Yes, but i dont think you can place a BT-M in the same tablet size than a BT-T using the same cooling, if there is no problem with power modes a USB to SATA chip is a trivial implementation at best.
Wouldn't it make more sense for such an OEM to just opt for Bay Trail-M? From what I recall , Bay Trail-D and Bay Trail M both support mSATA SSDs natively.
Yes, but i dont think you can place a BT-M in the same tablet size than a BT-T using the same cooling, if there is no problem with power modes a USB to SATA chip is a trivial implementation at best.
Again, performance has nothing to do with sales. Intel Pentium 4 was not the fastest CPU of its Era but Intel sold more chips than AMD.
Performance has something to do with sales. If the P4 had performed like a Pentium II, it certainly wouldn't have sold well! (Not that I'm saying that Jaguar performs like a PII or anything. Just pointing out that performance is definitely a factor.)
Again, performance has nothing to do with sales. Intel Pentium 4 was not the fastest CPU of its Era but Intel sold more chips than AMD.
In general, performance plays a role, but it is not the first or the only one OEMs are looking for. If performance was the first metric OEMs care about, AMD would have sold more A8/10 APUs than Intel Core i3.
Didn't AMD have a much higher desktop marketshare in that time period?
The fact that here an A6-based laptop costs about the same or more as i3 + dedicated graphics tells me the AMD APUs are probably pretty expensive or OEM realized that the i3 + dedicated offers better price/performance (better performance at same price).
Here's the thing, though. Intel rates the Celeron J1750 for up to 2.4 GHz using Boost technology. That means it enjoys the highest clock rates when it's operating under a thermal limit. But if we run our WinZip test as part of a scripted sequence, we get the numbers displayed above. If we run the workload on its own, without heating the SoC up first, we get significantly higher scores.
We wouldn't have figured this out had it not been for the curiously-lower results in our OpenCL-based benchmark. Re-running the test with Celeron J1750 completely cool, it's possible to shave a bunch of time from the outcome. The implication is that taxing the SoC depletes headroom for higher Burst frequencies. However, that's still preferable to a more dramatic throttle state in response to a thermal trigger.
Toms Hardware benches the Celeron J1750:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614.html
That is quite interesting. Similar behaviour was found with some current generation graphics cards with the stock cooler.
10W TDP hmmm.
Tom's Hardware said:But we still see that the entry-level J1750 finishes our suite of tests significantly faster than Atom D2700. Yes, the Atom-based platform has an on-board GeForce GT 520 GPU that we cannot factor out of our power equation, which affects our ability to compare their efficiency directly. The discrete graphics chip also conveys a performance advantage in 3D titles too, though. Just remember that the Atom D2700 is a 10 W part, similar to Celeron D1750, and that GeForce GT 520 uses up to 29 W. Remove the GPU and you'd likely be looking at very similar power from last generation's Atom. Based on our performance data, Bay Trail still comes away with an indisputable blue ribbon for efficiency.
And all of this comes from two Silvermont cores. The Pentium J2850 gives you four of them, the same 2.4 GHz peak core clock, higher graphics engine frequencies, and again, a 10 W thermal ceiling. Naturally, we're expecting an even more compelling performance story in our threaded tests once the quad-core models start surfacing.
Until then, we walk away from our first experience with Intel's Bay Trail SoC impressed. The company wasn't exaggerating when it suggested that the Silvermont architecture could as much as double performance at a given power limit. Snappy little passively-cooled platforms are almost certainly on their way toward the end of the year. Intel tells us that its partners are already working on fully integrated desktops and all-in-one designs, as well as channel-oriented motherboards with soldered-down CPUs.
There's something funny there. The Tom's Hardware review puts the A4 5000 markedly faster than the J1750, but for Anandtech review show
A4 5000 at same speed as Z3770 in single threaded benchmarks. What gives?
I dont think so, the celeron j1750 is a desktop sku with 792Mhz gpu...Pretty good 3DMark score for a 4 EU (Gen 7) graphics chip, and there are higher-clocked GPUs on quad-core versions.
I think they mentioned running the benches in series, while there isnt alot heat headroom the cause the chip to not turbo, so it is probably running at 1.4GhzThere's something funny there. The Tom's Hardware review puts the A4 5000 markedly faster than the J1750, but for Anandtech review show
A4 5000 at same speed as Z3770 in single threaded benchmarks. What gives?
I think they mentioned running the benches in series, while there isnt alot heat headroom the cause the chip to not turbo, so it is probably running at 1.4Ghz
The Celeron has a lower turbo clock (750MHz) than quad-core BT-D on graphics and still performs nearly ~2k above than the Z3770 on Ice Storm. In other words, the fastest Bay Trail-D might deliver 1/2 Ivy Bridge ULV graphics performance despite having only 1/4 the number of execution units (4 vs 16, both Gen 7). If you were expecting more than this then your expectations were unrealistic.
Pentium J2850 will only extend 2W SDP Z3770's CPU performance lead over 15W TDP A4 5000 cause it will run @ 2.4GHz all the time during load (unlike Z3770).
interesting?
dual core gets 11k pgysics and 15k gpu score...this is probably due to more tdp headroom.
and the price for such headroom
*not much details given on baytrail test plaatform.
Why not a A4 5000 Kabini rather than a 2C Richland as comparison
in theses charts.?..
anyway, do bay trail have HT support disabled for now, or no HT planned at all?