I'm looking forward to a 11.6" or 10.1" Atom Goldmont netbook (like the HP Stream or Asus T100 or Acer Switch) but only if the price is <$200 and single-threaded CPU performance is 30%+ higher than Cherry Trail as Intel claims.
I'm looking forward to a 11.6" or 10.1" Atom Goldmont netbook (like the HP Stream or Asus T100 or Acer Switch) but only if the price is <$200 and single-threaded CPU performance is 30%+ higher than Cherry Trail as Intel claims.Single-core Atom? Whatever Atom CPU that is, it must pre-date the Bay Trail Atoms. Ouch!
Edit: I'm looking forward to a nice small, hopefully cheap, Brix unit with the N4200 or whatever J-model desktop version of that SoC. Hopefully it will support H.265 and HDMI 2.0, VGA, and SATA6G. (My J1900 Brix unit only supports SATAII, and no H.265 and no HDMI 2.0.)
Edit: This link says Intel's Apollo Lake NUC will have HDMI2.0.
http://nucblog.net/2016/07/first-details-coming-apollo-lake-kaby-lake-nucs-emerge/
Intel Atom "Broxton-M" T5700
4x Goldmont @ 1.7GHz, Turbo to 2.4GHz
Gen 9 iGPU
LPDDR4
Intel Atom "Broxton-M" T5500
4x Goldmont @ 1.5GHz
Gen 9 iGPU
LPDDR4
It came totally wrong... even in Mobiles, they would stood a chance.
"Joule" seems like it will be as DOA in the market as their other attempted mobile offerings. Good luck to them, they've basically taken their tablet reference design, upgraded to Goldmont core, and proclaimed it an "IoT offering".
Why should anyone take Intel seriously, in mobile or IoT, if they won't take that market seriously.
what IoT products are using Intel in such volumes? I really doubt this.Intel's IoT business takes in more revenue than AMD's combined CPU+GPU businesses (excluding consoles). If you take AMD seriously in CPUs & GPUs, you should take Intel seriously in IoT.
In mobile, I agree, Intel is done outside of some foundry work and modem sales.
Intel's IoT business takes in more revenue than AMD's combined CPU+GPU businesses (excluding consoles). If you take AMD seriously in CPUs & GPUs, you should take Intel seriously in IoT.
In mobile, I agree, Intel is done outside of some foundry work and modem sales.
Using Atom in IoT chips makes little sense except for the relatively small higher-end IoT market. For the mass market, you want very small and efficient chips, something x86 isn't good at. Cortex-M cores are what you wantyou should take Intel seriously in IoT.
Using Atom in IoT chips makes little sense except for the relatively small higher-end IoT market. For the mass market, you want very small and efficient chips, something x86 isn't good at. Cortex-M cores are what you want
I still stand to my opinion that Atom is completely useless except for low-cost machines with Windows legacy support.
That was my understanding, but they're making a lot of noise around Atom and IoT while there's little news about Quark.Wasn't Quark supposed to be their IoT chip?
Intel’s product roadmap pointed to the release of the company’s optimized Kaby Lake products sometime in 2016, but so far they haven’t shown up. According to Colorful, however, Kaby Lake motherboards may arrive this fall.
Specifically, Colorful plans to release it Z270 motherboards sometime in October. The company couldn't tell us when Kaby Lake CPUs would come out, though, and it's possible that we will see Kaby Lake motherboards show up on the market before the corresponding processors.
However, we tested the sample with a single-core benchmark, Cinebench R11.5 (0.54 vs 0.4 in favor of the N4200, of course), and compared it to the N3700. The Apollo Lake chip scored 35% better than its Braswell counterpart even though it has considerably lower clock speeds. This seems promising and we suspect that the final unit will deliver even higher performance, especially in the multi-core tests.
Why are you posting information about Goldmont in the Bay Trail thread? Is it not time to let this quietly die off (just like Intel's mobile ambitions)?
Because Atom still lives with T5500/T5700 and Apollo Lake will probably find its way to larger devices powred by Bay Trail/Cherry Trail. There is much more about Goldmont than mobile.
This is a general Intel small core, architecture and device discussion thread. Funny that it's always the same kind of people complaining about my threads.
On that note, it’s also worth pointing out that Intel has not launched any 4W SKUs this time around, whereas Braswell launched with 1 such SKU. This means that the nominal TDP of all of the Apollo Lake mobile SKUs is higher than the 4.5W TDP of the new Kaby Lake Y-series processors (cTDP-Up withstanding). Actual power consumption is a bit more complex than this – so this doesn’t necessarily mean Apollo Lake draws more power on average – but it means that if you want a current-generation ultra-low power SoC from Intel, then your only option right now is to go with Kaby Lake.
I believe that this means that we can also rule out Apollo Lake for traditional tablets. When Intel cancelled Broxton, they made it clear that this included Broxton for tablets as well; however it was unclear whether Apollo Lake could be stretched down to fill that role. Given these TDPs, it’s unlikely we’re going to see Apollo Lake in the kinds of tablets that Cherry Trail-T could go in. And this doesn’t even factor in other potential road blocks such as chip size (Apollo Lake has a wider 2D footprint) or any missing features for mobile devices that Broxton would have included. As this is the cheap Intel chip someone could still take a stab at it, but Intel is clearly trying to push partners towards 2-in-1s rather than simple tablets.
I see it the opposite way. What's the point of cheap tablets with Windows 10? iPad and Android can take care of that mess. Luckily Intel thinks like me!Too higher TDP - and as such I Honestly don't see the point at this point in time. If the ~30% > silvermont IPC is true, then it's an instant failure IMO. There's a reason why Intel are delegating it to cheap 'cloud books' and whatnot.
If they'd achieved this sort of performance boost, and remained in the 2.5wSDP/4wTDP bracket, It'd be a different story. It seems instead they've upped IPC @ similar clocks, but at the expense of Power - which is fine for netbooks / cloud books - at least they won't be so under powered now, but not exactly exciting.
Yeah, basically IoT is embedded + connected (to the internet or whatever).So what does Intel's "IoT" division actually cover? Wasn't quite a lot of their existing embedded product line reclassified as "IoT"?