Just for comparison here is the 1st generation core i3 330um (ultramobile 18w chip+3.5w chipsett) at 1.2 ghz 2 cores 4 threads
Single
1297
Multi
2982
Multi speedup
2.30 (remeber it is just a dual core, hyperthread added a little over 15%)
[/b][/u]
single core is a little to low!?
1.2GHz Core 2 Duo SU 9300 (10W CPU and +-15W NB+SB I think?)
1391.5
2463
cb 10 32bit
@ Uncouth
Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative, but I just dont understand why you would want to stream from a gaming PC, (which must have at least a 1080p monitor), to an 8 inch tablet. Just seems like a game would be much more satisfactory on the large monitor of the main PC than on a tablet, especially newer games designed to run at 1080p and above. I understand that you can play basically anywhere with the tablet, but still, is the experience that good on a tiny low res screen?
@ Uncouth
Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative, but I just dont understand why you would want to stream from a gaming PC, (which must have at least a 1080p monitor), to an 8 inch tablet. Just seems like a game would be much more satisfactory on the large monitor of the main PC than on a tablet, especially newer games designed to run at 1080p and above. I understand that you can play basically anywhere with the tablet, but still, is the experience that good on a tiny low res screen?
Just for comparison here is the 1st generation core i3 330um (ultramobile 18w chip+3.5w chipsett) at 1.2 ghz 2 cores 4 threads
Single
1297
Multi
2982
Multi speedup
2.30 (remeber it is just a dual core, hyperthread added a little over 15%)
I used to own an acer "netbook" with that cpu which I got almost 4 years ago (3 years 8 months ago) for $450, 3 gbs of ram 250gb hard drive 1366x768 ram. Less than a year later you could get the 2gb ram model for $350. I eventually put a ssd in there (sandforce) but I do not recall how much I spent on the ssd.
This was about the same time amd was comming out with the e-350 (1.6 ghz amd dual core) for they came out about 4 to 6 months later. Here is the amd e-350 scores
Single
1048.3
Multi
1997
Multi speedup
1.90
So in cinebench the new atom is double the speed in multithread but only 17% faster in single thread. And this is the top atom. Now intel is doing this in a tdp of less than 4 watts and it is targeting a 2 watt sdp. This is compared to an amd design that is 3.5 years old but is an amd 18watt tdp chip and a 5.9 watt southbridge.
Cherry Trail is apparently delayed for the second time, from Q4 to Q1, after being delayed from Q3 to Q4.
So Intel is really having difficulties ramping up its 14nm fabs. In the Q2 earnings call, Intel said they would be starting up more factories in Q4, so we'll see lots of 14nm products by Q2.
For those keeping track of 14nm's status: it was first planned to launch in Q2'14, so that's quite a delay. I wouldn't be surprised if delayed 10nm, which is still planned to go into HVM in 2015.
Also, if Intel is having so many problems with these nodes, I'm would be surprised to see any foundry do better.
You want to know what Intel is up against, this is it - $4 chips in $60 tablets courtesy of China:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35361-$4-allwinner-chips-power-$60-tablets
Ugh, tired of 14nm delays. I don't like the stagnation of progress.Cherry Trail is apparently delayed for the second time, from Q4 to Q1, after being delayed from Q3 to Q4.
So Intel is really having difficulties ramping up its 14nm fabs. In the Q2 earnings call, Intel said they would be starting up more factories in Q4, so we'll see lots of 14nm products by Q2.
For those keeping track of 14nm's status: it was first planned to launch in Q2'14, so that's quite a delay. I wouldn't be surprised if delayed 10nm, which is still planned to go into HVM in 2015.
Also, if Intel is having so many problems with these nodes, I'm would be surprised to see any foundry do better.
Ugh, tired of 14nm delays. I don't like the stagnation of progress.
Also, Intel may have been more aggressive that other foundries with their design rules, so their issues don't necessarily mean other foundries will run into the same. TSMC seems to be doing okay with 20nm, for instance.
For some reason I feel like I wouldn't buy such a tablet even if they sold it bundled with a burger... you know when low is too low there must be something wrong.
Ok if you really need a cheap device and have already banked out for a top end phone + laptop maybe, but 100$ can give you a much better product for sure, or why not 150$ and keep it a year more?
But TSMC's 10nm, which might not use EUV, might have problems. Intel didn't have problems with their first FinFETs either.Also, Intel may have been more aggressive that other foundries with their design rules, so their issues don't necessarily mean other foundries will run into the same. TSMC seems to be doing okay with 20nm, for instance.
because not everyone is as rich as you, some people live on a fraction on what we live on. $60 is pretty expensive relatively speaking.
I know, but read my previous post more as a general advice for buying technology related devices: anything at the edge of a category should be totally avoided because it's either awfully overpriced (top part) or simply awfully specked (lowest tier).
So like when I chose between 300 to 2000$ laptops, peoples looking at a much lower price range for this (60$) should avoid the category minimum. Unless that's all they can buy of course (but say, they really need it then?).
There are already plenty of 8 inch Windows tablets that are priced competitively with Android tablets (and priced below iPad mini tablets). And Toshiba recently launched one of the first Windows 8.1 tablets to feature a $199 price tag, and you can often find other Windows tablets with higher suggested retail prices on sale for around that price. But Intel and Microsoft think there’s room for prices to go even lower… and Chinese tablet maker Kingsing is one of the first to prove them right.
The Kingsing W8 is a Windows 8.1 tablet with an Intel Atom Bay Trail processor, 1GB of RAM, 16GB of storage, and a $99 price tag. The tablet features a 1280 x 800 pixel IPS display with 5-point multitouch support, a 4500mAh battery, stereo speakers, a microSD card reader, 802.11n WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0, and 2MP cameras on the front and back. [...]
Don't expect to see a performance gap between the two MeMO Pads... or the TF103C, for that matter. They're all using the same quad-core, 1.33GHz Atom Z3745 processor with 1GB of RAM, which means the benchmark scores are virtually interchangeable. Not that there's much room to complain. As you can see above, either of the entry-level tablets can match or beat more expensive challengers. It's not shocking that they can outpace ASUS' own Nexus 7, a year-old device using an even older processor. However, they also fare well against Amazon's speedy Kindle Fire HDX, and even the premium Galaxy Tab S 8.4 -- not too shabby when you're paying up to $250 less.
The numbers translate well to the real world. The Atom chip doesn't break a sweat while navigating through the interface, and it's equally adept at both web browsing and intensive 3D games like Real Racing 3. As I touched on with the Transformer Pad, the low resolution goes some way toward easing the workload. You don't need a rocket to power a paper airplane, after all. However, the offscreen graphics tests suggest that neither MeMO Pad would have much trouble handling 1080p. It's just a shame that the displays can't match the might of what's under the hood.
I don't have similar reservations about the battery life. Where the Transformer Pad TF103C's runtime was disappointing for its size class, both the MeMO Pad 7 and 8 are at least on par for their price tier, if not a bit above average. ASUS claims that both of them should last for nine hours when looping a 720p video at a low 100-nit brightness, but that's fairly conservative. In my testing, which upped the brightness to the halfway mark and threw in periodic updates from Facebook and Twitter, both gadgets were still within the ballpark of that official estimate. The 7-inch unit managed a respectable eight hours and 36 minutes before shutting down, or enough to trump the current Nexus 7 and multiple older Samsung tablets. Meanwhile, the 8-inch model lasted for nine hours and 21 minutes, putting it ahead of both the TF103C and Sony's Xperia Z Tablet series.
The original Switch 10 features an Intel Atom Z3745 quad-core processor, a 10 inch, 1366 x 768 pixel display, 2GB of RAM, at least 32GB of storage, and a 5910mAh battery.
Here are some of the other models that have begun showing up at online stores:
Switch 10 with Atom Z3735F and 1280 x 800 pixel screen and 5700mAH battery
Switch 10 HDD with 500GB hard drive in the detachable tablet dock
Switch 10 with full HD display
While Acer doesn’t have an individual product page for the model with a full HD display yet, the main Switch 10 page mentions the 1920 x 1200 pixel screen and several European retailers have product pages for this model. [...]
You want to know what Intel is up against, this is it - $4 chips in $60 tablets courtesy of China:
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35361-$4-allwinner-chips-power-$60-tablets
Thats really, not important, a Quad A7 with Mali-400x2 get his ass kicked by a quad BT with 32-bit mem on both CPU and IGP, and probably even a dual too.
And it cant run Windows, and thats free now.
it matters because one is cheaper.
it does not, they are not on the same perf level, ill be more than willing to pay $15 for more than twice the performance.
As long G variants lowers the PCB cost is not a problem, also those chips are kinda on the level that Rockchip plans to go with their BT variants.
There is a big performance gap on there, and you are talking about something that intel can take on with a dual BT with 32-bit ram... that thing does not even exist. What next? a single core for those dual A7s?
I really dont want to see anything less than Atom Z3735G in performance on tablets. And if that can already bring $99 tablets from Toshiba (not really a known cheap tablet maker) thats .