Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Wins Simulated Moorestown vs. iPad Battle

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 42 comments

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.

Intel Atom vs. Apple A4

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    pbalstar , May 7, 2010 7:21 PM
    lol... I like how they including the sucker punch "the Windows XP tablet was able to load faster than the iPad – even with Flash enabled."
  • 20 Hide
    husker , May 7, 2010 7:00 PM
    Wait, let me show me show you my surprised face:
  • 16 Hide
    saaiello , May 7, 2010 6:52 PM
    Thats awesome now intel just better not charge $600 for their mobile pad.
Other Comments
    Display all 42 comments.
  • 16 Hide
    saaiello , May 7, 2010 6:52 PM
    Thats awesome now intel just better not charge $600 for their mobile pad.
  • 20 Hide
    husker , May 7, 2010 7:00 PM
    Wait, let me show me show you my surprised face:
  • 3 Hide
    digiex , May 7, 2010 7:02 PM
    "nakaka" ViliV
    Translation, "its ViliV able"
  • -9 Hide
    nun , May 7, 2010 7:19 PM
    idk this looks more like a comparison of browsers
  • 21 Hide
    pbalstar , May 7, 2010 7:21 PM
    lol... I like how they including the sucker punch "the Windows XP tablet was able to load faster than the iPad – even with Flash enabled."
  • 6 Hide
    Trueno07 , May 7, 2010 7:21 PM
    But no one uses the "windows Xp broswer"

    No one.
  • 8 Hide
    Derbixrace , May 7, 2010 7:21 PM
    flip_xlets see it load webpages with internet explorer... apple used there browser.. they should use windows xp browser..


    why with microsofts browser? i dont think intel has much to do with internets browser :)  explorer isnt intels if you didnt know :D 
  • 6 Hide
    zelannii , May 7, 2010 7:28 PM
    1) was the Internet cache on XP cleared, or had that machine already loaded the site? This could disadvantage a mobile platform that does not cache websites like mobile Safari, and invalidates the test.
    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.
  • -4 Hide
    climber , May 7, 2010 7:29 PM
    Is it just me or does anyone else notice that the displays are different sizes and thus more than likely different resolutions and the higher the resolution, the slower the display of information as a whole compared to a lower resolution setup. So I would rather see a clock for clock, exact resolution comparison. I am not an apple fanboy, I'll never buy a mac desktop or laptop, netbook maybe, tablet, unlikely. Just my observation.
  • 1 Hide
    yay , May 7, 2010 7:31 PM
    Isn't modern safari based on webkit anyway?
  • 1 Hide
    Hilarion , May 7, 2010 7:33 PM
    Cool!
    Now this I might buy if they bring it out.
  • -3 Hide
    etrom , May 7, 2010 7:37 PM
    How about coincidence Intel releases the Moorestown details in the week that Nvidia's chief scientist Bill Dally was talking that Moore's law is dead...
  • 0 Hide
    Shadow703793 , May 7, 2010 7:44 PM
    I have a feeling Intel is going to Conroe the SoC/Embedded market....

    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.
  • 9 Hide
    AMW1011 , May 7, 2010 7:48 PM
    zelannii1) was the Internet cache on XP cleared, or had that machine already loaded the site? This could disadvantage a mobile platform that does not cache websites like mobile Safari, and invalidates the test. 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.


    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]

    climberIs it just me or does anyone else notice that the displays are different sizes and thus more than likely different resolutions and the higher the resolution, the slower the display of information as a whole compared to a lower resolution setup. So I would rather see a clock for clock, exact resolution comparison. I am not an apple fanboy, I'll never buy a mac desktop or laptop, netbook maybe, tablet, unlikely. Just my observation.

    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
  • -8 Hide
    Euphoria_MK , May 7, 2010 8:25 PM
    Yep, battery life of moorestown @1.3GHz = 3hours so bring your portable generator with you
  • 5 Hide
    guzz46 , May 7, 2010 9:50 PM
    No surprise really, apple is about style & image not about functionality & performance
  • 11 Hide
    dwave , May 7, 2010 10:17 PM
    vantLets see it on Windows 7. Oh right, Atoms can't handle that


    I have a dell mini 10 with an Atom processor, I run Windows 7 32 bit home premium.
  • 11 Hide
    spoofedpacket , May 7, 2010 10:21 PM
    "The simulation leads us to believe that the Moorestown running at a 1.5GHz speed would be even faster."

    So you are telling me by increasing the clock on a CPU, it runs faster? Interesting, very interesting.
Display more comments