Intel x86 SoC's to give ARM a run for its money ?

[KnightWRX]

Haven't seen this posted here yet :

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...c-power-consumption-specs-and-benchmarks-leak

Benchmark-wise, according to VR-Zone, this 1.6GHz Medfield chip scores 10,500 in CaffeineMark 3, a Java-based cross-platform benchmark. Nvidia’s Tegra 2, by comparison, scores just 7,500; Qualcomm’s Snapdragon MSM8260 scores 8,000; and Samsung’s Exynos (which one?) scores 8,500.

[...]

The leaked specs continue with some very tenacious power consumption figures: The Medfield Tablet Platform currently has a 2.6-watt TDP when idling, which peaks up to 3.6W when playing 720p video.

Performance and power consumption figures rivaling ARM SoCs. Too bad Intel can't do GPUs if their life depended on it, I wonder how they stack up for OpenGL ES performance compared to PowerVR's or nVidia's stuff.

 

[Hellhammer]

Intel is using PowerVR graphics in the upcoming Cedarview Atoms so I wouldn't be surprised if Medfield graphics were not in-house either. Intel is claiming higher graphics performance than other platforms (link).

 

[KnightWRX]

Intel is using PowerVR graphics in the upcoming Cedarview Atoms so I wouldn't be surprised if Medfield graphics were not in-house either. Intel is claiming higher graphics performance than other platforms (link).

If they are that's good. But Intel claiming higher graphics performance than other platforms... I'll believe it when I see it. They've been claiming that for 10+ years now and never delivered.

Of course, if they aren't using their own stuff, I could believe it.

 

[juliusaugustus]

Intel Doesn't stand a chance against ARM, maybe in specialized embedded environments. Intel doesn't license Processor designs or their Processor Architecture like ARM Does so that is a huge advantage unless Intel decides to change their business model. ARM is inherently consumes significantly less power than x86 because it doesn't have any of that legacy baggage like x86 does. ARM Processors are much cheaper to OEMS and cheaper to produce. Also x86 lacks the software library of ARM simply x86 can't run any of the native apps offered on mobile platforms.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Intel Doesn't stand a chance against ARM, maybe in specialized embedded environments. Intel doesn't license Processor designs or their Processor Architecture like ARM Does so that is a huge advantage unless Intel decides to change their business model. ARM is inherently consumes significantly less power than x86 because it doesn't have any of that legacy baggage like x86 does. ARM Processors are much cheaper to OEMS and cheaper to produce. Also x86 lacks the software library of ARM simply x86 can't run any of the native apps offered on mobile platforms.

I'd almost agree, but then, this new CPU is aimed specifically for Windows 8 tablet edition. As such, this will allow Windows 8 developers to write apps for Windows 8 tablets that are almost identical to the apps running on desktop/laptop versions of Windows 8, saving millions in coding time.

 

[Hellhammer]

Intel Doesn't stand a chance against ARM, maybe in specialized embedded environments. Intel doesn't license Processor designs or their Processor Architecture like ARM Does so that is a huge advantage unless Intel decides to change their business model.

Well, that hasn't been a problem in laptop, desktop and server CPU markets. In the end, OEMs are after the best possible chip (price, performance, power consumption etc). If Intel provides that, then OEMs will choose Intel. Customization isn't all that useful because the end products are fairly similar. It's only useful if you can really customize it like NVidia does with their Tegra series (ARM cores and in-house graphics). Otherwise you will be left with PowerVR graphics that are available for everyone.

Besides, it can be cheaper to dump your SoC engineering team and let Intel do the job. R&D costs are never cheap.

ARM is inherently consumes significantly less power than x86 because it doesn't have any of that legacy baggage like x86 does.

Not according to Intel.

ARM Processors are much cheaper to OEMS and cheaper to produce.

Can you back that up or are you just speculating? Medfield isn't even out yet so I seriously doubt that any pricing info is available yet.

Also x86 lacks the software library of ARM simply x86 can't run any of the native apps offered on mobile platforms.

As said above, Windows 8 is the key word. Yes, it runs on ARM but then again, x86 apps don't run on ARM. All Windows software is x86 after all. For Android and other mobile OSs it can be an issue since the software is designed for ARM.

 

[*LTD*]

AMR specializes in what Intel is attempting to dabble in.

We'll see, but I'll put my money on the specialist.