudeinjapan]

Meanwhile they are NOT laser-focusing on doing more of Lunar Lake, with its on-package memory and glorious battery life.

Intel called it a “one-off mistake”, it’s the best mistake Intel ever made.

[bryanlarsen]

Intel is claiming that Panther lake has 30% better battery life than Lunar Lake.

[dudeinjapan]

Perhaps in a vacuum…

On package memory is claimed to be a 40% reduction in power consumption. To beat actual LL by 30%, it means the PL chip must actually be ~58% more efficient in an apples-to-apples non-SoC configuration.

Possible if they doped PL’s silicon with magic pixie dust.

[wtallis]

> On package memory is claimed to be a 40% reduction in power consumption.

40% reduction in what power consumption? I don't think memory is usually responsible for even 40% of the total SoC + memory power, and bringing memory on-package doesn't make it consume negative power.

[phonon]

Lunar Lake had a 40% reduction in PHY power use by using memory directly onto the processor packaging (MoP)...roughly going from 3-4 Watts to 2 Watts...

[ac29]

Do you have more information on that? I have a meteor lake laptop (pre-Lunar Lake) and the entire machine averages ~4W most of the time, including screen, wifi, storage and everything else. So, I dont see how the CPU memory controller can use 3-4W unless it is for irrelevantly brief periods of time.