Intel Tries To Conquer Mobile Market By Investing In Chinese Chip Makers
Tags:
-
Intel
-
Smartphone Processors
- Mobile
Last response: in News comments
Anonymous
September 26, 2014 2:37:17 PM
Intel signs deal with two more fabless chip makers from China that will make SoCs based on Intel's Atom CPU IP and its 3G and 4G technology. Intel hopes this will make the x86 platform more popular for mobile.
Intel Tries To Conquer Mobile Market By Investing In Chinese Chip Makers : Read more
Intel Tries To Conquer Mobile Market By Investing In Chinese Chip Makers : Read more
More about : intel conquer mobile market investing chinese chip makers
-
Reply to Anonymous
ldo
September 26, 2014 5:16:51 PM
-
Reply to ldo
m
1
l
Quote:
Why does Intel persist in squandering its resources trying to push x86 onto a market that doesn’t want it? Why doesn’t it it abandon those useless Atom chips, and use its legendary fab prowess to make ARM chips instead? That way, its mobile division can actually show a profit for a change.There is a huge amount of money in mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. The PC market is getting smaller because of these devices, and its key for the company to be able to extend into new areas as a result.
You shouldn't assume no one wants Intel in smartphones and tablets. A great number of people do. If nothing else they want it there for competetion, but a lot of people would enjoy the idea of Intel having an energy efficient high performance CPU in their device.
Its new Broadwell 14-nm based atom chips, which have already been looked at a little by reviewers from samples, look to over much greater performance than ARM CPUs while hitting the same power level, making them highly competitive.
Intel's mobile division has been profitable, just not to the point they want. It would be a terrible thing for them to make ARM chips instead of their own. It would be like saying we should completely get rid of AMD in the PC market and only have a choice of Intel. Its close to the worst possible thing that could be done.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
3
l
ldo
September 26, 2014 6:07:47 PM
You are assuming that no one wants it, when many people do. The fact that companies aren't making a lot of products with Intel CPUs in the mobile space doesn't mean that customers don't want it, it means for some reason (there are various reasons) that they do not want to make an Intel device. A lot of this is usually because they are already used to working with ARM hardware and don't want to transition into something new.
Intel has a lot more to gain by managing to enter into the mobile space with its own products.
Intel has a lot more to gain by managing to enter into the mobile space with its own products.
-
Reply to IInuyasha74
m
-1
l
ldo
September 26, 2014 9:50:05 PM
I don’t need to “assume”, I just look at what’s actually happening in the market. Companies have tried using Atom chips in mobile devices lots of times, but they have never sold well. That’s why they stop making them.
Remember how, when announcing the first Atom chips in 2008, Intel proudly proclaimed that it was *two years* ahead of ARM? It didn’t take long for that smirk to be wiped off its corporate face.
And ever since then, Intel has been playing catch-up. Just wait for the next generation of chips, they kept saying: wait for Stoneybridge, or Tacoma Bridge, or Oilswellthatendswell, or whatever the latest code name is. This time for sure, it will whip ARM’s arse.
Only it never did. Because the ARM ecosystem is so much more diverse and competitive than anything Intel can manage on its own.
Remember how, when announcing the first Atom chips in 2008, Intel proudly proclaimed that it was *two years* ahead of ARM? It didn’t take long for that smirk to be wiped off its corporate face.
And ever since then, Intel has been playing catch-up. Just wait for the next generation of chips, they kept saying: wait for Stoneybridge, or Tacoma Bridge, or Oilswellthatendswell, or whatever the latest code name is. This time for sure, it will whip ARM’s arse.
Only it never did. Because the ARM ecosystem is so much more diverse and competitive than anything Intel can manage on its own.
-
Reply to ldo
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
September 27, 2014 12:08:25 AM
Quote:
I don’t need to “assume”, I just look at what’s actually happening in the market. Companies have tried using Atom chips in mobile devices lots of times, but they have never sold well. That’s why they stop making them.btw. I own one and a lot of my friends and coworkers own an atom-based tablet or 2-in-1. Not sure where you got the "nobody wants them" from?
Edit: it was also #2 best selling tablet on Amazon in Q4/2013.
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
-1
l
ldo
September 27, 2014 12:20:08 AM
IInuyasha74 said:
Its new Broadwell 14-nm based atom chips, which have already been looked at a little by reviewers from samples, look to over much greater performance than ARM CPUs while hitting the same power level, making them highly competitive.Broadwell is not Atom. The new Core M (Broadwell-Y) chips that have been previewed are not Atom chips, they belong to Intel's high-performance x86 lineage. Intel's newest Atom design is the Silvermont architecture. The phone-targeted Silvermont chips are the dual-core Merrifield and quad-core Moorefield, while for tablets, netbooks etc. it's Bay Trail.
The die shrink of Silvermont is called Airmont, and it will go into new chips like Braswell (phones) and Cherry Trail (tablets). Note that Braswell is completely different from Broadwell.
-
Reply to Sakkura
m
2
l
somebodyspecial
September 27, 2014 7:43:20 AM
ROFL. A 28nm x86 chip won't take out the ARM 20nm armada that is already better even at 28nm. The only solution to the ARM problem is to OWN a VERY good ARM company (Nvidia is about the only option to buy) and pump out THEIR stuff on your best process. Intel doesn't seem to understand how to win or for some reason can't get this done. Either Jen won't sell or Intel just plain refuses to give him whatever it takes to get this over with. Either offer him a few billion outside the company buy price, or offer him the position he wants in Intel (CEO). OR face continuing 4B losses in mobile and even more as mobile becomes MORE than mobile. IE, I bet money you'll see denver etc desktops at some point on 20nm or 14nm with a PC like heatsink/PSU, discrete vid cards etc giving you a FULL PC experience power wise rather than nibbling at the notebook market with chromebooks in a ~10w envelope. Just like those stole 21% of the ENTIRE notebook market, these PC LIKE machines geared for 500w power supplies etc, will steal yet another 21% (or more) of the desktops also (and no doubt more notebooks stolen too) as they strap on PC like parts for real and 64bit ARM software takes hold giving even app devs a reason to run to the massive numbers of units on ARM's side. The ARM side can easily strap on more power in say a 50-85w SOC model @3.5-4ghz once the software is 64bit and these things start coming with 4GB-32GB of ram so you can run much more complicated apps. Devs won't just ignore a soon to be 2Billion+ per year unit market just to make Wintel happy on x86. They will move, just like the game devs have already.
http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-st...
Intel profits down from 12.94B, to 11B, now to 9.62B over the last 3 years. The trend will continue until they figure out how to buy Nvidia. Losing 4B a year on mobile means you should just offer Jen Hsun $4B in cash NOW (before you can't afford to buy them) to walk away + the price of the company. The guy is worth what like 300-450mil? I don't know many people who'd walk away from 10x their net worth in a day to go find something else to do with their time. Then again maybe his bean counters did the math and figure he'll be worth that in 10yrs anyway and gets revenge in the end on Intel (at least to a large degree as we already see in intel profits even before the desktop assault for years to come) for their chipset shenanigans. I'm not sure I'd walk myself seeing the current trend and the gpu ip money that will be coming NV's way for years now that mobile (and Arm's assault on desktops) will be doing the same things they've patented for over a decade for current x86 pc's.
NV could easily end up becoming Qcom or Intel in profits once the lawsuits are done and people are forced to pay up, cars go driverless (using even more SOCS etc to do this), GRID starts paying, and NV's gpus themselves start to take over the mobile game (instead of the modem being #1 in the last decade+ of mobile) year after year. You're either going to pay them or just simply use them instead of paying them, or you'll be out of the GAME game so to speak. Look at the app stores for google, amazon, apple, msft and you can see GAMES rule, and are expanding their revenue in these stores yearly.
As more people start to find out these things at 20nm or 14nm (or heck 10nm at about halfway through console lifespan) can do what a console can do and much more the picture just keeps getting worse for Wintel/x86/consoles. They are cheaper and can do most of the stuff the general public needs already, so amp that up and the Wintel/x86/console market just gets more ugly than Intel's profits, sony profits, nintendo, and microsoft gaming division already are showing (they all are sucking wind). Add some REAL apps at 64bit etc and it just gets worse as they start stealing WINTEL apps revenue also (and pc's sold for these jobs).
Of course as consumers we'd all probably be better off if Intel is never able to buy NV, and we just end up with a 50/50 ARM/x86 race at some point (having ARM vendors replacing AMD as a cpu competitor that is FAR more competent and profitable). If ARM takes 21% of desktops in the next two years do Intel profits end up at 6-7B from current 9.6B? If the current trend continues I don't see how they keep up with the fab race. At some point when profits can't pay for it, R&D comes down yearly just like at AMD and at some point it shows it's ugly face in your products just like AMD now. Tonga is not an answer to maxwell, it's better but not near good enough hence the pretty silent tonga launch. Whatever AMD launches next (their 20nm chips), NV will just answer with BIG maxwell or a similar 20nm version of today's chip amped up (we know they hit 1.5ghz on 28nm now with limited voltages, surely a 20nm shrink of maxwell could ship at these speeds if needed). We are seeing AMD's decreased R&D (3-4 years of shrinking R&D) now. Since it takes 3-5yrs to make a chip it makes sense you see the results of shrinking R&D 3-5yrs later like we see now and will continue to see unless AMD figures out how to raise profits & thus raise R&D again. Anything in their pipeline has had less and less R&D aimed at it over the last 3-4yrs (cpu and gpu, hence totally out of the cpu race, and barely hanging on in the gpu race).
We need AMD to get bought ASAP, before their gpu tech is so far behind (which I'd predict we'll see in 2-3yrs as that shrunk R&D hits yearly even more), even a company with billions behind it can't fix the problem for years if ever. I'm not sure their cpu tech is worth anything to anyone but AMD at this point as ARM/Intel will eventually just eat that lunch as they meet in the middle. Console profits will shrink for them after xmas pop from microsoft launching in all the other countries. As SOCS hit 20nm/14nm poor people will go to ARM devices and cheap games vs. an expensive console and $60 games for life. The sales from casual users will not develop for this gen of consoles in the back half of their lifespan like before as mobile begins to match them. You will only get the hardcore in the first 3yrs, then kaput. Microsoft/Sony could slow the process a bit if they lowered game pricing to $30-40 but you're still going to battle for sales even if ARM games end up being $10-20 across the board and I'm pretty sure there will always be $1-10 games in the android market to appease truly poor people who never buy consoles which will push devs even further into ARM's ecosystem.
Think about how many people own a mobile device even today (billions with 1.2B sold YEARLY again and climbing) vs. how many own ALL 3 CONSOLES from last gen COMBINED (about 300mil total over 7yrs of life). Game over man...LOL. In the next 7yrs they will probably sell a total of something like 10B+ units of ARM devices and over half of them will match or beat consoles in perf/graphics. Think 14nm/10nm M1 (maxwell or volta? so maybe at V1?), NVlink with TSV, 8ghz+ memory etc surrounding these socs to massively ratchet up perf for lower cost and more abilities vs a console which basically plays games/movies. How fast will a 14nm Volta based soc be after seeing 28nm kepler K1? Somewhere in 2016/2017 you'll be seeing 10nm versions of either V1 (volta) or whatever is after it and all it's competition. Where does AMD console profits go then? What product will get them back to 500mil profits? How do you do that as you have to slash prices immediately to be considered this and further forward vs. maxwell etc?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/26/nvidia...
This sums up AMD's problem pretty well and highlights the R&D problem discussed above. I'll say it again, we need them bought, but I don't know who would want them (NV would be bought first by MSFT/INTC/Samsung/Google). Intel surging in cpu vs. AMD also makes matters worse. I don't see how they recover without some market that AMD can get into that these others are NOT playing in already and I don't know where that will come from. AMD might have survived if they'd spent on GPU/Arm SOC/APU instead of consoles but that didn't happen.
http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-st...
Intel profits down from 12.94B, to 11B, now to 9.62B over the last 3 years. The trend will continue until they figure out how to buy Nvidia. Losing 4B a year on mobile means you should just offer Jen Hsun $4B in cash NOW (before you can't afford to buy them) to walk away + the price of the company. The guy is worth what like 300-450mil? I don't know many people who'd walk away from 10x their net worth in a day to go find something else to do with their time. Then again maybe his bean counters did the math and figure he'll be worth that in 10yrs anyway and gets revenge in the end on Intel (at least to a large degree as we already see in intel profits even before the desktop assault for years to come) for their chipset shenanigans. I'm not sure I'd walk myself seeing the current trend and the gpu ip money that will be coming NV's way for years now that mobile (and Arm's assault on desktops) will be doing the same things they've patented for over a decade for current x86 pc's.
NV could easily end up becoming Qcom or Intel in profits once the lawsuits are done and people are forced to pay up, cars go driverless (using even more SOCS etc to do this), GRID starts paying, and NV's gpus themselves start to take over the mobile game (instead of the modem being #1 in the last decade+ of mobile) year after year. You're either going to pay them or just simply use them instead of paying them, or you'll be out of the GAME game so to speak. Look at the app stores for google, amazon, apple, msft and you can see GAMES rule, and are expanding their revenue in these stores yearly.
As more people start to find out these things at 20nm or 14nm (or heck 10nm at about halfway through console lifespan) can do what a console can do and much more the picture just keeps getting worse for Wintel/x86/consoles. They are cheaper and can do most of the stuff the general public needs already, so amp that up and the Wintel/x86/console market just gets more ugly than Intel's profits, sony profits, nintendo, and microsoft gaming division already are showing (they all are sucking wind). Add some REAL apps at 64bit etc and it just gets worse as they start stealing WINTEL apps revenue also (and pc's sold for these jobs).
Of course as consumers we'd all probably be better off if Intel is never able to buy NV, and we just end up with a 50/50 ARM/x86 race at some point (having ARM vendors replacing AMD as a cpu competitor that is FAR more competent and profitable). If ARM takes 21% of desktops in the next two years do Intel profits end up at 6-7B from current 9.6B? If the current trend continues I don't see how they keep up with the fab race. At some point when profits can't pay for it, R&D comes down yearly just like at AMD and at some point it shows it's ugly face in your products just like AMD now. Tonga is not an answer to maxwell, it's better but not near good enough hence the pretty silent tonga launch. Whatever AMD launches next (their 20nm chips), NV will just answer with BIG maxwell or a similar 20nm version of today's chip amped up (we know they hit 1.5ghz on 28nm now with limited voltages, surely a 20nm shrink of maxwell could ship at these speeds if needed). We are seeing AMD's decreased R&D (3-4 years of shrinking R&D) now. Since it takes 3-5yrs to make a chip it makes sense you see the results of shrinking R&D 3-5yrs later like we see now and will continue to see unless AMD figures out how to raise profits & thus raise R&D again. Anything in their pipeline has had less and less R&D aimed at it over the last 3-4yrs (cpu and gpu, hence totally out of the cpu race, and barely hanging on in the gpu race).
We need AMD to get bought ASAP, before their gpu tech is so far behind (which I'd predict we'll see in 2-3yrs as that shrunk R&D hits yearly even more), even a company with billions behind it can't fix the problem for years if ever. I'm not sure their cpu tech is worth anything to anyone but AMD at this point as ARM/Intel will eventually just eat that lunch as they meet in the middle. Console profits will shrink for them after xmas pop from microsoft launching in all the other countries. As SOCS hit 20nm/14nm poor people will go to ARM devices and cheap games vs. an expensive console and $60 games for life. The sales from casual users will not develop for this gen of consoles in the back half of their lifespan like before as mobile begins to match them. You will only get the hardcore in the first 3yrs, then kaput. Microsoft/Sony could slow the process a bit if they lowered game pricing to $30-40 but you're still going to battle for sales even if ARM games end up being $10-20 across the board and I'm pretty sure there will always be $1-10 games in the android market to appease truly poor people who never buy consoles which will push devs even further into ARM's ecosystem.
Think about how many people own a mobile device even today (billions with 1.2B sold YEARLY again and climbing) vs. how many own ALL 3 CONSOLES from last gen COMBINED (about 300mil total over 7yrs of life). Game over man...LOL. In the next 7yrs they will probably sell a total of something like 10B+ units of ARM devices and over half of them will match or beat consoles in perf/graphics. Think 14nm/10nm M1 (maxwell or volta? so maybe at V1?), NVlink with TSV, 8ghz+ memory etc surrounding these socs to massively ratchet up perf for lower cost and more abilities vs a console which basically plays games/movies. How fast will a 14nm Volta based soc be after seeing 28nm kepler K1? Somewhere in 2016/2017 you'll be seeing 10nm versions of either V1 (volta) or whatever is after it and all it's competition. Where does AMD console profits go then? What product will get them back to 500mil profits? How do you do that as you have to slash prices immediately to be considered this and further forward vs. maxwell etc?
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/26/nvidia...
This sums up AMD's problem pretty well and highlights the R&D problem discussed above. I'll say it again, we need them bought, but I don't know who would want them (NV would be bought first by MSFT/INTC/Samsung/Google). Intel surging in cpu vs. AMD also makes matters worse. I don't see how they recover without some market that AMD can get into that these others are NOT playing in already and I don't know where that will come from. AMD might have survived if they'd spent on GPU/Arm SOC/APU instead of consoles but that didn't happen.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
September 27, 2014 8:36:55 AM
IInuyasha74 said:
Quote:
Why does Intel persist in squandering its resources trying to push x86 onto a market that doesn’t want it? Why doesn’t it it abandon those useless Atom chips, and use its legendary fab prowess to make ARM chips instead? That way, its mobile division can actually show a profit for a change.<snipped>
Intel's mobile division has been profitable, just not to the point they want. It would be a terrible thing for them to make ARM chips instead of their own. It would be like saying we should completely get rid of AMD in the PC market and only have a choice of Intel. Its close to the worst possible thing that could be done.
Intel's mobile division is losing 4B per year now (1.1B lost last quarter up from 930mil the quarter before, it's accelerating losses with subsidies). No point in bothering with the rest of your comment when you clearly don't read balance sheets and quarterly reports. Broadwell will do nothing to change things as ARM negates it with a move to 20nm. IE, Intel moves to 14nm and ARM moves to 20nm so you net nothing (and the ARM gpu side just got to desktop gpu mode, so this story just gets worse, especially as NV goes custom with Denver next month - IE, IN HOUSE ARM cpu). See my other post for why Intel is going down. Where your profit goes (up or down) so shall your R&D go (see AMD 10yr summary below and check the R&D in the balance sheets/earnings reports).
http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-st...
You're losing the ARM's race (heh, pun intended), and will shortly start losing the FAB race as ARM assaults the desktops and takes even more notebooks (and thus your profits continue to slide for a 4th year, and thus your R&D slides at some point too). You need to read more. Your last comment is the absolute opposite of what Intel needs to do RIGHT NOW. When you can't beat them join them until you can by beating them at their own game. BUY NV now and produce your own ARM IN HOUSE chips (because you'd own K1, M1, V1 etc, and 85% of pro card market, server gpus, 65% of discrete gpus etc) and your new found top end gpus on the best process out there WHILE YOU STILL HAVE IT!
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322263
Not sure what you read, but places like JP Morgan don't ask you to QUIT mobile for nothing. This was before the last quarters 1.1B loss. With it growing, I'm sure JP Morgan still thinks the same as before and there is NO sign of it quitting soon as ARM marches to 20nm negating any Intel 14nm gains. They are both marching in lockstep.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
sonofliberty08
September 27, 2014 12:34:46 PM
ldo
September 27, 2014 3:19:59 PM
Wow, I see lots of downvotes against anybody who dares to suggest that Intel, juggernaut in servers and desktops, might be out of its depth in mobile.
Face it, downvoters: you may be au fait with those markets where x86 is dominant, but that still leaves you knowing little or nothing about mobile devices and ARM.
Face it, downvoters: you may be au fait with those markets where x86 is dominant, but that still leaves you knowing little or nothing about mobile devices and ARM.
-
Reply to ldo
m
1
l
amk-aka-Phantom
September 28, 2014 1:54:05 PM
Quote:
Face it, downvoters: you may be au fait with those markets where x86 is dominant, but that still leaves you knowing little or nothing about mobile devices and ARM. As someone who deals with mobile device and ARM chip benchmarks regularly: nearly everything you wrote here is uneducated hate for Intel not backed by any power/performance numbers. The simple truth is that even the current Intel Atoms are behind top ARM chips only on graphics performance (and only a little), but this is about to be fixed in the next generation, and power consumption is already on ARM level. And you are completely leaving out the fact that many people (me included) love x86 Windows tablets, which Intel made possible. In Asia they are selling great because people love the fact that they can use all their Windows applications, unlike with any ARM devices (Windows RT included). Read the reviews of some of such devices. They're great and if you buy an ARM-based Android tablet instead, you're deliberately limiting yourself.
You and somebodyspecial understand little about both markets except the fact that's been fed to you that claims that ARM architecture is allegedly inherently better than x86 and Intel, the most successful microprocessor company, is just a stubborn old dog that won't die. You are completely ignoring the advances in power efficiency and graphics performance they've made in the last 3 years - they haven't even tried to make either of these better and look where we are now with Iris and Haswell-Y... now just wait for next generations. Saw Core M benchmarks? Yeah. I'll buy a tablet with Core M and Windows 8 and so will millions of other people, because why choose Android or iOS over a well-known ecosystem and architecture?
It's hilarious to see Tom's comments being overrun with anti-Intel trolls lately who masquerade their complete lack of understanding of the real situation (I'm not talking just sales figures but what both x86 and ARM mobile devices are actually capable of) with the mobile market under an avalanche of links to investor sites (because investors understand that hardware sooooooo well, suuure) and blatant hatred. Open your eyes! Guys at Intel know better than you do, and it shows. No amount of hatred from you can change the fact that Intel mobile chips perform well, consume little and will only get better, while maintaining a well-supported architecture that - unlike what the haters say - is NOWHERE "near its limits".
-
Reply to amk-aka-Phantom
m
0
l
anthony8989
September 28, 2014 8:00:44 PM
I think analyst Gus Richard put it best:
"With its new, low-end Atom processor, Bay Trail, the company is gaining traction in cheap notebooks and tablets, but we believe this is at the expense of higher-end core processors. Intel is late to the smartphone market and we believe high-end smartphone sales are starting to roll over. Intel is far behind its competitors in terms of cost and integration in smartphones, in our view. We do expect Windows 8.1 to drive a corporate upgrade cycle next year, creating a bounce in PC demand." - http://www.zdnet.com/intel-stuck-in-smartphone-pc-rut-7...
Although I do think it's way too early to spell doom for Intel. They still have enough capital to lock in some market share in the mobile sector.
"With its new, low-end Atom processor, Bay Trail, the company is gaining traction in cheap notebooks and tablets, but we believe this is at the expense of higher-end core processors. Intel is late to the smartphone market and we believe high-end smartphone sales are starting to roll over. Intel is far behind its competitors in terms of cost and integration in smartphones, in our view. We do expect Windows 8.1 to drive a corporate upgrade cycle next year, creating a bounce in PC demand." - http://www.zdnet.com/intel-stuck-in-smartphone-pc-rut-7...
Although I do think it's way too early to spell doom for Intel. They still have enough capital to lock in some market share in the mobile sector.
-
Reply to anthony8989
m
0
l
laststop311
September 28, 2014 8:52:46 PM
If intel can continue the great work with the core M series of cpu's with actual broadwell architecture that totally smokes bay trail atom cpu in performance and greatly reduced power consumption compared to any previous full mainstream architecture chip then we can really have a real winner here. Core m broadwell is already able to fit inside tablets and offers the highest cpu performance by a large margin vs any of the arm tablet cpu's.
If the skylake version of core m can lower the tdp a bit more to fit them into phones arm may seriously have trouble on it's hand, it will still be 14nm but the architecture change may be enough to put it under phone tdp limits, especially now that intel is focused on power savings instead of performance gains. But intel may need to wait until skylakes 10nm shrink before they can get the full mainstream architecture core m cpu's into phones.
But as this article states atom is intels plans for low end and budget phones. I believe their core m cpu's are intels plans for their eventual move for the high end of the market. They are in a very good spot to have the cheaper atom cpu's in budget smartphones and tablets and core m full mainstream architecture cpu's in high end phones and tablets
If the skylake version of core m can lower the tdp a bit more to fit them into phones arm may seriously have trouble on it's hand, it will still be 14nm but the architecture change may be enough to put it under phone tdp limits, especially now that intel is focused on power savings instead of performance gains. But intel may need to wait until skylakes 10nm shrink before they can get the full mainstream architecture core m cpu's into phones.
But as this article states atom is intels plans for low end and budget phones. I believe their core m cpu's are intels plans for their eventual move for the high end of the market. They are in a very good spot to have the cheaper atom cpu's in budget smartphones and tablets and core m full mainstream architecture cpu's in high end phones and tablets
-
Reply to laststop311
m
0
l
laststop311
September 28, 2014 8:53:34 PM
ldo
September 28, 2014 10:17:40 PM
I think those who interpret my comments as “hate” for Intel are taking things just a little too personally for their own good. Intel is a faceless, soulless, amoral corporation; how can you “hate” it when there is nothing there to hate?
I merely pointed out that Intel has been stubbornly clinging to a money-losing strategy for the better part of a decade, based it seems purely on corporate ego about the x86 architecture. It could so easily switch from losing money to making it in mobile, just by doing the rational thing. But it seems impossible for the company to grasp the fact.
And ti seems impossible for the company’s fanbois to grasp that fact, too.
I merely pointed out that Intel has been stubbornly clinging to a money-losing strategy for the better part of a decade, based it seems purely on corporate ego about the x86 architecture. It could so easily switch from losing money to making it in mobile, just by doing the rational thing. But it seems impossible for the company to grasp the fact.
And ti seems impossible for the company’s fanbois to grasp that fact, too.
-
Reply to ldo
m
0
l
tomfreak
September 28, 2014 10:32:41 PM
milkod2001
September 29, 2014 2:22:23 AM
@tomfreak
''x86 will not be success in mobile until they can work with Microsoft, to put out a windows pone + x86 combo that actually able to run most x86 desktop app.''
Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
If Intel wants to succeed in mobile market it should:
1) get licence from ARM, customize ARM chip itself , the same way as SAMSUNG, NVIDIA, APPLE do,build it on the most advanced process Intel can afford, sell it cheap, sell it in high volumes.
2) or to build ARM chips for others using most advanced manufacturing process.
''x86 will not be success in mobile until they can work with Microsoft, to put out a windows pone + x86 combo that actually able to run most x86 desktop app.''
Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
If Intel wants to succeed in mobile market it should:
1) get licence from ARM, customize ARM chip itself , the same way as SAMSUNG, NVIDIA, APPLE do,build it on the most advanced process Intel can afford, sell it cheap, sell it in high volumes.
2) or to build ARM chips for others using most advanced manufacturing process.
-
Reply to milkod2001
m
0
l
anthony8989 said:
I think analyst Gus Richard put it best:"With its new, low-end Atom processor, Bay Trail, the company is gaining traction in cheap notebooks and tablets, but we believe this is at the expense of higher-end core processors. Intel is late to the smartphone market and we believe high-end smartphone sales are starting to roll over. Intel is far behind its competitors in terms of cost and integration in smartphones, in our view. We do expect Windows 8.1 to drive a corporate upgrade cycle next year, creating a bounce in PC demand." - http://www.zdnet.com/intel-stuck-in-smartphone-pc-rut-7...
Although I do think it's way too early to spell doom for Intel. They still have enough capital to lock in some market share in the mobile sector.
Bay Trail is not Intel's phone-oriented SoC, that would be Merrifield or Moorefield.
Anyway, for tablets Intel is about to steamroll the competition with Broadwell-Y.
-
Reply to Sakkura
m
0
l
stevenrix
September 29, 2014 8:44:16 AM
In China if you want to make business, you have to corrupt Chinese officials, this is how it works in China and it did not change a bit for huge American corporations.
Historically in technologies when you try to make business with other companies, you start exiting the market as well, it does not give you a bit of traction on the contrary (Novell vs Microsoft or AMD vs Intel), and this is what Intel is doing exactly: selling its own IP. The required amount to make business in China might not even be worth it, but if I were Intel I would have never done business over there in the 1st place. Within 10 years China will be able to sell desktop CPU as well and it will be the end for all western chipmakers.
Historically in technologies when you try to make business with other companies, you start exiting the market as well, it does not give you a bit of traction on the contrary (Novell vs Microsoft or AMD vs Intel), and this is what Intel is doing exactly: selling its own IP. The required amount to make business in China might not even be worth it, but if I were Intel I would have never done business over there in the 1st place. Within 10 years China will be able to sell desktop CPU as well and it will be the end for all western chipmakers.
-
Reply to stevenrix
m
0
l
amk-aka-Phantom
September 29, 2014 10:38:09 AM
Quote:
I merely pointed out that Intel has been stubbornly clinging to a money-losing strategy for the better part of a decade, based it seems purely on corporate ego about the x86 architecture. It could so easily switch from losing money to making it in mobile, just by doing the rational thing. But it seems impossible for the company to grasp the fact.Oh, poor Intel, unable to grasp such a simple fact, making billions in their ignorance... I so pity them... Can you get any more delusional? I ask you again to look at benchmarks and power consumption figures of current Intel mobile chips instead of presenting your subjective opinion as fact. And then also remember that there are other markets apart from mobile where ARM is completely useless so far, like, you know, desktop and laptop and server... what do you propose, that Intel suddenly """realizes""" that x86 sucks and throws out Haswell, Broadwell etc to junk bin and starts making ARM cores?
I'll be the first to jump ship if they'd do that, I don't want ARM, all real work gets done on x86, all meaningful software runs there.Oh, and have you ever heard the term "late market entry"? Intel is not "losing" money, they are using it to catch up. Ever played Civilization? Sometimes you find that nice location too late and have to build up quickly - you don't wait around for turns and turns, you spend some of your savings and speed the process up, but very soon you have a fully operational city mining an important resource. This is what Intel is doing - they're late to the party (how DARED they - and AMD - keep making laptop and desktop chips instead of immediately jumping to mobile like YOU think they should have!!) but they aren't here to dance or make small talk, they're about to buy up the whole bar, after which everyone can just go home and cry in the corner.
Quote:
Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen) instead of that pathetic iOS/Android "gaming" and at work I'll get a portable x86 device with good Wi-Fi and gigabit LAN (via USB 3.0 adapter) - great for network testing (I'm a sysadmin). But less technically minded people who already tried Windows 8 are very interested in such devices too, they are used to Windows ecosystem and if they can have it in mobile devices, they'll buy it in a heartbeat, not caring about what YOU think is a better option.
Oh, and there's a reason Intel is aiming at Asian markets. Those countries aren't polluted with people like you who will deny obvious advantages of an x86 device because of allegedly knowing how to run Intel better than Intel itself does. They'll simply see a nicely made sub-$300 x86 tablet with Windows 8 that does all they want and they'll buy it. In fact it's already happening. I know a few people who ditched their iPads in favor of Windows tabs and are very happy with their choice. Their reasoning is simply "it does so much more", and it's quite understandable.
Now all you haters go drink some of your ARM koolaid (comes free with a purchase of a crappy Mediatek-based device, I guess?) and relax, Intel is not letting ARM win. In an unlikely case that their stuff doesn't take off, Intel will buy/sue competition to oblivion and still come out on top. All for the better - I am too lazy to get adjusted to the mess that ARM was and is. You get x86 - whether Intel or AMD - you get computing. You get ARM, you get tinkering instead. I don't like tinkering anymore, I like stuff to work and work with commonly used software and operating systems, not weird half-assed builds of Windows or Linux for ARM...
Quote:
Anyway, for tablets Intel is about to steamroll the competition with Broadwell-Y.And it will be glorious.
Quote:
Within 10 years China will be able to sell desktop CPU as well and it will be the end for all western chipmakers. Yeah, because the Chinese can *totally* invent something new in IT without stealing from the West like Mediatek does... all they can do is flood the market with cheap garbage. But guess who's pulling their strings?
-
Reply to amk-aka-Phantom
m
0
l
anthony8989
September 29, 2014 3:04:34 PM
Sakkura said:
anthony8989 said:
I think analyst Gus Richard put it best:"With its new, low-end Atom processor, Bay Trail, the company is gaining traction in cheap notebooks and tablets, but we believe this is at the expense of higher-end core processors. Intel is late to the smartphone market and we believe high-end smartphone sales are starting to roll over. Intel is far behind its competitors in terms of cost and integration in smartphones, in our view. We do expect Windows 8.1 to drive a corporate upgrade cycle next year, creating a bounce in PC demand." - http://www.zdnet.com/intel-stuck-in-smartphone-pc-rut-7...
Although I do think it's way too early to spell doom for Intel. They still have enough capital to lock in some market share in the mobile sector.
Bay Trail is not Intel's phone-oriented SoC, that would be Merrifield or Moorefield.
Anyway, for tablets Intel is about to steamroll the competition with Broadwell-Y.
You misread the quote. It was a generalization of Intel's position in the mobile market as a whole, not just it's smartphone sector. And it was - in my opinion - an accurate observation.
-
Reply to anthony8989
m
0
l
ldo
September 29, 2014 11:42:38 PM
milkod2001
September 30, 2014 2:41:13 AM
@amk-aka-Phantom
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
-
Reply to milkod2001
m
0
l
milkod2001
September 30, 2014 3:08:31 AM
@amk-aka-Phantom
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
-
Reply to milkod2001
m
0
l
milkod2001
September 30, 2014 3:14:52 AM
@amk-aka-Phantom
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
''Good point but thing is: There's no need to run x86 desktop app on smartphone/tablet. Nobody is asking for it.
What nonsense! If by "nobody" you mean "you and people you know", maybe yes, but my next purchase is an x86 tablet, maybe a Surface 4 Pro (3 can GTFO with Haswell, Broadwell is almost here). I'll dual-boot it with Ubuntu (yes, it's possible) and use Windows at home for entertainment and Ubuntu at work. It will be a huge step up from Android tablets - in terms of entertainment I'll be able to play many Windows strategies (great on touch screen bla bla''
lol,
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
-
Reply to milkod2001
m
0
l
amk-aka-Phantom
September 30, 2014 10:33:24 AM
Quote:
How good are those Intel benchmarks running ARM code?Suddenly not so good, huh?
What "ARM code"? Applications for Android are built in Java which is cross-platform and Intel chips run them just fine, if not better than most ARM counterparts. Go read a Notebookcheck review of any such tablet and skip to benchmarks. The only apps that don't work are games that have parts of them coded in native C specifically for ARM, but most smart devs now simply push the correct version of the game to your device to avoid that. By the way, they are forced to do that even with different ARM chips, because the differences are apparently significant between Mali, PowerVR and Adreno graphics - when was the last time we had to do that on x86 systems? DirectX took care of such BS.
Quote:
by nobody i mean market, majority of customers.
1) tablets and phones are for consummation of content(audio, video, internet, Facebook, Twitter and other crap). For all that Android/iOS ARM based tables/phones are more then good enough. That's the majority of customers.
2) then for creation of content, coding, calculations etc for all that there is Windows and Intel based laptops,desktop etc. x86 is here to stay for next 10 years at least.
3) i believe there's no market for mostly overpriced Intel chips / bloated Windows based mobile
devices. Intel + MS combo does not work. Both company are just too greedy, slow and ignorant.
4) you are going to dual boot your non existing Surface PRO 4 and play windows strategies with touch? haha good one.
Majority of customers, yes. Any idea how many people live in Asia? More than in the rest of the countries combined. That's "majority of customers". And this is where Intel's stuff with Windows 8 is aiming for. Tons of people are already buying x86 tabs, pleased with how much better they are than most Android ones even for media consumption. On Android and iOS, things like USB and HDMI are still exotics that require special adapters and support... on Windows it's natural. Plus you can run all the Windows applications. I only see advantages. I don't really care that Intel or MS are greedy and neither do most customers. Best offer wins, idealism loses. If anyone's slow here, it's ARM, which is only now hurriedly pumping out 64-bit chips because Google wants Android to be 64-bit to match iOS - where were they before?
For the rest:
1) I agree that ARM is "good enough" but that doesn't mean cheap x86 won't be, either. See why above.
3) You believe != reality. See why above.
4) And why not? Surface 3 Pro dual-boots Ubuntu out of the box. I played Heroes of Might and Magic 5 on my friend's Windows tablet and it was awesome, great entertainment on the road instead of these pathetic ports of shooters controlled with thumbs that riddle Android "gaming". Civilization 5 even has a special touch-optimized version - I own it on Steam, first game I'll load on the new tablet, whatever it'll be. And there surely will be a Surface 4 Pro - Broadwell is going to bring so many power consumption improvements that it's probably already in the works, MS won't pass that up. All this combined, I don't really see what's so funny. It's something that none of ARM devices can do and I and many others will enjoy it a lot.
-
Reply to amk-aka-Phantom
m
1
l
milkod2001
October 1, 2014 1:59:52 AM
@amk-aka-Phantom
i don't know where this idea 'people living in Asia want Windows tablets' comes from but im not buying it.
Think about price and customers thinking when buying products:
For 300 bucks or even much less you can get Android based tablet with some nice 1080p IPS panel.
For the same money you CAN NOT get Windows based tablet with same 1080p screen. What you 'll get is some tablet with crap 720p TN screen and brutally under powered Intel CPU and crappy GPU. Add bloated Windows into that, your storage will become very limited as Windows takes quite a good bit of that plus Windows experience on such weak hardware is not exactly great experience. I don't think even for consumption(video, audio) windows tablet can offer some advantages if any.
Now what device you think most customers will get?
Then if you want more snappy Windows/Intel device you might get something with Intel Core M. Do you have any idea how much is Intel planning to charge for 1? Around 300 bucks a piece(CPU only), that's the price of entire Android tablet. Again even if Core M perform much better then any ARM chip, in order to be used in mobile devices(fanless) its frequency is very low and in Windows environment it might not feel as the snappiest device ever.
I read somewhere that if Surface Pro will be upgraded with Intel Core M it actually will be downgrade from CPU standpoint. then again Surface Pro(SP) is not exactly something MS is hitting records in sales with. im not saying it's a bad device but its price is out of reach of majority(especially in ASIA).
Don't get me wrong, i do like idea of Windows tablets but like i said MS + Intel combo does not make it to work plus alternative from Android + ARM just runs circles around it from price and user experience stand point.
i don't know where this idea 'people living in Asia want Windows tablets' comes from but im not buying it.
Think about price and customers thinking when buying products:
For 300 bucks or even much less you can get Android based tablet with some nice 1080p IPS panel.
For the same money you CAN NOT get Windows based tablet with same 1080p screen. What you 'll get is some tablet with crap 720p TN screen and brutally under powered Intel CPU and crappy GPU. Add bloated Windows into that, your storage will become very limited as Windows takes quite a good bit of that plus Windows experience on such weak hardware is not exactly great experience. I don't think even for consumption(video, audio) windows tablet can offer some advantages if any.
Now what device you think most customers will get?
Then if you want more snappy Windows/Intel device you might get something with Intel Core M. Do you have any idea how much is Intel planning to charge for 1? Around 300 bucks a piece(CPU only), that's the price of entire Android tablet. Again even if Core M perform much better then any ARM chip, in order to be used in mobile devices(fanless) its frequency is very low and in Windows environment it might not feel as the snappiest device ever.
I read somewhere that if Surface Pro will be upgraded with Intel Core M it actually will be downgrade from CPU standpoint. then again Surface Pro(SP) is not exactly something MS is hitting records in sales with. im not saying it's a bad device but its price is out of reach of majority(especially in ASIA).
Don't get me wrong, i do like idea of Windows tablets but like i said MS + Intel combo does not make it to work plus alternative from Android + ARM just runs circles around it from price and user experience stand point.
-
Reply to milkod2001
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
October 1, 2014 11:43:09 AM
milkod2001 said:
What you 'll get is some tablet with crap 720p TN screen and brutally under powered Intel CPU and crappy GPU.The cheap Atom tablets have IPS screens (T100, Venue Pro, etc.) and in case of T100, you get a pretty nice keyboard too (that's what I am writing this post on). The CPU is anything but underpowered - higher benchmark scores than any current ARM SoC (see anand, engadget, etc. - slightly faster than both Tegra 4 and Snap 8xx). The GPU is slightly weaker, not sure if crappy is the right word, though (e.g. my T100 runs Starcraft 2 @30+ fps).
milkod2001 said:
Add bloated Windows into that, your storage will become very limitedReally not an issue. What annoys me the most is actually the storage subsystem's performance - you are better off using a network drive anyway.
milkod2001 said:
plus Windows experience on such weak hardware is not exactly great experience. I don't think even for consumption(video, audio) windows tablet can offer some advantages if any.Let me guess, you don't own a Windows tablet (or 2-in-1)? I have 2 droid tablets that are now mostly catching dust because of the T100. Borrow one from a friend or something...
I have also done some (imprecise) power measurements on my ex-phone Nexus 5 (S800) vs. T100 (Z3740) - both on 1080p screens running some games: Nexus 5 lasted about an hour consuming ~11W and T100 slightly over 7 hours consuming ~6.5W (the whole device). I admit these amateur benchmarks were anything but precise, but you get the picture with a large margin of error (and you can try it yourself too).
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 2, 2014 6:37:22 AM
amk-aka-Phantom said:
Quote:
Face it, downvoters: you may be au fait with those markets where x86 is dominant, but that still leaves you knowing little or nothing about mobile devices and ARM. As someone who deals with mobile device and ARM chip benchmarks regularly: nearly everything you wrote here is uneducated hate for Intel not backed by any power/performance numbers. The simple truth is that even the current Intel Atoms are behind top ARM chips only on graphics performance (and only a little), but this is about to be fixed in the next generation, and power consumption is already on ARM level. And you are completely leaving out the fact that many people (me included) love x86 Windows tablets, which Intel made possible. In Asia they are selling great because people love the fact that they can use all their Windows applications, unlike with any ARM devices (Windows RT included). Read the reviews of some of such devices. They're great and if you buy an ARM-based Android tablet instead, you're deliberately limiting yourself.
You and somebodyspecial understand little about both markets except the fact that's been fed to you that claims that ARM architecture is allegedly inherently better than x86 and Intel, the most successful microprocessor company, is just a stubborn old dog that won't die. You are completely ignoring the advances in power efficiency and graphics performance they've made in the last 3 years - they haven't even tried to make either of these better and look where we are now with Iris and Haswell-Y... now just wait for next generations. Saw Core M benchmarks? Yeah. I'll buy a tablet with Core M and Windows 8 and so will millions of other people, because why choose Android or iOS over a well-known ecosystem and architecture?
It's hilarious to see Tom's comments being overrun with anti-Intel trolls lately who masquerade their complete lack of understanding of the real situation (I'm not talking just sales figures but what both x86 and ARM mobile devices are actually capable of) with the mobile market under an avalanche of links to investor sites (because investors understand that hardware sooooooo well, suuure) and blatant hatred. Open your eyes! Guys at Intel know better than you do, and it shows. No amount of hatred from you can change the fact that Intel mobile chips perform well, consume little and will only get better, while maintaining a well-supported architecture that - unlike what the haters say - is NOWHERE "near its limits".
Let me know when the INTEL mobile division stops selling 1.15B mobile chip for 50mil in revenue (IE, losing 1.1Billion per quarter, that is REVENUE, not 50mil profit...). You are GIVING your chips away here. If I have to give away every chip I make for mobile just to get someone to use it, I call that losing the race. I'm not an Intel hater, I want them to buy NV and take over...LOL. Either that or ARM will take more share and weaken one of our best tech companies. If NV is a big winner in that, maybe it doesn't matter much, but if it ends up being Samsung gaining in the end, that isn't a USA company. So to me, Intel buying NV is the winning move here. Nobody on Arm's side could take out an Intel/NV combo punch. You don't seem to read financial reports/quarterly reports much. You also don't seem to understand Intel is now losing 4Billion+ per year if the current rate keeps up and it looks like it will (probably approach a 4.5Billion loss on mobile this year).
Explain to me how 1.1B loss per quarter on your mobile division is good please...LOL. That's not hate for Intel, it's just seeing reality for exactly what it is. Thanks for playing.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
1
l
somebodyspecial
October 2, 2014 6:50:09 AM
Jaroslav Jandek said:
milkod2001 said:
What you 'll get is some tablet with crap 720p TN screen and brutally under powered Intel CPU and crappy GPU.The cheap Atom tablets have IPS screens (T100, Venue Pro, etc.) and in case of T100, you get a pretty nice keyboard too (that's what I am writing this post on). The CPU is anything but underpowered - higher benchmark scores than any current ARM SoC (see anand, engadget, etc. - slightly faster than both Tegra 4 and Snap 8xx). The GPU is slightly weaker, not sure if crappy is the right word, though (e.g. my T100 runs Starcraft 2 @30+ fps).
milkod2001 said:
Add bloated Windows into that, your storage will become very limitedReally not an issue. What annoys me the most is actually the storage subsystem's performance - you are better off using a network drive anyway.
milkod2001 said:
plus Windows experience on such weak hardware is not exactly great experience. I don't think even for consumption(video, audio) windows tablet can offer some advantages if any.Let me guess, you don't own a Windows tablet (or 2-in-1)? I have 2 droid tablets that are now mostly catching dust because of the T100. Borrow one from a friend or something...
I have also done some (imprecise) power measurements on my ex-phone Nexus 5 (S800) vs. T100 (Z3740) - both on 1080p screens running some games: Nexus 5 lasted about an hour consuming ~11W and T100 slightly over 7 hours consuming ~6.5W (the whole device). I admit these amateur benchmarks were anything but precise, but you get the picture with a large margin of error (and you can try it yourself too).
What atom tablet has a faster score than K1 in gpu? Atom isn't facing T4, it's facing (and getting killed by) K1. See anandtech, toms etc review of K1 tablet. T100 got killed.
http://anandtech.com/show/8296/the-nvidia-shield-tablet...
1/3rd the score of K1 for T100 and even worse in most benchmarks (IE, 1/4 of K1 in TrexHD offscreen). Atom sucks
Intel's next chip will be facing a 20nm version probably in H1 2015 and it will have a Denver core or better in it too. Those will start to take some low end desktops no doubt, just as they have taken 21% of the ENTIRE notebook market.http://anandtech.com/show/8296/the-nvidia-shield-tablet...
In cpu perf, it only tied (557 to 558) once benchmark and lost all others by far vs. K1. So even the cpu side sucks for now. Also note that webprxt benchmark is intel work, so it's no surprise they tie that one and lose all others (lost kracken, sunspider & Octane by far). Not sure why you're comparing to T4 here when the competition is now K1 and there are many devices on the way (next month a new nexus) etc. K1 lasts 11-13hrs in a chromebook so I don't see Intel as power sipping vs. NV here or that couldn't be done (that 11-13hrs is more than Intel versions by the same maker - Acer).
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
anthony8989
October 2, 2014 11:11:37 AM
Sakkura said:
Atom sucks, but Broadwell doesn't. With Broadwell-Y, Intel is bringing a completely different level of performance to the ball game.Broadwell can't save Intel in the mobile market. I feel like you're overestimating its capabilities and perhaps ignoring its premium price .
"Broadwell parts in general will certainly be faster/better than the current Haswell parts – Intel doesn't typically "go backwards" on processor updates – but you shouldn't expect twice the performance at the same power. Instead, Broadwell-Y should offer better performance than Haswell-Y using much less power, but if you reduce total power use by 2X you could increase performance by 5% and still claim a doubling of performance per Watt. And that's basically what Intel is doing here. Intel estimates the core Broadwell architecture to be around 5% faster than Haswell at the same clocks; specifically, IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) are up ~5% on average. Similarly, changes and improvements to the graphics portion of the processor should deliver more performance at a lower power draw. Add in slightly higher clock speeds and you get a faster part than last generation that uses less power. These are all good improvements, but ultimately it comes down to the final user experience and the cost." http://www.anandtech.com/show/8358/short-bytes-intels-c...
-
Reply to anthony8989
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
October 2, 2014 12:44:31 PM
somebodyspecial said:
What atom tablet has a faster score than K1 in gpu? Atom isn't facing T4, it's facing (and getting killed by) K1. See anandtech, toms etc review of K1 tablet. T100 got killed.Everything got killed by K1 in GPU performance
and I totally forgot to consider K1, good point. btw. I said the GPU is slower... somebodyspecial said:
Also note that webprxt benchmark is intel work, so it's no surprise they tie that one and lose all others (lost kracken, sunspider & Octane by far).Nope. FYI WebXPRT is from ex-eTesting guys. And it is actually measuring real user-visible performance (HTML5+Javascript). It isn't "just" a javascript benchmark like Octane and the others. Although the performance of K1 in Octane is surprising - I suspect they stealth-added (or I missed it) compute support to their LLVM jitter (which would explain the performance boost over the other ARMs, since it shouldn't actually be much faster by itself).
somebodyspecial said:
K1 lasts 11-13hrs in a chromebook so I don't see Intel as power sipping vs. NV here or that couldn't be done (that 11-13hrs is more than Intel versions by the same maker - Acer).My T100 lasts 11 hours (after disabling some services like SQL Server and setting power saving to the max.) for Office / browsing / small Visual Studio projects.
My point with the power measurements was gaming, though. The Shield lasts 2 hours, the T100 lasts 7 (not that surprising given the performance, but still, I prefer endurance over performance in a mobile device).
Although I am considering buying the Shield tablet for kids (if only to mess around with it myself).
Also can't wait for K1 and Broadwell-Y comparison, even though those are in very different price ranges.
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
0
l
anthony8989 said:
Sakkura said:
Atom sucks, but Broadwell doesn't. With Broadwell-Y, Intel is bringing a completely different level of performance to the ball game.Broadwell can't save Intel in the mobile market. I feel like you're overestimating its capabilities and perhaps ignoring its premium price .
"Broadwell parts in general will certainly be faster/better than the current Haswell parts – Intel doesn't typically "go backwards" on processor updates – but you shouldn't expect twice the performance at the same power. Instead, Broadwell-Y should offer better performance than Haswell-Y using much less power, but if you reduce total power use by 2X you could increase performance by 5% and still claim a doubling of performance per Watt. And that's basically what Intel is doing here. Intel estimates the core Broadwell architecture to be around 5% faster than Haswell at the same clocks; specifically, IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) are up ~5% on average. Similarly, changes and improvements to the graphics portion of the processor should deliver more performance at a lower power draw. Add in slightly higher clock speeds and you get a faster part than last generation that uses less power. These are all good improvements, but ultimately it comes down to the final user experience and the cost." http://www.anandtech.com/show/8358/short-bytes-intels-c...
Haswell is already far ahead of any mobile CPU architecture, and they're talking about Broadwell being slightly faster - while driving power consumption way down. That is exactly what will save Intel when it comes to high-performance mobile devices. Cooperating with these Chinese chip makers is apparently an important part of their plan for the budget segment.
-
Reply to Sakkura
m
0
l
anthony8989
October 2, 2014 1:46:49 PM
Sakkura said:
anthony8989 said:
Sakkura said:
Atom sucks, but Broadwell doesn't. With Broadwell-Y, Intel is bringing a completely different level of performance to the ball game.Broadwell can't save Intel in the mobile market. I feel like you're overestimating its capabilities and perhaps ignoring its premium price .
"Broadwell parts in general will certainly be faster/better than the current Haswell parts – Intel doesn't typically "go backwards" on processor updates – but you shouldn't expect twice the performance at the same power. Instead, Broadwell-Y should offer better performance than Haswell-Y using much less power, but if you reduce total power use by 2X you could increase performance by 5% and still claim a doubling of performance per Watt. And that's basically what Intel is doing here. Intel estimates the core Broadwell architecture to be around 5% faster than Haswell at the same clocks; specifically, IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) are up ~5% on average. Similarly, changes and improvements to the graphics portion of the processor should deliver more performance at a lower power draw. Add in slightly higher clock speeds and you get a faster part than last generation that uses less power. These are all good improvements, but ultimately it comes down to the final user experience and the cost." http://www.anandtech.com/show/8358/short-bytes-intels-c...
Haswell is already far ahead of any mobile CPU architecture, and they're talking about Broadwell being slightly faster - while driving power consumption way down. That is exactly what will save Intel when it comes to high-performance mobile devices. Cooperating with these Chinese chip makers is apparently an important part of their plan for the budget segment.
Well you've lost me now. This Chinese deal has almost nothing to do with Broadwell-Y , I'm not sure why it was brought it up in this thread. Intel is trying to push its Atom processors onto the low-end Chinese SoC market. And the strategy here is that Chinese manufacturers can bring Atom equipped units into a lower price point by cheapening out the other components.
The reason it's a bad strategy is ARM is getting ready to ship out 20nm chips at roughly the same time, and already has a very competitive lineup of products representing all price points as it is.
-
Reply to anthony8989
m
0
l
anthony8989
October 2, 2014 4:07:54 PM
somebodyspecial
October 8, 2014 6:36:49 PM
Jaroslav Jandek said:
somebodyspecial said:
What atom tablet has a faster score than K1 in gpu? Atom isn't facing T4, it's facing (and getting killed by) K1. See anandtech, toms etc review of K1 tablet. T100 got killed.Everything got killed by K1 in GPU performance
and I totally forgot to consider K1, good point. btw. I said the GPU is slower... somebodyspecial said:
Also note that webprxt benchmark is intel work, so it's no surprise they tie that one and lose all others (lost kracken, sunspider & Octane by far).Nope. FYI WebXPRT is from ex-eTesting guys. And it is actually measuring real user-visible performance (HTML5+Javascript). It isn't "just" a javascript benchmark like Octane and the others. Although the performance of K1 in Octane is surprising - I suspect they stealth-added (or I missed it) compute support to their LLVM jitter (which would explain the performance boost over the other ARMs, since it shouldn't actually be much faster by itself).
somebodyspecial said:
K1 lasts 11-13hrs in a chromebook so I don't see Intel as power sipping vs. NV here or that couldn't be done (that 11-13hrs is more than Intel versions by the same maker - Acer).My T100 lasts 11 hours (after disabling some services like SQL Server and setting power saving to the max.) for Office / browsing / small Visual Studio projects.
My point with the power measurements was gaming, though. The Shield lasts 2 hours, the T100 lasts 7 (not that surprising given the performance, but still, I prefer endurance over performance in a mobile device).
Although I am considering buying the Shield tablet for kids (if only to mess around with it myself).
Also can't wait for K1 and Broadwell-Y comparison, even though those are in very different price ranges.
Shield doesn't last two hours. It only does that when you MAX the gpu at 100% using a benchmark. When limiting the games to 30fps (which is still faster than the rest of the field) it nets much better battery life as anandtech's 2nd follow up revealed.
http://anandtech.com/show/8329/revisiting-shield-tablet...
You can clearly see it doubles the life when used like you would in a game today. 4.35hrs vs. 5.3hrs for regular shield from last year.
"By capping T-Rex to 30 FPS, the SHIELD Tablet actually comes quite close to the battery life delivered by SHIELD Portable with significantly more performance. The SHIELD Portable also needed a larger 28.8 WHr battery and a smaller, lower power 5" display in order to achieve its extra runtime. It's clear that the new Kepler GPU architecture, improved CPU, and 28HPm process are enabling much better experiences compared to what we see on SHIELD Portable with Tegra 4."
So give the tablet the same battery as shield handheld and it would be BEATING that unit in battery. You're not understanding what is happening here
Larger battery+smaller display by far, and barely beating Shield Tablet, while LOSING in perf. K1 is a lot better than you're realizing."After all, Tegra K1 delivers immense amounts of performance when necessary, but manages to sustain low temperatures and long battery life when it it isn't. More importantly, it's important to keep in mind that the Kepler GPU in Tegra K1 was designed for desktop and laptop use first. The Maxwell GPU in NVIDIA's Erista SoC is the first to be designed to target mobile devices first. That's when things get really interesting."
That said, I can't wait for M1...LOL. A 20nm M1 actually made for mobile first, should be interesting indeed.
RE: Webxprt
What I meant was Intel had a hand in optimizing webxprt. It is why they use it in their marketing material.
http://www.intel.com/newsroom/kits/idf/2014_spring/pdfs...
They don't do that for nothing
http://vr-zone.com/articles/nothing-redeeming-intel-mwc...
"Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Intel is a sponsor and member of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, and was the major developer of the XPRT family of benchmarks."
That is INTEL's fineprint. INTEL was the major DEVELOPER (and they sponsor it...LOL) of this benchmark, hence my comment. I throw out results in my brain when reading reviews with this benchmark in them.
VRZone is pointing it out for a reason too."But as discussed before on VR-Zone, WebXPRT 2013 and the benchmarking methodology used by Intel is problematic and shouldn’t be considered entirely objective. In fact, in the fine print of the press release has the following clause"
You can click the link to read about their impressions of the test also in that first link.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-bay-trail-vs-arm/6255...
Here's the link...Discussing how Intel wants people to use it because it's friendly to THEIR chips.
Perhaps you just missed all this. Not hard to do considering the size of the web. None of us can read it all
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
October 14, 2014 10:19:42 PM
somebodyspecial said:
You can clearly see it doubles the life when used like you would in a game today. 4.35hrs vs. 5.3hrs for regular shield from last year.That's much better. And if you can reach at least 6 hours by lowering quality, that would be fine for me (which is something I will test if I buy one). Ideally, I want something that can reach 8 hours of light gaming and 14 hours of normal use on battery (not even the T100 can do that, though - using a mobile charger for that, which sucks), preferably on Windows (for non-gaming use) and at least the performance of Z3740.
somebodyspecial said:
What I meant was Intel had a hand in optimizing webxprt. It is why they use it in their marketing material.On PCs, yes (obviously).
WebXPRT is a browser-based benchmark, it depends on optimizations the browser makers have done (eg. Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, ...). It is practically impossible to optimize that benchmark for Intel CPUs
Same goes for the Android XPRT suite (it is optimized for ARM).
If this was a test of PC CPUs (AMD vs. Intel), yeah, that would be bad, but really, some journalists need to start using their brains if they claim this affects Android or Web...
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM
Jaroslav Jandek said:
somebodyspecial said:
You can clearly see it doubles the life when used like you would in a game today. 4.35hrs vs. 5.3hrs for regular shield from last year.That's much better. And if you can reach at least 6 hours by lowering quality, that would be fine for me (which is something I will test if I buy one). Ideally, I want something that can reach 8 hours of light gaming and 14 hours of normal use on battery (not even the T100 can do that, though - using a mobile charger for that, which sucks), preferably on Windows (for non-gaming use) and at least the performance of Z3740.
somebodyspecial said:
What I meant was Intel had a hand in optimizing webxprt. It is why they use it in their marketing material.On PCs, yes (obviously).
WebXPRT is a browser-based benchmark, it depends on optimizations the browser makers have done (eg. Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, ...). It is practically impossible to optimize that benchmark for Intel CPUs
Same goes for the Android XPRT suite (it is optimized for ARM).
If this was a test of PC CPUs (AMD vs. Intel), yeah, that would be bad, but really, some journalists need to start using their brains if they claim this affects Android or Web...
You do realize I quoted INTEL's own fine print right?:
"Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Intel is a sponsor and member of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, and was the major developer of the XPRT family of benchmarks."
They are quoting this for android devices, not just for PC's. They use this in the atom tablet etc benchmarks. IF you don't have a problem with the last part (they are the major developer of the benchmark), well, I don't even know what to say.
You should also be aware Intel (heck everyone probably does this) works closely with all of these guys on opmizations. IE w/google on ChromeOS opmtizations:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/11/untel_reveal_ha...
"Fisher said that Intel is working closely with Google on Chrome OS optimizations for Intel chippery. "We're optimizing the kernel," he said. "We're optimizing drivers. We're working in WebKit and [Google's WebKit fork] Blink to optimize that experience – the browser. All aspects of the platform we're optimizing, to ensure that you get the best performance on Intel."
Just an example. It took a full 10sec to google that, and probably the same to find data on chrome browser etc. I think optimizing for it is not only possible (when you wrote most of the code even easier), it's a foregone conclusion it's getting done IMHO. But I guess we'll agree to disagree here.
Why else is this the only CPU benchmark they won vs. K1? Odd, or just simply obvious what is happening? I say obvious
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
October 15, 2014 9:58:58 PM
somebodyspecial said:
You do realize I quoted INTEL's own fine print right?somebodyspecial said:
They are quoting this for android devices, not just for PC's. They use this in the atom tablet etc benchmarks.The quote "Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors." is used in all documents where Intel shows benchmarks of anything - even server stuff...
Actually, from the same quote, they say they WERE (past tense) a major developer - now they contribute and sponsor - likely same as everyone else.
When the Android benchmarks were concieved, there were no Bay Trail CPUs to run it. So, clearly, it was not optimized for Bay Trail, it couldn't be. You can bet it will be optimized now, when Bay Trail tablets start showing up - that I can agree on (but it will also be optimized for ARM, as it is pretty much the only platform it was running one before this).
This is also irrelevant, because there are no atom tablets running Android in the tests you provided (T100 is a Windows tablet).
somebodyspecial said:
You should also be aware Intel (heck everyone probably does this) works closely with all of these guys on opmizations. IE w/google on ChromeOS opmtizations:The javascript has a standard called ECMA script. This is what browsers conform to - no low level optimization that actually leverage one CPU over the other - like GL extensions for OpenGL - like using Array.fastSortIntel - nothing like that exists, you only have Array.sort, which is, for example, implemented as a MergeSort by Mozilla (there are some non-standard browser-specific functions - nothing to do with the CPU, though). So no, you CANNOT optimize javascript benchmark for one CPU over the other. Unless you test like one javascript function that runs exceptionally well on Intel in a specific browser - which WebXPRT does not do - because it would be impossible to implement this way...
TL;DR;: you can trust WebXPRT, even if you are skeptical about the other benchmarks in the same family.
somebodyspecial said:
But I guess we'll agree to disagree here.
No, you are quite simply wrong. It would really help if you actually knew what you are talking about. By the way you can Google me just as easily and see who I am, that should clear up a few things...
somebodyspecial said:
Why else is this the only CPU benchmark they won vs. K1? Odd, or just simply obvious what is happening? I say obvious
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 16, 2014 2:23:12 PM
Rather than re-quote the whole post. I have a problem with them being the original devs, no matter what they're doing with it now (reminds me of sysmark oh so many years ago on toms, with Van Smith getting booted over reporting it). Oh and back then they did do things repeatedly (excel operations repeated etc) to show their strengths vs. AMD. So forgive me if I have my doubts about their innocence here when they DEVELOPED the code and they don't win any other benchmarks.
Also, apps are optimized in many cases LONG before the chips exist in a buy-able product. IE, AndroidL has been made on Denver even though you can't buy one until Nov in the form of a Nexus 9. I guess you've never had an EE sample. These chips are seeded to major devs (usually slower than release versions, maybe a few features off etc) so they can start work on new stuff all the time. Nothing new here.
Who you are (and I know who you are, so what you can google me also, here, anandtech as thejian, nobodyspecial on stock sites etc) doesn't change the fact that Intel wrote the code to begin with. I would have the same problem with AMD or Nvidia being the major developer of a benchmark (even claiming they are "NOW" just contributors like everyone else). It doesn't change the fact that they were talking about ANDROID devices, regardless of the T100 example and what it runs. If you say it's a browser based benchmark what is the point of telling me T100 ran windows?
I'm not alone in thinking Intel is likely being shady here as shown by link before. Call VRZone etc and let them all know you (think) are right and they are wrong
Also, apps are optimized in many cases LONG before the chips exist in a buy-able product. IE, AndroidL has been made on Denver even though you can't buy one until Nov in the form of a Nexus 9. I guess you've never had an EE sample. These chips are seeded to major devs (usually slower than release versions, maybe a few features off etc) so they can start work on new stuff all the time. Nothing new here.
Who you are (and I know who you are, so what you can google me also, here, anandtech as thejian, nobodyspecial on stock sites etc) doesn't change the fact that Intel wrote the code to begin with. I would have the same problem with AMD or Nvidia being the major developer of a benchmark (even claiming they are "NOW" just contributors like everyone else). It doesn't change the fact that they were talking about ANDROID devices, regardless of the T100 example and what it runs. If you say it's a browser based benchmark what is the point of telling me T100 ran windows?
I'm not alone in thinking Intel is likely being shady here as shown by link before. Call VRZone etc and let them all know you (think) are right and they are wrong
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
Jaroslav Jandek
October 16, 2014 4:04:58 PM
somebodyspecial said:
So forgive me if I have my doubts about their innocence here when they DEVELOPED the code and they don't win any other benchmarks.You still don't get my point. As I repeatedly stated, browser-based benchmarks CANNOT be optimized for a specific CPU. The only thing that can be optimized is the browser itself - it still has to provide more-or-less the same javascript functionality as all the other browsers, though.
What you also don't get and I have mentioned is that WebXPRT is actually the only benchmark that does not measure pure javascript performance - that is what makes it a realistic benchmark, since web applications are rarely bottlenecked by javascript performance (unless they are doing something crazy, majority of them doesn't).
For example, we are developing a single-page Angular application (with ng-views - very javascript-heavy) and if you run it with a bit over-the-board settings, after data is fetched, processing takes a few milliseconds and then, the system waits for the browser's rendering engine to actually finish (you won't notice on a PC, but on a mobile SoC...)...
somebodyspecial said:
Also, apps are optimized in many cases LONG before the chips exist in a buy-able product.somebodyspecial said:
If you say it's a browser based benchmark what is the point of telling me T100 ran windows?
somebodyspecial said:
I'm not alone in thinking Intel is likely being shady here as shown by link before. Call VRZone etc and let them all know you (think) are right and they are wrong
. Pretty much everyone shows only the benchmarks they perform well at. Last ARM vs. Intel bench (from ARM) I saw ran a fully ARM-optimized native game (in NDK) vs. the Atom running under VM (Dalvik) and IIRC I was not the only who pointed that out.Also, I read the VRZone article. Sam Reynolds talks about XPRT platform being friendly to Intel - I don't disagree with that (thanks to you for providing the XPRT link). Funny thing is that he mentions that it is a browser-based benchmark which makes it inherently not capable of optimizations - you can easily confirm this by asking any experienced developer (I am sure you have some friends like that?) - obviously not me, since even though you know who I am (over 2 decades of experience as a developer), you still argue about something you clearly don't understand.
But he has a good point with saying that there’s the possibility of wide variances between browsers, which is of course true and maybe also one of the reasons why Intel was doing well in that benchmark - which would just mean that IE?+Windows+Intel > Chrome+Android+ARM with regards to actual browsing performance. But again, this has nothing to do with optimizations for a specific CPU.
Anyway, no point in correcting him on a year-old article - that's why I like you can PM the article authors directly here on Tom's.
Edit: looks like the boost for T100 in WebXPRT might be caused by crappy support for rendering HW acceleration in mobile WebView (poked around in Android - WebView's canvas is still not hardware-accelerated, at least not by default). By the way, Intel has also enabled HW acceleration with its Android kernel and fork (experimental). If all goes well, we'll see these changes with upcoming Intel-based devices (and Android L), which means with regards to browsing, those will be ahead of ARM-based ones.
-
Reply to Jaroslav Jandek
m
0
l
!