Intel's Atom running Chrome in Windows XP beats the Apple iPad running Safari.
Earlier this week Intel launched a new generation of Atom system-on-chip processors that are aimed capturing a share of the mobile market. Current and previous Atom chips have done an amazing job at monopolizing netbook hardware, but now Intel wants to go after the devices such as cell phones and tablets – an area dominated by ARM.
Right now, the king of ARM processors for mobile devices appears to be Apple A4 chip, which is widely believed to be a Samsung Cortex A8 chip clocked up to 1GHz. Apple touts the iPad as being incredibly fast, and hands-on experience has shown that the device is incredible smooth with the iPhone OS. But a new simulated test shows that Intel is faster, even while running Windows XP.
UMPC Portal ran a browser test between an iPad and Viliv X70, which has its Menlow-based Atom platform running at 800MHz. While this isn't a test between Moorestown and the ARM-based A4, the practical architectures between Menlow and Moorestown should be quite similar.
In a webpage loading test, the 800MHz Atom Menlow running the latest Chrome on Windows XP matched the loading speeds of Safari on the iPad. When the Atom was cranked up to Menlow's 1.3GHz ceiling, the Windows XP tablet was able to load faster than the iPad – even with Flash enabled. The simulation leads us to believe that the Moorestown running at a 1.5GHz speed would be even faster.
Check out the video below for the test.
Lets see the iPad run MacOS.
Translation, "its ViliV able"
No one.
why with microsofts browser? i dont think intel has much to do with internets browser
2) Were both machines using the same wireless conenction technology, or was one on WiFi vs 3G or different provider's 3G systems?
3) Why not run Safari on XP vs Safari on iPad, as a more accurate comparison? Or, since both run opera mini, that could have been tested, or load Linux on the alternate platform to put OS differences more on Par (or hackintosh the tablet).
4) video playback FPS limits were not tested? Brute force CPU means nothing without graphics to support it. Synthetics are one thing, full system processor/GPU comparrison is another.
5) 3D Graphic capability was not tested either?
6) power draw was not tested (watts per hour during equal loads)? Great, if it's 10% faster, but 50% more juice and 40% more heat means nothing to me...
7) did both platforms use flash based disk systems, or was the Archos running off SSD, higher performance RAM, or some other hardware that might favor load time of a web site. This was to compare processor to processor, not tablet to tablet, right? All things were NOT as equal as could be so this test has very little real world relevancy...
*I'm not pointing out which platform I think is better or worse, simply that I can not take this data into account either way, and to point out the test methodology flaws.
Now this I might buy if they bring it out.
Intel's already Conroed the SSD and CPU market.
Note: For those who don't get the phrase "Conroed" it means Intel is going to do to the market what "Conroe" platform (E6600,E6300,etc) release did to the CPU market.
1. Yes, but the cache collected after visiting sites, which is why they didn't test them when loading previous pages.
2. Yes, the test would be completely invalid if they did something else.
3. They went with the Opera webkit browser, which is similar to the Safari webkit browser on the iPad.
4. This was a comparison between CPUs, not IGPs. For the record the GMA 500 is far superior to what the iPad has and can easily manage 720p videos and 1080p videos with the correct codecs. The only thing holding the GMA 500 back is its terrible drivers.
5. Still irrelevant for a CPU to CPU comparison.
6. The X70EX has a battery life of 6 hours video, and considering the far, far more rigorous OS, I would say they are at least pretty close.
7. The test was as close as possible. The point is that the X70EX with the 1.33 Ghz Atom was able to pull off better performance than the iPad even though it has a resource hog of an OS, comparatively, flash was enabled, and the browser was not optimized for the hardware.
The fact that the X70EX beat the iPad, instead of just coming close, with all those huge disadvantages just shows the raw power difference.[/citation]
The res. on the iPad is 1024x768 and the X70EX has a resolution of 1024x600. So they are very close, easily close enough that it won't make a difference, assuming that it would to begin with, something I doubt
Lets see the iPad run MacOS.
Rather have a device that's actually productive and be able to get things done for 3 hours then glorified e-reader. The 3 hours could easier be extended if they gave the atom a low and high "mode".
If any other computer manufacturer released a device identical to the iPad it would flop. The only reason the iPad sells is because it says Apple on it.
I actually had a chance to use an iPad.... felt exactly like an iTouch with a bigger screen, big deal.