The Intel Atom Thread

[Shivansps]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1815592

Here is a first Cherry Trail-T Geekbench submission, and for the first time with SKU name. It's called Z8700.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1764699

Here another one from Z8700.

So, a 1.6Ghz Cherry Trail can beat a 2.67Ghz Desktop J2900 BT?

 

[mikk]

J2900 doesn't support AES in hardware, this is a factor in Geekbench.

 

[witeken]

So, a 1.6Ghz Cherry Trail can beat a 2.67Ghz Desktop J2900 BT?

That's the base clock, considering its SKU number.

 

[Shivansps]

You right, it scores a little better than a Z3775.

 

[Sweepr]

10 Bay Trail (Windows 8) tablets available for less than $150

There are dozens, of not hundreds of cheap tablets on the market. Many run Google Android software, but there are a growing number of inexpensive tablets which run Windows 8.1 software.

Last year I put together a list of 6 Windows tablets that sold for $199 or less, but I had to do a bit of digging to find them.

At the start of 2015, I found it was much easier to make a larger list of tablets… with even lower prices.

Here are 10 Windows 8.1 tablets for $150 or less, arranged alphabetically. They all have Intel processors and can handle full-screen apps from the Windows Store or desktop-style apps. Connect a keyboard and you’ve got a small laptop. Hook up an external display and you’ve got a little desktop.

1. Asus VivoTab 8 – $149
2. HP Stream 7 – $100
3. HP Stream 8 – $150
4. Insignia 8″ tablet – $120
5. iView SupraPad i700QW – $80
6. Toshiba Encore 2 – $120
7. Toshiba Encore Mini – $100 (or less)
8. Vulcan Challenger II tablet + keyboard – $100
9. WinBook TW700 – $60
10. WinBook TW802 – $130

http://liliputing.com/2015/02/10-windows-tablets-150-less.html

I remmember at the start of this thread some people had doubts about the possibility of Bay Trail Windows tablets for less than $150. Right now you can buy one of them for as low as $60 in the US (not even talking about China). Granted its screen and 1GB RAM/16GB storage is not exactly great but that's still impressive. A bit over $100 buys you an IPS screen and 2GB RAM/32GB storage.

And it's not just Bay Trail-T and tablets, 13 out of Amazon's Top 15 best-selling notebooks are based on Bay Trail-M.

Ainol Mini PC is a pocket-sized Windows desktop

Chinese tablet maker Ainol is launching its first Windows desktop computer. It just happens to be smaller than most of the company’s tablets.

[...] The little computer is powered by an Intel Atom Z3735D quad-core processor and features 2GB of RAM and 32GB of eMMC storage. It also has a microSDXC card slot for up to 128GB of removable storage.

It also mentions a 7000mAh battery, suggesting you should be able to use the system just by plugging it into a display, no AC adapter required. You can also use the system as a portable battery pack to charge your smartphone or other gadgets on the go.

http://liliputing.com/2015/02/ainol-mini-pc-pocket-sized-windows-desktop.html
https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/ainol-windows-8-1-mini-pc-launches-for-160-04-02-2015

Interesting concept.

 

[Shivansps]

Today i tested installing the Win 8.1 in the normal way on my BT tablet and i have to say the "wimboot" method is just not worth it, after installing the S.O and drivers i have 20GB free instead of the 22gb with wimboot, and the tablet just feels faster, on top of that, it fixed the really bad wifi/BT performance, i was having issues with poor wifi performance and my BT mouse was slowing down if the wifi was transmiting data at the same time, that does not happen with a regular installed OS using the exact same drivers.

Im still having the very, very VERY bizarre problem wih the SD card reader, like a have a cheap generic 64gb sd that works perfectly on any pc BUT the tablet, if i plug it in the tablet, it works, BUT if i restart the Win 8.1 while the sdcard is inside, Windows will not be able to open the sd card anymore, i can shut it down OK, i can remove the sd card, restart and put it back in OK, but i cant restart it with the sd inside, and there is no way to fix it other than re-installing Windows.

What is just ridiculus for those tablets are the office and updates... Windows without updates = 20gb free, Windows after running Windows Update = 13GB...

 

[AtenRa]

Contra revenue is not about Intel's production costs for the chips they are selling (be it Cherry Trail or Bay Trail)...contra revenue is about the BOM cost delta that OEMs experience when building products with the Intel chips (extra stuff the OEM has to buy in order to create the product versus creating a product with an ARM SoC that has higher level of integration).

If i tell you how much Intel is selling BT-T you will not believe it.

 

[AtenRa]

Abwx likens contra revenue to Intel wrapping each Bay Trail package with a $20 bill... which isn't all too inaccurate. Intel has stated Bay Trail's BoM delta -- that is, the additional cost involved with implementing Bay Trail instead of an ARM solution -- is ">$15." The SoC itself is cost competitive... it's the additional hardware you need to implement it (or rather, the additional hardware Intel says you need to implement it. Their standards are/were too high). AMD's in the same boat... however people around here make it seem like AMD would have sold millions of SoCs if Intel hadn't implemented their contra revenue program. The truth is, neither of them would have sold anything worth writing home about.

We would have plenty of AMD Windows Tablets for sure. AMD had Windows Tablets before Intel, also Mullins was far better for a Windows Tablet than BT-T ever was.

 

[Shivansps]

We would have plenty of AMD Windows Tablets for sure. AMD had Windows Tablets before Intel, also Mullins was far better for a Windows Tablet than BT-T ever was.

Where are the tablets? thats the problem really.

 

[AtenRa]

Where are the tablets?

Gone by the wind (contra-revenue)

 

[NTMBK]

Gone with the wind!

 

[Abwx]

Where are the tablets? thats the problem really.

Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.

 

[bullzz]

@Abwx - it is never clear when things are made up. source please

 

[Abwx]

@Abwx - it is never clear when things are made up. source please

Nothing is made up, that s the crudity of known numbers, 46 millions chips at a cost of 4bn, if you cant do the maths then do not even bother to post on the subject...

 

[Shivansps]

Gone by the wind (contra-revenue)

Im no so sure about that, contra-revenue may keep them away from the more mainstream versions, but there is no reason not to be present on the premium and expensive devices.

Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.

that cant be good for business, i know what contra-revenue is, i just not conviced that AMD is able to release a product capable of beating BT on tablets AND at the same time keeping power and heat low, last time AMD had a GOOD product (Bobcat) oems where all crazy about it, and they keep making devices with it along with the atoms ones, and you can bet intel was paying back them too.

And im not sure if the A4-1200/A4-1250 fiasco has worn off yet either.

 

[eRacer]

Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.

Intel paid OEMs to launch more Intel x86 tablets to displace ARM tablets. It had little to do with AMD. Intel wouldn't spend such a ridiculous amount of money just to sabotage a cheap AMD processor that had 0% marketshare. Also, AMD management and marketing are pretty good at crippling their own product launches free of charge, so why would Intel spend $4 billion to do so?

 

[Abwx]

Intel paid OEMs to launch more Intel x86 tablets to displace ARM tablets.It had little to do with AMD.

What did they displace exactly..?


AMD is the only one impacted, none of the other firm had to suffer the slightest way, Qualcomm published record revenues and net income, so the most impacted is the less targeted, should we believe such non sense ?

Intel wouldn't spend such a ridiculous amount of money just to sabotage a cheap AMD processor that had 0% marketshare.

Poor argument of the worse bad faith, what was Bobcat marketshare.?.
Actualy Intel was deseperate to see AMD possibly scoring the same success with their new iteration, hence the contra revenues.

Also, AMD management and marketing are pretty good at crippling their own product launches free of charge, so why would Intel spend $4 billion to do so?

Yet another poor argument or rather lack of, of course not a single moment you did talk of technical caracteristics since this would had led to talk about Baytrails lacks, so lacking that giving it for free wasnt enough to have it ordered..

 

[eRacer]

What did they displace exactly..?

AMD is the only one impacted, none of the other firm had to suffer the slightest way, Qualcomm published record revenues and net income, so the most impacted is the less targeted, should we believe such non sense ?

So you believe it is impossible for two competitors to simultaneously grow their market share? In other words, if General Motors market share is up, Ford's must be down, right? Why should we believe such nonsense?

Poor argument of the worse bad faith, what was Bobcat marketshare.?.
Actualy Intel was deseperate to see AMD possibly scoring the same success with their new iteration, hence the contra revenues.

What would Bobcat's market share (and profitability) be if it had to compete against Intel, and an already entrenched Qualcomm, and Samsung, and Apple, and Allwinner, and MediaTek, etc.? AMD would be out of business, or at least out of that business. AMD had basically no chance of significant profits even without Intel's contra-revenue. They might have sold several million chips at razor thin margins with basically no profit as a best case scenario.

Yet another poor argument or rather lack of, of course not a single moment you did talk of technical caracteristics since this would had led to talk about Baytrails lacks, so lacking that giving it for free wasnt enough to have it ordered..

Considering that many ARM chips are sold cheaply and for almost no profit, yes, you have to give away chips to break into the market and compete. I think Intel is foolish throwing away billions to compete with ARM, but it will take several years at least to find out what, if anything, Intel got for their money.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Nothing is made up, that s the crudity of known numbers, 46 millions chips at a cost of 4bn, if you cant do the maths then do not even bother to post on the subject...

The cost of goods sold for those 46 million chips wasn't $4 billion and you know it. Much of the loss in mobile is due to R&D, paying sales reps, etc.

 

[Abwx]

The cost of goods sold for those 46 million chips wasn't $4 billion and you know it. Much of the loss in mobile is due to R&D, paying sales reps, etc.

What you re doing is counting a same amount several time..

If a chip is sold say 30$ everything will be included in thoses 30$, that is RD, sales dpts, manufacturing and so on, the total is called cost of sales and doesnt include an eventual net income per chip, and here we re talking of 90$ as the cost of sale for one chip, there is at least 50-60$ subside per chip, not counting the chip itself since it s valued as the difference between said 90$ total cost minus said subsides, this yield 30-40$/chip.

Seriously, are you really not grasping thoses basics.?

 

[Idontcare]

Intel has paid OEMs to not release AMD based W8 tablets, is this clear enough..?.

For realz? You have descended to the depths of denial and making excuses for AMD so far now that you have reached the point where you simply make up complete and utter BS? To what end? For what gain?

How can you make these sorts of outlandish unsupported claims and still expect anyone to perceive you as having credibility on other matters within the forum community?

Highly recommend kicking back and taking in the message provided by Dr. Phil Plait.

Yes it is a long video (~30minutes) but it has a message that any debater should seriously take to heart.

You are single-handedly undermining your very ability to ever convincingly win an argument within these forums. Don't be your own worst enemy, there is a better way to communicate your message but it starts with being credible and ends with being agreeable.

Making up absurd and laughable claims hardly accomplishes anything, so why bother?

 

[AtenRa]

Gone with the wind!

thx 😉

 

[ninaholic37]

For realz? You have descended to the depths of denial and making excuses for AMD so far now that you have reached the point where you simply make up complete and utter BS? To what end? For what gain?

How can you make these sorts of outlandish unsupported claims and still expect anyone to perceive you as having credibility on other matters within the forum community?

Didn't Intel get sued 1.4 billion dollars for trying to shut out AMD before? It says here the EU found Intel guilty of the crime:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/12/intel-loses-eu-antitrust-appeal/

 

[AtenRa]

For those that dont understand what Intel have done in the Tablet space,

OEM/ODMs could buy BayTrail-T for $4, yeap four Bucks. That is what the Contra-Revenue was all about.

BUT,

Intel would offer a rebate of up to $3 (perhaps more) if you would reach a target. For example (numbers are fictional) OEM/ODMs would get a rebate of $3 if they would buy 100.000 BayTrails-T.

That is very well illustrated in Intels Financial reports.
From Q4 2014 the Intel Mobile and Communications Group (MCG) reported a Net Revenue of -6Millions

For those that dont know, Net Revenue is the Revenue after any discounts/returns/rebates. That is if your total sales (revenue) is $1000 but your discounts/rebates are -$1006 your Net Revenue = 1000-1006 = -$6

And although Contra-Revenue was created in order for BayTrail-T to be price-competitive against ARM products (Android), it also had a huge impact in Windows Tablets as well. None in the industry would buy a $10-15-20 AMD APU for Windows tablets when BayTrail-T was sold at $1.

 

[Abwx]

For realz? You have descended to the depths of denial and making excuses for AMD so far now that you have reached the point where you simply make up complete and utter BS? To what end? For what gain?

How can you make these sorts of outlandish unsupported claims and still expect anyone to perceive you as having credibility on other matters within the forum community?

Highly recommend kicking back and taking in the message provided by Dr. Phil Plait.

Yes it is a long video (~30minutes) but it has a message that any debater should seriously take to heart.

You are single-handedly undermining your very ability to ever convincingly win an argument within these forums. Don't be your own worst enemy, there is a better way to communicate your message but it starts with being credible and ends with being agreeable.

Making up absurd and laughable claims hardly accomplishes anything, so why bother?

There s not a single valuable argument in this post, that s all rant and ad hominem, what about debating about the numbers instead.?.

If i manufacture 46 millions chips at an unitary cost of 30$ then giving them for free would result in 46 x 30 = 1380 millions$ losses, within thoses 30 $ there is every single cost that is accounted, so if it cost me 90$/chip instead this induce that i gave the chip + 60$.

How do you explain otherwise the 4.2bn losses in this business.?.