That's performance... now where is energy consumption? I'd like to know if A57 is A15 2.0.
Why doesn't everyone use Moorefield? It's built on the most advanced process. It has an impressive energy consumption. They don't have a Qualcomm-like monopoly; which sucks money out of every 3G (and presumably 4G) patent. Intel has a compelling roadmap and commitment to Atom: they have LTE, they have some of the best architects and a 2 year Tick-Tock cadence, it is built on the most used architecture, and Intel has a massive process lead.
I don't think Broxton will change everything, like you envisioned 1 year ago. Intel really has to deliver next week.
Low performance/watt; high power consumption. Don't faint:What would be A15 2.0 in your mind?
Isn't "being technically the best" not what determines the review score of CPUs (after taking into consideration the price, which I don't expect to be a problem)?Being technically the best (and even that has to be proved) is not enough.
At least they don't suffer financially...id really love to get BK into a room and get answers to these very questions. the company has the best process, has billions and billions of r&D resources and accumulated knowledge and its really not gotten where it should be - yet - in mobile.
Although it'd be better if they cut the share buybacks and dividends and invest the saved money in process nodes (and yields) etc.ntel (NASDAQ:INTC) has been losing a billion dollars per quarter on the mobile segment of its business. Ugly is a severe understatement for this loss. Four billion dollars per year in losses. That's about the combined sales of Xilinx (NASDAQ:XLNX) and Altera (NASDAQ:ALTR).
What I find amazing is that Intel can drag this enormous boat anchor behind them and still generate 65% gross margins and 23% net margin. If the two companies mentioned above were to run losses like this, their net tangible assets would be depleted in a year and a half and they would be bankrupt. Intel, on the other hand, absorbs the losses, spends $11 billion a year on capital improvements, $4-12 billion on share buybacks and pays shareholders $4.5 billion in dividends.
Wasn't it a nice time in 2013 when we still though they'd start HVM production in Q4'13 and we'd see loads of products, CT, Moorefield and Broadwell, in Q3, followed by Willow Trail and SoFIA in Q4.cherrytrail is nowhere to be found.
You'll hear about it next week.broxton i havent heard anything on in ages.
I thought you were talking about the micro-architecture itself. Good question about the power consumption, and one I'd like to get answer for too!Low performance/watt; high power consumption. Don't faint:
You were asking why despite being the best it doesn't get design wins. This has nothing to do with reviews or benchmarks scores or whatever. Either Moorefield is much poorer than what has been shown or makers just don't want to invest in a platform where there's a single provider.Isn't "being technically the best" not what determines the review score of CPUs (after taking into consideration the price, which I don't expect to be a problem)?
That's performance... now where is energy consumption? I'd like to know if A57 is A15 2.0.
Why doesn't everyone use Moorefield? It's built on the most advanced process. It has an impressive energy consumption. They don't have a Qualcomm-like monopoly; which sucks money out of every 3G (and presumably 4G) patent. Intel has a compelling roadmap and commitment to Atom: they have LTE, they have some of the best architects and a 2 year Tick-Tock cadence, it is built on the most used architecture, and Intel has a massive process lead.
I don't think Broxton will change everything, like you envisioned 1 year ago. Intel really has to deliver next week.
I think a high BoM, lack of modem integration (XMM 7260 has barely gotten certified on the major carriers to my knowledge) and perhaps sub-par ISP performance is what kept Moorefield out of the running for phones.
Moorefield is very much like AMD's Mullins; it benchmarks well, and there are a ton of conspiracy theories around why it isn't being used, but the truth is, these OEMs aren't stupid and if they're not using Moorefield there's probably good cost/technical reasons for them to not.
Will Intel announce that the contra-revenue gets another round, this time in the smartphone space, or will they just set a 40M smartphone goal for 2015?
That's performance... now where is energy consumption? I'd like to know if A57 is A15 2.0.
Why doesn't everyone use Moorefield? It's built on the most advanced process. It has an impressive energy consumption. They don't have a Qualcomm-like monopoly; which sucks money out of every 3G (and presumably 4G) patent. Intel has a compelling roadmap and commitment to Atom: they have LTE, they have some of the best architects and a 2 year Tick-Tock cadence, it is built on the most used architecture, and Intel has a massive process lead.
I don't think Broxton will change everything, like you envisioned 1 year ago. Intel really has to deliver next week.
:thumbsdown:
It's amazing how every post on mobile SOCs is infected and hijacked by this intel troll. This thread is about Note 4 running Exynos, not Intel moorefield, or crystalwell or broxton or any other SoC from that massive failure in mobile. Get it? Please go and start a new thread crying about why no one is using Intel SoCs.
Stop crying. and trolling. Please...
Moorefield in the 4.5" FFRD scores 21752
Too bad Intel didn't actually get that part into phones...
Yes, we know how badly the AMD-enthused like to suppress any talk about Intel, and vice-versa. Shame we can't grow up and get along.
Instead, we're punished for having a conversation -- for having a discussion. This all happening in a forum, which quite literally is a place to discuss things.
Asinine, all of it.
Instead of, you know, reading the damn thread, and trying to understand the context behind what and why people are saying what they are, we get some smartass quip about from someone who clearly failed to do either -- someone who is clearly disinterested with and biased against the current topic of conversation.
It's so dumb that online forums in general are so unidirectional. There's this moronic preconception that all conversations are static, and everyone must stay on topic, or they're a sinning rulebreaker.
Then a moderator comes in and enforces these ridiculous misconceptions, and the conversation dies. Learning ceases.
I don't know what world you guys live in, but when people converse here on Earth -- be it in person, or on the internet -- the topics change.
Discussions are dynamic. Get over it.
Samsung definitely isn't taking NVIDIA's first patent lawsuit lying down. The Korean tech firm has countersued NVIDIA not just for allegedly infringing on six patents, but for leading buyers astray with benchmarks for the Shield Tablet. NVIDIA is supposedly trying to "confuse customers" by claiming that the slate's Tegra K1 processor outpaces the Exynos 5433 chip in the Galaxy Note 4; regular benchmarks show that's not true, Samsung claims. The suit also accuses PC vendor Velocity Micro of violating two additional patents (for a total of eight), since NVIDIA's graphics cards play a heavy role in its lineup.
NVIDIA tells Engadget that it's still examining the complaint, but it's already rejecting allegations that it misled gamers with its Shield tests. Both devices were using their stock, fresh-from-the-box software loadouts, the company insists. Whether or not that's true, the lawsuit comes across as the pot calling the kettle black. After all, it was the revelation that Samsung inflated benchmark scores which led many to question the honesty of mobile device makers. Really, the assertion of dodgy benchmarking is as much about corporate pride as anything else -- if successful, it would force NVIDIA to eat humble pie.
Now that's interesting.
Samsung lawsuit claims that NVIDIA's benchmarks are misleading
www.engadget.com/2014/11/11/samsung-sues-nvidia
:thumbsdown:
It's amazing how every post on mobile SOCs is infected and hijacked by this intel troll. This thread is about Note 4 running Exynos, not Intel moorefield, or crystalwell or broxton or any other SoC from that massive failure in mobile. Get it? Please go and start a new thread crying about why no one is using Intel SoCs.
Stop crying. and trolling. Please...
Your data point was definitely interesting and IMHO on-topic. I also agree with Witeken and Homeles that staying strictly on-topic is unnatural and in fact counter-productive, at least as long as we get back to the topic being initially discussedThe "hijacking" of this discussion was indeed my fault. Although I thought benchmarks of competing chips would be useful in creating a discussion that we could all benefit from and learn from, I also recognize that some people would prefer to stay strictly on topic. I'm cool with that and apologize.
Now Samsung will have to explain why they change power profile when detecting some applications :whiste: That's a really stupid lawsuit, every company shows benchmarks that favors their products, and even cheat producing the numbers.Now that's interesting.
Samsung lawsuit claims that NVIDIA's benchmarks are misleading
Now that's interesting.
Samsung lawsuit claims that NVIDIA's benchmarks are misleading
Now Samsung will have to explain why they change power profile when detecting some applications :whiste: That's a really stupid lawsuit, every company shows benchmarks that favors their products, and even cheat producing the numbers.
Geekbench is now being used in high profile lawsuits to dispute performance claims! If I were jfpoole, I'd be feeling pretty proud right now
Now that's interesting.
Samsung lawsuit claims that NVIDIA's benchmarks are misleading
www.engadget.com/2014/11/11/samsung-sues-nvidia
In Geekbench 3, using "max performance" settings, the Exynos 7 Octa is using all eight cores to obtain that multi-core score, which is completely unrealistic for any real-world application.
Well they claimed to have measured at the default optimized settings, and running with all eight cores active is most certainly not that.
And if one looks at a wide variety of GPU, CPU, and browser benchmarks, Shield tablet clearly outperforms Galaxy Note 4 most of the time, which is the point they are trying to make.