http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1815592
Here is a first Cherry Trail-T Geekbench submission, and for the first time with SKU name. It's called Z8700.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1764699
Here another one from Z8700.
So, a 1.6Ghz Cherry Trail can beat a 2.67Ghz Desktop J2900 BT?
There are dozens, of not hundreds of cheap tablets on the market. Many run Google Android software, but there are a growing number of inexpensive tablets which run Windows 8.1 software.
Last year I put together a list of 6 Windows tablets that sold for $199 or less, but I had to do a bit of digging to find them.
At the start of 2015, I found it was much easier to make a larger list of tablets with even lower prices.
Here are 10 Windows 8.1 tablets for $150 or less, arranged alphabetically. They all have Intel processors and can handle full-screen apps from the Windows Store or desktop-style apps. Connect a keyboard and youve got a small laptop. Hook up an external display and youve got a little desktop.
1. Asus VivoTab 8 $149
2. HP Stream 7 $100
3. HP Stream 8 $150
4. Insignia 8″ tablet $120
5. iView SupraPad i700QW $80
6. Toshiba Encore 2 $120
7. Toshiba Encore Mini $100 (or less)
8. Vulcan Challenger II tablet + keyboard $100
9. WinBook TW700 $60
10. WinBook TW802 $130
Chinese tablet maker Ainol is launching its first Windows desktop computer. It just happens to be smaller than most of the companys tablets.
[...] The little computer is powered by an Intel Atom Z3735D quad-core processor and features 2GB of RAM and 32GB of eMMC storage. It also has a microSDXC card slot for up to 128GB of removable storage.
It also mentions a 7000mAh battery, suggesting you should be able to use the system just by plugging it into a display, no AC adapter required. You can also use the system as a portable battery pack to charge your smartphone or other gadgets on the go.
Contra revenue is not about Intel's production costs for the chips they are selling (be it Cherry Trail or Bay Trail)...contra revenue is about the BOM cost delta that OEMs experience when building products with the Intel chips (extra stuff the OEM has to buy in order to create the product versus creating a product with an ARM SoC that has higher level of integration).
Abwx likens contra revenue to Intel wrapping each Bay Trail package with a $20 bill... which isn't all too inaccurate. Intel has stated Bay Trail's BoM delta -- that is, the additional cost involved with implementing Bay Trail instead of an ARM solution -- is ">$15." The SoC itself is cost competitive... it's the additional hardware you need to implement it (or rather, the additional hardware Intel says you need to implement it. Their standards are/were too high). AMD's in the same boat... however people around here make it seem like AMD would have sold millions of SoCs if Intel hadn't implemented their contra revenue program. The truth is, neither of them would have sold anything worth writing home about.
We would have plenty of AMD Windows Tablets for sure. AMD had Windows Tablets before Intel, also Mullins was far better for a Windows Tablet than BT-T ever was.
Where are the tablets? thats the problem really.
@Abwx - it is never clear when things are made up. source please
Gone by the wind (contra-revenue)
Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.
Intel paid OEMs to launch more Intel x86 tablets to displace ARM tablets. It had little to do with AMD. Intel wouldn't spend such a ridiculous amount of money just to sabotage a cheap AMD processor that had 0% marketshare. Also, AMD management and marketing are pretty good at crippling their own product launches free of charge, so why would Intel spend $4 billion to do so?Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.
Intel paid OEMs to launch more Intel x86 tablets to displace ARM tablets.It had little to do with AMD.
Intel wouldn't spend such a ridiculous amount of money just to sabotage a cheap AMD processor that had 0% marketshare.
Also, AMD management and marketing are pretty good at crippling their own product launches free of charge, so why would Intel spend $4 billion to do so?
So you believe it is impossible for two competitors to simultaneously grow their market share? In other words, if General Motors market share is up, Ford's must be down, right? Why should we believe such nonsense?What did they displace exactly..?
AMD is the only one impacted, none of the other firm had to suffer the slightest way, Qualcomm published record revenues and net income, so the most impacted is the less targeted, should we believe such non sense ?
What would Bobcat's market share (and profitability) be if it had to compete against Intel, and an already entrenched Qualcomm, and Samsung, and Apple, and Allwinner, and MediaTek, etc.? AMD would be out of business, or at least out of that business. AMD had basically no chance of significant profits even without Intel's contra-revenue. They might have sold several million chips at razor thin margins with basically no profit as a best case scenario.Poor argument of the worse bad faith, what was Bobcat marketshare.?.
Actualy Intel was deseperate to see AMD possibly scoring the same success with their new iteration, hence the contra revenues.
Considering that many ARM chips are sold cheaply and for almost no profit, yes, you have to give away chips to break into the market and compete. I think Intel is foolish throwing away billions to compete with ARM, but it will take several years at least to find out what, if anything, Intel got for their money.Yet another poor argument or rather lack of, of course not a single moment you did talk of technical caracteristics since this would had led to talk about Baytrails lacks, so lacking that giving it for free wasnt enough to have it ordered..
Nothing is made up, that s the crudity of known numbers, 46 millions chips at a cost of 4bn, if you cant do the maths then do not even bother to post on the subject...
The cost of goods sold for those 46 million chips wasn't $4 billion and you know it. Much of the loss in mobile is due to R&D, paying sales reps, etc.
Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.
Didn't Intel get sued 1.4 billion dollars for trying to shut out AMD before? It says here the EU found Intel guilty of the crime:For realz? You have descended to the depths of denial and making excuses for AMD so far now that you have reached the point where you simply make up complete and utter BS? To what end? For what gain?
How can you make these sorts of outlandish unsupported claims and still expect anyone to perceive you as having credibility on other matters within the forum community?
For realz? You have descended to the depths of denial and making excuses for AMD so far now that you have reached the point where you simply make up complete and utter BS? To what end? For what gain?
How can you make these sorts of outlandish unsupported claims and still expect anyone to perceive you as having credibility on other matters within the forum community?
Highly recommend kicking back and taking in the message provided by Dr. Phil Plait.
Yes it is a long video (~30minutes) but it has a message that any debater should seriously take to heart.
You are single-handedly undermining your very ability to ever convincingly win an argument within these forums. Don't be your own worst enemy, there is a better way to communicate your message but it starts with being credible and ends with being agreeable.
Making up absurd and laughable claims hardly accomplishes anything, so why bother?