Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel's Medfield Phone Beats Galaxy Nexus in Benchmarks

Last response: in News comments
Share
March 10, 2012 2:40:06 PM

Power consumption? I don't like phones that need to be hooked up to the wall constantly...
Score
20
March 10, 2012 2:50:58 PM

It's just as well. Galaxy Nexus is using pretty old graphics hardware, and that looks like the biggest difference.
Score
-8
March 10, 2012 2:56:48 PM

A Bad DayPower consumption? I don't like phones that need to be hooked up to the wall constantly...


Hoping for a flaw so you can ignore this known strength. Yawn.
Score
-19
March 10, 2012 3:11:41 PM

Looks like they did it by boosting its rendering capabilities and its javascript speed but they took a big hit in user experience so im not sure that makes it better, just better in that set of benchmarks. Its not about whether they win or lose, its how they pulled it off, and it looks like the screwed the user experience part to get better JS performance so they could win.
Score
5
March 10, 2012 3:32:27 PM

Now all they need is to re-brand these CPUs. I know I sound silly, but wouldn't be proud of having an Atom CPU in my phone. They're associated with cheap quality, slow-ass CPUs for me... call it "Core i1" or something respectable.
Score
19
March 10, 2012 3:55:38 PM

erunionHoping for a flaw so you can ignore this known strength. Yawn.

More like we are interested in an important piece of info. If it also has great batter life, then it's awesome. If it has average battery life, it's still very good, but if it is terrible, then people won't be happy.
Score
4
March 10, 2012 4:10:43 PM

bystanderMore like we are interested in an important piece of info. If it also has great batter life, then it's awesome. If it has average battery life, it's still very good, but if it is terrible, then people won't be happy.


Yet anandtech did a write up on power months ago. So what do we call claims that an medfield phone will need to be plugged into a wall? I vote trolling.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom...
Score
0
March 10, 2012 4:31:13 PM

erunionYet anandtech did a write up on power months ago. So what do we call claims that an medfield phone will need to be plugged into a wall? I vote trolling.http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365 [...] tphones%29

Thanks for the link, but no, you are expecting WAY too much. Very few people are likely to have read that article. This isn't even the same site as that review, how can you just expect everyone to have read it?

You sounded more like the troll, but this link definitely helps put things in to perspective.
Score
0
March 10, 2012 4:51:34 PM

bystanderThanks for the link, but no, you are expecting WAY too much. Very few people are likely to have read that article. This isn't even the same site as that review, how can you just expect everyone to have read it?You sounded more like the troll, but this link definitely helps put things in to perspective.


Well its Anandtech for one, one of the other big sites and according to that it will get close to the same battery life as a Galaxy S II which I don't find that hard to believe.

There is also a tablet thats supposed to have 9+ hours of usage with a 30 day standby.

Then we have the 22nm Atom to look forward to which will probably allow for more cores/higher clock speed whil reducing the power usage.

Not sure why people have a hard time believing that Intel can do it when they have DT CPUs running at 17w.
Score
2
March 10, 2012 4:53:06 PM

bystander Very few people are likely to have read that article. This isn't even the same site as that review, how can you just expect everyone to have read it?


I didn't. I ridiculed him for ignoring the article in favor of baseless speculation(and wishful thinking). I only brought up the power facts when you made a non-trolling response.
Score
-1
March 10, 2012 4:57:01 PM

jimmysmittyWell its Anandtech for one, one of the other big sites and according to that it will get close to the same battery life as a Galaxy S II which I don't find that hard to believe. There is also a tablet thats supposed to have 9+ hours of usage with a 30 day standby.Then we have the 22nm Atom to look forward to which will probably allow for more cores/higher clock speed whil reducing the power usage.Not sure why people have a hard time believing that Intel can do it when they have DT CPUs running at 17w.

I don't read all the articles here, and I don't go to every major site. Do you feel that anyone who reads one site is expected to have read every article on every other site?

Anyways, it apparently has very good power efficiency, except for video playback. That's good news. The end result will also be dependent on other hardware installed on the device and how much power they draw as well as the battery used in it, but it has promise.
Score
0
March 10, 2012 4:58:11 PM

Yeah Anandtech did a nice writeup on the power consumption on this cpu and it was indeed performing with great efficiency and well within the smart phone power budget. Intel will gain a foothold in the mobile space with this and if Arm and co won't release their new updated versions before Intel move down to the next die shrink and 3d gate they will gain more than a foothold.

With Arm's Ceo latest comments about not to fearing Intel its actually amusing in a way - He awoke the giant much like Amd did back in the days when they had a superior product, look how far that got them!
Score
6
March 10, 2012 5:15:59 PM

Intel is trying to catch up in the Mobile Market segment. They fear that AMD's Fusion APUs take control of it.
But since when Google is involved in this?
Score
-8
March 10, 2012 5:18:27 PM

how about battery life benchmark?
Score
-6
March 10, 2012 6:20:00 PM

Why are they not using the 22nm process? Seems like that could save them on the power consumption and shrink the cpu? Is too expensive, and there fore cannot make money?
Score
0
Anonymous
March 10, 2012 6:46:09 PM

bloc97, AMD doesn't have a Mobile Market segment. That is why they fired their last CEO. He did not make a mobile plan and AMD was pissed that Intel came out with one. AMD is actually by far the furthest behind. Even VIA is further along than AMD in that segment. These are SOC decigns with super low power. It is a whole new animal. Where Intel is behind is in the baseband. They need to integrate all of that into their SOC and they won't have that until 2013 or perhaps 2014. Right now, they will put dual core 2 GHz ATOMS out for 2013 to compete with the 4 core ARM CPUs. In late 2013 early 2014, they will put out phones with the 22nm designs and that is when things get interesting. By 2014-2015, ARM will put out 64-bit chips and enter the enterprise server market and high end desktop market and Intel will be building 14nm Desktop and Workstation CPUs and 14nm phones. Consumers will be rich with choices and all will be good. Hopefully, AMD puts out competitive products by then or maybe VIA.
Score
2
March 10, 2012 7:59:36 PM

bloc97Intel is trying to catch up in the Mobile Market segment. They fear that AMD's Fusion APUs take control of it.But since when Google is involved in this?


AMD only mobile market is laptops and netbooks. This is smartphones and tablet territory where AMD has nothing yet.
Score
0
March 10, 2012 9:26:19 PM

Wait.... I just did the Vellamo benchmark on my MT4GS and I got a score above the Asus Transformer Prime... I'm running Ice Cream Sandwich... But to my understanding, my phone is only equivalent to the SGN...
Score
0
March 10, 2012 10:16:56 PM

My wishful thinking is that we could eventually run Windows on it for real office apps, real browsers and real flash player.
Score
0
March 11, 2012 1:05:24 AM

I just have trouble with these results because it seems Intel should require the efficiency benefits of 22 nm to field something competitive against ARM. After all, ARM has had more than ample time to get its act fully together. How can Intel do this at 32 nm (unless they are simply lots smarter).
Score
-2
March 11, 2012 1:06:48 AM

I just have trouble with these results because it seems Intel should require the efficiency benefits of 22 nm to field something competitive against ARM. After all, ARM has had more than ample time to get its act fully together. How can Intel do this at 32 nm (unless they are simply lots smarter).
Score
-5
March 11, 2012 1:08:15 AM

I just have trouble with these results because it seems Intel should require the efficiency benefits of 22 nm to field something competitive against ARM. After all, ARM has had more than ample time to get its act fully together. How can Intel do this at 32 nm (unless they are simply lots smarter).
Score
-5
March 11, 2012 3:18:19 AM

@dealcorn it's all about CPU complexity: ARM and x86 are two different creatures entirely.
Score
2
March 11, 2012 6:30:48 AM

Intel is producing Atom at just 32nm, because they have not gone after this market aggressively in the past. They probably viewed it more as an inexpensive chip market rather than a performance market and found out that they were wrong.

ARM is going to have a harder time competing with Intel as processors get more powerful, because they don't have the datapath management experience that Intel does. This is a large part of why AMD hasn't been competitive with Intel for quite a while. Their memory structure isn't so good and it becomes harder and harder to feed the beast as it gets bigger and faster. ARM will have to go through the same growing pains, while Intel will just tweak what they've already developed and focus on new ways to produce a better processor.

Intel's much larger design staff is now focused on energy efficiency for all processors. When they finally bring their full process advantage to bear in this market, it is going to get ugly.
Score
1
March 11, 2012 7:40:03 AM

Well, here's my Thumbs up for Intel.
Score
2
March 11, 2012 7:55:42 AM

You have to compare them using performance/watt, otherwise the information is meaningless when talking about phones.
Score
0
Anonymous
March 11, 2012 11:08:59 AM

When discussing Intel processors it is necessary to tell the reader if the processor has hyperthreading!!!
The medfield processor does have hyperthreading and this should always be part of any true discription
of the intel processors!!!
Score
1
March 11, 2012 12:36:46 PM

intel please i wanna job in intel company!
Score
0
March 11, 2012 2:16:24 PM

bystanderI don't read all the articles here, and I don't go to every major site. Do you feel that anyone who reads one site is expected to have read every article on every other site?


Erm, isn't that what Google and Bing are for?? :D 
Score
1
March 11, 2012 3:29:57 PM

BTWhy are they not using the 22nm process? Seems like that could save them on the power consumption and shrink the cpu? Is too expensive, and there fore cannot make money?


It takes a lot of time to make your design compatible with a new process. You can't just copy and paste your old design over to a new process - it has to be tweaked for the performance characteristics of the transistors being produced.
Score
2
March 11, 2012 10:09:07 PM

kronos_corneliusYou have to compare them using performance/watt, otherwise the information is meaningless when talking about phones.


If the battery can handle it - It don't matter if it eats 15% more power and are 10% faster than any competing phone, performance is a metric as well you know. Its up to the company that are designing the phone if they want that extra performance at the cost of a tad larger battery or the other way around, sluggish phone but can spare the money on the battery. The consumers will ultimately choose what the companies designs...
Score
0
Anonymous
March 11, 2012 10:23:26 PM

The fact that we only see such a select few Medfield benchmarks indicates that those are the only areas it does well in.

If Medfield was so great, don't you think that the major international handset makers would all be lining up to be the first to release one? Instead, we're only allowed to see synthetic web browser performance, and we should assume from there that everything else about it is great, right?

One must assumed that the very few handset makers that are releasing a Medfield phone were offered "incentives" to do so, 'cause the product obviously ain't selling itself.
Score
0
Anonymous
March 12, 2012 1:23:49 AM

Shmedfield please go to the first page of these comments and follow the link to the anandtech review of this medfield phone. do not expect one article to accurately describe everything read more articles to get the a more complete understanding!!!
Score
2
March 12, 2012 3:27:16 AM

BTWhy are they not using the 22nm process? Seems like that could save them on the power consumption and shrink the cpu? Is too expensive, and there fore cannot make money?


22nm is probably limited in capacity because it is new and Intel probably doesn't have enough 22nm fabs to go around for multiple types of chips. We already have delays and such on Ivy Bridge so Intel decided to use fabs that they have a surplus of and were still good enough for their first Medfields anyway.

ShmedfieldThe fact that we only see such a select few Medfield benchmarks indicates that those are the only areas it does well in.If Medfield was so great, don't you think that the major international handset makers would all be lining up to be the first to release one? Instead, we're only allowed to see synthetic web browser performance, and we should assume from there that everything else about it is great, right?One must assumed that the very few handset makers that are releasing a Medfield phone were offered "incentives" to do so, 'cause the product obviously ain't selling itself.


This is a CPU that is fairly incompatible with most of the software and such in the current market it is trying to get into so of course it isn't huge yet. Would you expect companies to line up for building machines with a 16 core ARM Cortex A15 desktop CPU if no software is around that can use it properly, despite it being pretty fast?

Honestly, just think about it and it should be obvious. The current Medfield cores seem to be almost as good as the projected performance of Cortex A15 cores so unless Intel starts ramping up the core counts and/or the 22nm node shows a huge improvement, ARM is still going to have faster CPUs for a while. At least Google is having a lot of the Android apps being eritten in code that isn't tied to ARM CPUs and shouldn't have a problem moving over to these Atoms without needing to be ported, but some Android apps use ARM specific code and obvioously won't work on Medfield and it's successors unless Intel does some hardware emulation (to save performance) and that seems unlikely because they would probably need to pay ARM for that.

Maybe Google can design a low overhead emulation for such apps, solving the problem for everyone themselves.
Score
1
March 12, 2012 6:23:32 AM

well...this is weird. My Galaxy s2 score 103035 with android 4.0.3 with default browser. how can iphone 4s score only 87,801?
Score
0
March 12, 2012 11:53:04 AM

amk-aka-PhantomNow all they need is to re-brand these CPUs. I know I sound silly, but wouldn't be proud of having an Atom CPU in my phone. They're associated with cheap quality, slow-ass CPUs for me... call it "Core i1" or something respectable.


I totally agree, as opposed to associating the name atom with anything powerful and positive, i see "Atom CPU" and picture bare minimum budget slow processors for netbooks. A rename to i1 would be extremely clever as people would be more excited to buy it as it sounds superior, Wow i'm buying a desktop chip in my cellphone!
Score
1
March 12, 2012 9:52:57 PM

I never thought Intel could be competitive in the mobile segment, but looks like I could be proved wrong.
Score
1
March 16, 2012 2:52:07 PM

Waiting for world wide launch of this Intel based phone....wondering how lasting is the battery....
Score
0
March 19, 2012 5:43:21 PM

jgutz2006I totally agree, as opposed to associating the name atom with anything powerful and positive, i see "Atom CPU" and picture bare minimum budget slow processors for netbooks. A rename to i1 would be extremely clever as people would be more excited to buy it as it sounds superior, Wow i'm buying a desktop chip in my cellphone!


I agree that a renaming to i1 or something similar sounds like a great idea, but I would not be thinking "Wow i'm buying a desktop chip in my cellphone!" because I know it's not a desktop chip and the laptop Nehalem/Sandy/Ivy chips also have the Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5/i7 naming scheme.
Score
0
a b å Intel
April 18, 2012 7:42:49 PM

When are we going to see some actual phones on actual carriers and not just Apple-style PR noise?

Score
0
April 18, 2012 8:08:11 PM

g-unit1111When are we going to see some actual phones on actual carriers and not just Apple-style PR noise?


Would you rather hear nothing? Besides, the article clearly states that the Chinese market will see a Medfield phone this quarter and that the European market will see it this summer. The USA and the rest of the world are in the dark as of now (at least, for this article), but that clearly states that there will be phones soon enough and on actual carriers.
Score
0
!