• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Intel Atom Thread

Page 157 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
Its really bad considering you can get a Toshiba tablet with Z3735G for about $70.
Doesnt have 3g though. But I have always said I saw the advantage of atom being it could run x86. I have never seen the point of running android on atom. The market is already flooded with cheap ARM processors that can do that. OTOH, to get a higher end tablet with 3g must cost several hundred dollars, right? Problem is, with such anemic performance as this tablet has, and no ability to run x86, you might as well just use a smartphone.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,330
943
136
Well X3 is only for Android and Windows Phone, its kinda OK for all those cheap A7 offerings out there, but no much good for anything else.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
9,939
2,283
136
Well X3 is only for Android and Windows Phone, its kinda OK for all those cheap A7 offerings out there, but no much good for anything else.
Seems like they are plenty of supercheap Android tablets with 4xA7 though, which would be much better than X3. Not to mention $4.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,920
1,541
136
That looks....bad.
So when even smaller Chinese vendors is going to dump cheap a72 on ancient and dirt cheap 28nm tech with a single thread score of +1700 on the market this is the low end product from Intel ??? Its like selling Pentium 4 on the desktop market today. The performance difference is that big. Contrarevenue or not. This is going nowhere.
 

dealcorn

Senior member
May 28, 2011
247
4
76
I understood that X3 lacks contrarevenue and is sold at a positive gross margin. Is there any evidence that contrarevenue is used with X3? What actual $70 tablet with comparable features outperforms X3? I want to see side by side testing of actual competitive products before jumping to conclusions. This market is largely based on Android. How is the fact that Intel brings competition to this Android market segment harmful to consumers? Is there some reason Intel would not want to generate positive gross margin dollars at the expense of ARM competitors? Is there any evidence that Chinese white box marketers refuse to produce X3 devices? It is early to call but X3 may find strong market acceptance in emerging markets.

Edit: Oops, I read linked the Liliputing article too fast, The Teclast X70 3G is expected to sell for about $50 is China. The $70 price is US pre order. What are the actual ARM comparables that exist in $50 tablets?.
 
Last edited:

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,330
943
136
Seems like they are plenty of supercheap Android tablets with 4xA7 though, which would be much better than X3. Not to mention $4.
mmm they dont have 3G, at least none i can remember right now, anyway, there is a X3 quad too.

Is not a bad option to counter the dual A7 offerings, and belive me, there is a LOT of them, and they also sell a lot, and yes, with 512MB of ram too. the integrated 3G gives them a edge.

We need to see after a while where other X3 will land in price, and from where the X5 do start.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,330
943
136
I think this one is meant to compete with A7, the reemplacement will likely target A53.

As for specs


C3130 and C3230 are the ones meant to be cheap.
 
Last edited:

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,920
1,541
136
An a53 core is 0.7mm2 including l1 on cheap 28nm. 0.7! In order and uses zero power. And faster (for some reason i still cant accept?? But looks like an bm error to me). Does Intel intend to compete on cost here they are going nowhere.

Intel needs to compete on performance and use their brand. Carve a niche here. Bring big core down in cost and use it. An handicapped x3 is crazy - an old ct+ is better ffs!
 
Last edited:

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,920
1,541
136
Intel might have excessive 22nm finfet capacity they dont know what to use for. But its still more expensive than 28nm bulk. Competing against a53 size and armv8 instruction set and perf/w advantage in order core is hopeless.
 

dealcorn

Senior member
May 28, 2011
247
4
76
The above linked Liliputing article reports:

The tablet is the Teclast X70 3G and it features an Intel Atom x3-C3130 processor based on the architecture that used to be code-named SoFIA. The chip is a 1 GHz dual-core processor with Mali MP2 graphics and integrated support for 3G.
The Teclast X70 3G has pretty modest specs including just 512MB of RAM and 4GB of storage. It has a 7 inch, 1024 x 600 pixel touchscreen display, but at least it’s an IPS screen which should offer decent viewing angles.
Other features include a 2MP rear camera, 0.3MP front camera, 802.11n WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0, a micro USB port, microSD card slot, and dual SIM card slots. The tablet ships with Android 4.4 KitKat software.
Can anyone identify any ARM based tablet that sells for $50 with comparable specifications that performs better? Bluster and distraction are great, but what has ARM got at the $50 price point? The message delivered to Intel at the time of Baytrail-T introduction was that emerging markets demand cheap above all else. It sounds like Intel heard that message and figured out how to respond without contra revenue. Intel's 2015 tablet goal is to grow with the market while killing contra revenue. It sounds like X3, X5 and X7 are poised to deliver that result across multiple price points. Share accretion is a 2016 issue.

Lastly, do folks really fail to understand that SoFIA is based on Silvermont, an out of order architecture. Performance is weak because SoFIA is fabricated on an inferior, cheap process. This is what the target market segment demands. Next year will be better.
 
Last edited:

kpkp

Senior member
Oct 11, 2012
468
0
76
It's a thread about SoCs...
What are you trying to argue that Intel will significantly undercut a $5 SoC? Like for 1 or 2 dollars kind of significantly? Not to mention 4xA53 seems like a more compelling solution.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
528
106
3G Modem is useless if the browser is lagging everytime because of low power of CPU.
Having a 3G connection isn't at all a big deal if the pages you can access but a faster device at the same price point can't access at all render a little slowly. Right :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:

dealcorn

Senior member
May 28, 2011
247
4
76
Some folks want 3G and the Teclast X70 3G targets those who do. The closest thing to an inexpensive A53 tablet I could find is the MTK8735M A53 Quad core 7 inch tablet pc MQ758M from China Esky Group Limited. http://eskychina.en.alibaba.com/. It is a swell tablet with several attractive features but it lacks 3G and costs 10% more at wholesale so expect retail to be $70 to $80. In other words, it is not salable into the $50 tablet market. Until someone can point to a credible ARM based $50 tablet, Intel wins on first impression. Of course testing is required. X3 is no game changer, but it appears poised to deliver credible market share at the low end. The silliness that Intel just can't be effective in mobile is, well, silly.

By the way, Intel Ark prices are known wrong (too high). Does anyone know what Intel actually charges for various X3 models? Some call the A53 a $4 SoC. Is that more or less than what Intel asks and how do you know? Absent actual knowledge, it may be most accurate to assess competitiveness based on what is offered in the marketplace. From a historic perspective, ARM is the world so ARM should have the $50 tablet price point covered. What credible competition do they offer for $50 tablets that makes the Teclast X70 3G unsaleable? I think some emerging market folks will find it attractive at the price.
 

simboss

Member
Jan 4, 2013
47
0
66
Some folks want 3G and the Teclast X70 3G targets those who do. The closest thing to an inexpensive A53 tablet I could find is the MTK8735M A53 Quad core 7 inch tablet pc MQ758M from China Esky Group Limited. http://eskychina.en.alibaba.com/. It is a swell tablet with several attractive features but it lacks 3G and costs 10% more at wholesale so expect retail to be $70 to $80. In other words, it is not salable into the $50 tablet market. Until someone can point to a credible ARM based $50 tablet, Intel wins on first impression. Of course testing is required. X3 is no game changer, but it appears poised to deliver credible market share at the low end. The silliness that Intel just can't be effective in mobile is, well, silly.

By the way, Intel Ark prices are known wrong (too high). Does anyone know what Intel actually charges for various X3 models? Some call the A53 a $4 SoC. Is that more or less than what Intel asks and how do you know? Absent actual knowledge, it may be most accurate to assess competitiveness based on what is offered in the marketplace. From a historic perspective, ARM is the world so ARM should have the $50 tablet price point covered. What credible competition do they offer for $50 tablets that makes the Teclast X70 3G unsaleable? I think some emerging market folks will find it attractive at the price.
I am struggling to understand how a different of a few $ on the SoC price can lead to a 20$ difference on the retail price, especially from no-name brands with razor-thin margins.

Basically there can be 4 explanations:
1. Intel has a much better integration in the SoC, so less components all around
2. The rest of the components are cheaper, although similar on paper, or quality control/SW is even crappier.
3. The margins for the manufacturer are significantly different
4. Intel still does some contra-revenue

I could be a mixture of some or all of them, but it seems very suspicious that 1 alone can explain it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY