• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Intel Atom Thread

Page 122 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
wow this thread filled with intel propaganda and marketing. Broadwell and braswell news doesn't fit here.

If you have a problem with the posts in here, report them. In the meantime thread crapping will not be tolerated
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monstercameron said:
wow this thread filled with intel propaganda and marketing. Broadwell and braswell news doesn't fit here.
Click to expand...

If you have a problem with my posts about Bay Trail designs wins maybe you don't fit here, I've been doing this since the beginning (and you did the same in your A4-1200 thread). Braswell is Bay Trail-M/D successor so it fits here too. We know you support AMD and there's nothing wrong with that but please leave the personal attacks out. 😉
 
Last edited:
Sweepr said:
If you have a problem with my posts about Bay Trail designs wins maybe you don't fit here, since I've been doing this the beginning (and you did the same in your A4-1200 thread). Braswell is Bay Trail-M/D successor so it fits here too. We know you support AMD and there's nothing wrong with that but please leave the personal attacks out. 😉
Click to expand...
I made no personal attack and have no problem with the baytrail posts you make but as per the thread title broadwell and braswell should go in another thread.😎
 
Braswell is for all intents and purposes the same as Cherry Trail, it just goes in another form factor. Broadwell just happened to be in the title of the article as well.
 
monstercameron said:
I made no personal attack and have no problem with the baytrail posts you make but as per the thread title broadwell and braswell should go in another thread.😎
Click to expand...

I did not post anything about the Broadwell NUCs. Braswell is essentially the non-tablet version of Cherry Trail, the main reason of that post was to show off that Intel is confident in the new 16 EUs ''Gen 8'' iGPU.
 
monstercameron said:
I made no personal attack and have no problem with the baytrail posts you make but as per the thread title broadwell and braswell should go in another thread.😎
Click to expand...

the mention of broadwell was necessary to state a point, as teejee was talking about CT approaching ULV levels. there was no propaganda in it, just a point being made to clarify SKUs: Atom and ULX.
 
teejee said:
Intel will have a big product planning issue if cherry trail improves 24%, it will come too close to much higher margin core ULV CPU's. They might do it because of competition though.
Click to expand...

Roland00Address said:
0.88 for the fanless i5 4202y according to notebookcheck 1.85 for the multithreaded score due to 2 cores and hyperthreading for the fanless tablet. Multithreading is not as impressive for comparison the atom z3770 gets 1.48, but remember that we are talking a chip that already gets the desired tdp before the die shrink. Both the atom and the core i5 will get the predicted 30% increase in energy efficiency before the die shrink.
Click to expand...

I think Intel can afford 24% perf increase for Cherry Trail.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8355/CoreMJourney2.png

Compared to 2010 Laptop(probably UM series Core)
IA Core: 2X Improvement

http://www.cnews.cz/sites/default/f...i_architektury_broadwell_03.jpg?itok=kVAw-NI7

"20-40% improvement"

If you attach 2x improvement vs 2010 UM series Core to 20-40% improvement over previous gen Haswell Y, it matches.
 
Last edited:
I know. In some SKUs, like the smartphone SKUs, 64-bit was not enabled, obviously because Android wasn't 64-bit yet.

But 64-bit is not enabled in ARM Android 4.4 either, so this phone is still effectively 32-bit. If you want to call it 64-bit, which is technically possible, then why don't call Medfield 64-bit either?

As far as a usable 64-bit Android phone is concerned, we'll have to see when the first 64-bit SoC with Android L is available, which I think will be later than a Merrifield/Moorefield smartphone.
 
witeken said:
I know. In some SKUs, like the smartphone SKUs, 64-bit was not enabled, obviously because Android wasn't 64-bit yet.

But 64-bit is not enabled in ARM Android 4.4 either, so this phone is still effectively 32-bit. If you want to call it 64-bit, which is technically possible, then why don't call Medfield 64-bit either?

As far as a usable 64-bit Android phone is concerned, we'll have to see when the first 64-bit SoC with Android L is available, which I think will be later than a Merrifield/Moorefield smartphone.
Click to expand...

Sounds like HTC will be updating it to 64 bit Android once it is available. If the Razor i can actually run 64 bit Android when it comes out and gets an official update then it could make a claim for "first 64 bit Android phone". Is Intel still trying to get into phones? Wouldn't mind seeing a "contra-revenue" Atom phone flood.
 
Last edited:
Vesku said:
Sounds like HTC will be updating it to 64 bit Android once it is available. If the Razor i can actually run 64 bit Android when it comes out and gets an official update then it could make a claim for "first 64 bit Android phone". Is Intel still trying to get into phones? Wouldn't mind seeing a "contra-revenue" Atom phone flood.
Click to expand...

Yep. I dont think a contra flood would come until 14nm. And by then, it may simply be able to sell by itself due to tablet volume so to say. New Windows Phone 9 (64bit?) and 64bit Android should be out around the same time.
 
x86 Android is already 64-bit since January. The Desire won't be the first 64-bit Andriod phone unless it gets an update to Android L before Merrifield phones arrive.
 
witeken said:
I know. In some SKUs, like the smartphone SKUs, 64-bit was not enabled, obviously because Android wasn't 64-bit yet.

But 64-bit is not enabled in ARM Android 4.4 either, so this phone is still effectively 32-bit. If you want to call it 64-bit, which is technically possible, then why don't call Medfield 64-bit either?

As far as a usable 64-bit Android phone is concerned, we'll have to see when the first 64-bit SoC with Android L is available, which I think will be later than a Merrifield/Moorefield smartphone.
Click to expand...

Because the Medfield silicon physically did not support 64 bit. You could not run 64 bit software on it. It is therefore not a 64 bit phone. The SoC in this phone can execute 64 bit code, and it is hence a 64 bit phone.
 
NTMBK said:
Because the Medfield silicon physically did not support 64 bit. You could not run 64 bit software on it. It is therefore not a 64 bit phone. The SoC in this phone can execute 64 bit code, and it is hence a 64 bit phone.
Click to expand...

Source? There are multiple Atom SKUs with support for 64-bit. It's like the Haswell SKUs with TSX disabled, although it's physically present in the die.
 
witeken said:
Source? There are multiple Atom SKUs with support for 64-bit. It's like the Haswell SKUs with TSX disabled, although it's physically present in the die.
Click to expand...

The Ark page I linked you to several posts ago... It doesn't matter if it's "present in the die" if it has been laser-fused off. By that logic a Pentium also has Hyperthreading and AVX2. :\
 
NTMBK said:
By that logic a Pentium also has Hyperthreading and AVX2. :\
Click to expand...

But by that logic sites like AnandTech are now saying that is the first 64-bit Android phone, while that's not (yet) true. If Android was 64-bit 2 years ago, there's no reason why Medfield wouldn't have been 64-bit.
 
witeken said:
But by that logic sites like AnandTech are now saying that is the first 64-bit Android phone, while that's not (yet) true. If Android was 64-bit 2 years ago, there's no reason why Medfield wouldn't have been 64-bit.
Click to expand...

No. Not the same logic. It is a phone which contains silicon which can run 64 bit software. Different to Medfield.
 
witeken said:
But by that logic sites like AnandTech are now saying that is the first 64-bit Android phone, while that's not (yet) true. If Android was 64-bit 2 years ago, there's no reason why Medfield wouldn't have been 64-bit.
Click to expand...

I'm actually very curious as to why Intel disabled 64-bit capability on the Saltwell core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top