Again, you try and blame someone else but AMD and create some false scenario for it to be true.
At this point , even with competitive products amd doesn't stand a chance with oems. Intel is doing something to incentivize them to use the super crappy celeron branded atoms in every single product category. It can't be Bom costs or power or availability or performance.
Intel must be buttering up up oems for them to drop amd so hard right after they all flooded the market with bobcat craptops and netbooks.
Again, you try and blame someone else but AMD and create some false scenario for it to be true.
Problem is, perhaps Mullins is not nearly as good in terms of performance and battery life when packed inside thin/light/cheap 7-8'' tablets like Bay Trail or ARM SoCs and on top of that it costs quite a lot more than BT, but this idea might hurt the fanboys thinking it's the second coming of Christ.
I wonder how badly the cache reduction is going to hurt performance.
I wonder how badly the cache reduction is going to hurt performance.
6-8h battery life, with the higher powered u6700T, with a 32Wh battery and much better perfs overall than BT, this should be enough to get a sizeable part of the W8.1 tablet market but it s not possible because people just dont realize that Intel is flooding the market with 40 millions subsided chips, to give a perspective that s twice AMD s whole mobile shipped APUs, no wonder that their mobile shippement decreased 16% last quarter at the very moment where Intel shipped 15 millions subsided BTs.
We ll see how it turns when Carrizo is released, this one has the core M as weak opponent and this latter can hardly be contra revenued...
I wonder what the purpose of it is. Because they keep the die size and even increase transistor budget. And its not like they have anything to write home about already in terms of CPU performance.
The HP stream 14 only gets over 5 hours under light usage, web browsing
Without specifying that the Mullins based LT has :there are notebooks with significantly longer battery life, for example, the Packard Bell EasyNote TF71BM-C8R1
While the PackardBell BT based so called better lifer has :32 Wh Lithium-Ion
65% more battery capacity for 40% more autonomy...53 Wh Lithium-Ion
Also AMD has a take or pay agreement so they have to buy chips or pay a fine. Also GF is manufacturing cheaper than Intel I suppose. Clearly Intel can just discount their chips as much as is needed.
- L2 cache shrunk down to 1MB per Module. (This only seems to be confirmed for the smaller models, no word about the big brother
Do you think that Globalfoundries can manufacture a chip twice the size of Intel 2C processors and have a profit for less than Intel manufactures its 2C chips?
I think it's extremely unlikely that they'd create a die with more or less cache than another. Tens of millions of dollars (are we at hundreds now?) for new mask sets is simply not economical.
They could disable some cache, but that doesn't seem likely. Slimming down on L2 is not necessarily a bad thing. We will have to wait and see.
Yes,
Intels 14nm is way more expensive today than GloFos 28nm.
14nm is a new process that needs at least 24 months in full production to depreciate its R&D cost, 28nm is a half node of 32nm that has already been depreciated and also has higher yields today than Intels 14nm.
They pay design, chip and equilize to stuff that is even worse...Your conclusions do not follow from the statements you've quoted. Again, it's an equalizer. OEMs would be making similar margins on comparable ARM devices, except they'd be stuck with Windows RT.
Intel bribes OEMs and OEMs make notebooks so guess why there are more crappy Intel notebooks on the market instead of AMD's actually better solution. You really want to advocate that i3 ULV and celeron and pentium is better than Kaveri ULV and Beema.A laptop, entirely different market as well. And no contrarevenue to compete against.
This is a good point core M chips have underperformed so we can assume 14nm is nothing spectacular just Intel's way of fooling their investors. Efficiency is down and the gpu performance on core M is worse than it was before.We ll see how it turns when Carrizo is released, this one has the core M as weak opponent and this latter can hardly be contra revenued...
Considering how they work together with major players in the industry rather than do it all by themselves I think they could.Do you think that Globalfoundries can manufacture a chip twice the size of Intel 2C processors and have a profit for less than Intel manufactures its 2C chips?
Intel even admitted that 14nm had problems and that the ramp up was slower than ever. (their slides played this as that every node has problems in the beginning as if anybody falls for that.)Yes,
Intels 14nm is way more expensive today than GloFos 28nm. Also, half the die size means double the volume that you should sell. If you cannot sell that higher volume you will have to lower your margins thus lower your price etc etc. If you cannot sell all the volume you manufacture you will have to lower the capacity of the fab and that translates in longer depreciation times etc etc.
14nm is a new process that needs at least 24 months in fuill production to depreciate its R&D cost, 28nm is a half node of 32nm that has already been depreciated and also has higher yields today than Intels 14nm.
celeron and pentium is better than Kaveri ULV and Beema.
The only thing they have going for them is slightly higher single threaded performance. They have worse multithreaded perf and 1/5th of the graphics perf (which isn't even usable in many applications due to how buggy it is)
How is contrarevenue any different from a more comprehensive rebate program?
I have a Beema notebook but the singlethreaded performance is worse that i3's it would walk over Baytrail and probably even celeron and pentium though.On the lower tier, that is Mullins/Beema, AMD has better single thread performance but curiously we dont hear no more the single thread argument in this case, it seems it vanished , replaced by whatever other contra metrics...
Intel bribes OEMs and OEMs make notebooks so guess why there are more crappy Intel notebooks on the market instead of AMD's actually better solution.
What if it helps by reducing latency?
Intel bribes OEMs and OEMs make notebooks so guess why there are more crappy Intel notebooks on the market instead of AMD's actually better solution. You really want to advocate that i3 ULV and celeron and pentium is better than Kaveri ULV and Beema.
The only thing they have going for them is slightly higher single threaded performance. They have worse multithreaded perf and 1/5th of the graphics perf (which isn't even usable in many applications due to how buggy it is)
This is a good point core M chips have underperformed so we can assume 14nm is nothing spectacular just Intel's way of fooling their investors. Efficiency is down and the gpu performance on core M is worse than it was before.
I have a Beema notebook but the singlethreaded performance is worse that i3's it would walk over Baytrail and probably even celeron and pentium though.
It can't be a big difference. Actually it is quite sad I got a Kaveri notebook a few days ago and the singlethreaded performance was about on par with that of Beema...
You should report this to AMD and then authorities then. Because if it was true action would be taken. So I look forward to your documentation. Else I think we can easily rule out that "AMD is the better product".
Contra revenue is not bribery well OK you're entitled to your own opinion. Intel was sued in the past for bribing OEMs and anti competitive practices they paid a 1,5 bilion dollar fine. A fraction for the dominance they gained from these briberies because with AMD cash bound they gained over a decade of almost full market dominance.You should report this to AMD and then authorities then. Because if it was true action would be taken. So I look forward to your documentation. Else I think we can easily rule out that "AMD is the better product".
Mullins is better than Baytrail obviously...1. If AMD had a better solution it would be used, surely by smaller OEMs or by Apple, who would jump away as soon as possible (who considered it with llano).
2. Most users will not be using 4 threads in a celeron or Beema notebook. Singlethread performance is key.
3. Its nowhere near 5x, maybe 2x but not 5x.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-Haswell.93341.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R4-Beema.115399.0.html
HD Haswell - 355 FS graphics
Beema - 492 FS graphics
Intel's drivers suck but neither GPU is really capable of anything more than browser or old games.
4. The GPU in core m is really performing well. Lets not forget that graphics performance is primarily power limited and HD 5300 is matching HD 4400 to within 10% at 4-6W vs. 15W.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Envy-x2-j001ng-Convertible-Review.130223.0.html
40 fps TR low, matches HD 4400
Intel seriously played up Core M. However, performance is really good for what you are getting. 14nm is roughly twice as efficient as 22nm but the TDP is only about 30-40% and so performance is a little less than regular U series. I never was taken in by intel's marketing (just like maxwell is not 100% more efficient) so i'm not really disappointed.
Carrizio may be a nice update but it has tall orders to fill. Beema pretty much abolishes low end Kaveri (same CPU perf, worse GPU perf, much lower power and smaller die). HBM won't magically raise GPU performance as the low end is mainly power limited not BW limited and more BW means better utilization and higher power draw as well as higher performance.