The Intel Atom Thread

[cbn]

Goldmont cores are coming from Intel and these are very small surely. Although Intel need a big improvement for their Atom CPU cores, at least 50% I think. This CPU stagnation after 1,5 years is very poor. Because of the big GPU increase this is also very bad for games, they seem to run into a CPU limit often. Not only for newer games. Old games don't need a fast GPU but they need a decent Singlecore performance. This is a bigger problem for Cherry Trail now.

Yes, I think the iGPU size is unbalanced compared to the CPU.

 

[cbn]

On future Rockchip/Intel collaboration x86 chips, I am expecting the iGPU size to be smaller.

With that mentioned, I have to wonder what other features Rockchip would reduce in order to drive die size down?

 

[Shivansps]

On BT the IGP was the bottleneck, on CT the CPU is, so increasing memory BD whiout increasing CPU perf is crazy, unless... well DX12 can move mountains, but i whould not bet any money on that.

 

[dark zero]

On BT the IGP was the bottleneck, on CT the CPU is, so increasing memory BD whiout increasing CPU perf is crazy, unless... well DX12 can move mountains, but i whould not bet any money on that.

Even DX12 is not that miraculous that many thinks... to make it worse, that kind of architecture is not helping that much.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Goldmont cores are coming from Intel and these are very small surely. Although Intel need a big improvement for their Atom CPU cores, at least 50% I think. This CPU stagnation after 1,5 years is very poor. Because of the big GPU increase this is also very bad for games, they seem to run into a CPU limit often. Not only for newer games. Old games don't need a fast GPU but they need a decent Singlecore performance. This is a bigger problem for Cherry Trail now.

If they can dial up the frequency from ~2.4GHz max to ~3GHz max and deliver a ~25% perf/clock improvement, then they'll be able to get to meet/exceed that 50% performance improvement goal.

Problem is, this seems a bit unrealistic especially since Intel seems to have missed their initial Airmont frequency targets by 300MHz.

 

[dark zero]

If Goldmont follows AMD Cat arch and makes their own version, it could be a great advancement since they could finally find a way to make the Atom somewhat competent.

 

[cbn]

According to this article, Cherry Trail has a die size of 87nm:

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...rporation-cherry-trail-die-size-revealed.aspx

That is actually bigger than the processor die of Core M.

Makes me wonder how many of these chips will make it into low cost devices?

 

[lalla521]

Makes me wonder how many of these chips will make it into low cost devices?

it makes me wonder how many will make into devices at all.

it's basically july (so h2 2015) and the only product on the market is the surface 3, with just a few more on the horizon.

in the meantime, oems are still launching bay trail stuff...

 

[witeken]

All these companies are investing in super dense SoCs, and I have the idea Intel isn't, although it's beneficial for costs.

http://anandtech.com/show/9330/exynos-7420-deep-dive

 

[cbn]

it makes me wonder how many will make into devices at all.

it's basically july (so h2 2015) and the only product on the market is the surface 3, with just a few more on the horizon.

in the meantime, oems are still launching bay trail stuff...

Another 14nm quad core atom would be Moorefield.

I wonder what that die size looks like and how well it would work for the lowest cost devices?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Another 14nm quad core atom would be Moorefield.

I wonder what that die size looks like and how well it would work for the lowest cost devices?

Wasn't that designed for Phones?

 

[cbn]

Wasn't that designed for Phones?

Yes. Though I am hoping it ends up affordable because the cellular is discrete.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7789/intel-talks-merrifield-moorefield-and-lte-at-mwc-2014

As far as CPU performance goes, the clocks listed on Intel Ark look good (except for Z3530):

http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/71167/Moorefield

 

[IntelUser2000]

Another 14nm quad core atom would be Moorefield.

I wonder what that die size looks like and how well it would work for the lowest cost devices?

Moorefield is a Silvermont strapped with PowerVR graphics core and mobile IP. It's not 14nm.

 

[cbn]

Does that have an integrated 3G modem?

Nope... But why would you want it, if you are trying to build a cheap tablet?

Also, I have to wonder if someone is paying for an extra data plan, do they want to use something as slow as SoFIA?

 

[dark zero]

Sadly, SoFIA seems to end DOA despite the inhumane ammount of money invested.
X86 architecture has their limits.

 

[krumme]

I think the 3 Atom i have had in the house illustrates the historic problem with the Atom concept and the consequenses:

45nm Pinetrail single core - N450 - in Samsung 10 inch notebook
Killed en entire market and fuelled the mobile tablet revolution ! - Way to go - what stupid short term thinking and shareholder greed can do !

Do you remember all the 10" comming to market and how they dissapeared shortly thereafter?
While pinetrail was a 50% step forward in batterylife compared to predecessor, it it responsible for killing an entire future market imo.
The performance was so slow it even overshadowed the pathetic 1024*600 screens and cramped keyboard. It had to be tried to beliewed it was possible to be this slow.
Compared to eg. the AMD bobcat 350 system in an 11.6", fullsize keyboard and 1368 res screen there is absolutely no comparison. They are worlds apart in experience even for grannys.
Had Intel made the processor 50% faster and used dual cores, used a decent 11.6 screen and fullsize keyboard, the product would have triggered a huge future market and made the tablet progress far less even today. Ultrabooks is no substitute.

How sad that story is.

32nm Clowertrail+ in Samsung tab3 tablet
Showed OEM and especially consumers Intel cpu in tablets was slow. Intel was forward on doomed to be dirt cheap.

Good enough performance in real world situations. Clearly very much faster than dual core A9. But had some erradic bugs that made programs starts very slowly giving users bad impression. A classic unnessesary error Intel shouldnt do.

22nm Baytrail - in Qnap NAS
Showed Intel can not make money even in optimal market situations

Well this is actually an absolutely brilliant performing product for its TDP. Stunning performance, virtual server capabilities, extreme low idle consumption and solid like 1.6Ghz Core2 duo performance in a NAS. Whats not to like. Well this NAS was dirt cheap - competing against A15 cores soon to be A72. That is imo not an interesting business for Intel, and it doesnt suit their class and competence level - and cost structure - so to speak.

 

[lalla521]

atom always sucked on peformance because it's an architecture focused on cost/die size.

intel brought it out after the olpc/netbook boom, then decided to use it for tablets/smartphones.

so basically it was and is never meant to be good on performance, unfortunately

also, atom is still nowhere near core2 performance

 

[cbn]

Sadly, SoFIA seems to end DOA despite the inhumane ammount of money invested.
X86 architecture has their limits.

Hopefully the quad core SoFIA ( rated up to 1.4 Ghz compared to 1.0 Ghz for the dual core) does better:

P.S. Notice 1.2 Ghz x3-C3230RK has greater potential memory bandwidth (with display up to 1080p supported @ 60 FPS, whereas the 1.4 Ghz x3-C3440 only lists 1080p > 30 FPS

(Crossing fingers we get these on Windows 10 Phone. I am curious to find out how well these chips scroll various web pages particularly when docked to 1080p display) (The dual core and Rockchip SoFIA are not supported in Windows 10)

 

[cbn]

One the Rockchip SoFIA, it is too bad Intel is downclocking that chip to 1.2 Ghz. (especially when it uses the same 28nm process tech).

 

[krumme]

atom always sucked on peformance because it's an architecture focused on cost/die size.

intel brought it out after the olpc/netbook boom, then decided to use it for tablets/smartphones.

so basically it was and is never meant to be good on performance, unfortunately

also, atom is still nowhere near core2 performance

An bt 2.4ghz is just as fast as core2 at 1.6ghz. Slightly faster integer but slower fpu but for office use it is perciewed the same or slightly faster. Go look eg cb 10/11.5 scores eg at anand bench.

Core2duo at 45nm was aprox 80mm2 sans gpu btw. A sleak fine core.

 

[lalla521]

An bt 2.4ghz is just as fast as core2 at 1.6ghz. Slightly faster integer but slower fpu but for office use it is perciewed the same or slightly faster. Go look eg cb 10/11.5 scores eg at anand bench.

Core2duo at 45nm was aprox 80mm2 sans gpu btw. A sleak fine core.

maybe, but you're giving the atom an 800 mhz advantage by comparing 2 specific models, the lowest end core2 and the highest end atom

architecturally speaking, core 2 is leaps and bounds faster than atom

 

[dark zero]

atom always sucked on peformance because it's an architecture focused on cost/die size.

intel brought it out after the olpc/netbook boom, then decided to use it for tablets/smartphones.

so basically it was and is never meant to be good on performance, unfortunately

also, atom is still nowhere near core2 performance

Near Core 2? really?
Braswell is a true dissaster from Intel! (and Atom was a dissaster before Bay Trail)
Even Cat and Mullins are doing great... even VIA can return from the dead with that movement.
The CPU power is so bad that even ARM has a chance here.

Intel Braswell is the Bulldozer of Intel.

 

[cbn]

Here is a SoFIA phone rumored back in Feburary to have both Windows 10 and Android 5.0:

http://www.gizmochina.com/2015/02/06/wei-yan-sofia-first-android-5-0-win-10-dual-boot-phone/

Weibo is a constant source of new leaks and information about upcoming smartphones. Today, we have got some images from this social networking website, which could be of a Windows Phone 10 powered smartphone. The leak reveals a very thin design profile, unlike traditional lumia devices.

According to the image, the phone runs on Windows 10 OS and will be called as the Wei Yan Sofia (Here, Wei Yan is the manufacturer).

The phone in the pictures has a very typical rectangular design, but its thin profile makes it look attractive. Further, the image reveals thin bezels and three capacitive buttons at the bottom. There is a large camera sensor at the back around the middle portion along with LED flash. There back looks slightly curved, or it could be just the image that’s giving that effect. There’s also a speaker grill at the lower portion.

Coming to the specs, the same source reveals that the Sofia smartphone will run on Intel’s low cost Sofia chipset, The name Sofia stands for “Smart or Feature phone with Intel Architecture” and is aimed at the budget market to compete with chipmakers like Mediatek and Qualcomm. It is said that the phone will sport a 5 or inch 1080p display, with 3G and 4G connectivity. There will be 2GB RAM onboard with 32GB storage and 13MP+5MP cameras. It is said that the phone will run on the new Windows Phone 10 OS along with Android 5.0. Yes, the source said that the phone will be dual boot, which frankly makes the overall device too good to be true. So, we would advise you to take this news with a pinch of salt, until any official confirmation.

 

[podspi]

maybe, but you're giving the atom an 800 mhz advantage by comparing 2 specific models, the lowest end core2 and the highest end atom

architecturally speaking, core 2 is leaps and bounds faster than atom

Not the lowest end, I had a 1.5ghz mobile chip

Also, perf/watt is important in this context, and C2D at 1.5ghz is slow by today's standards, but serviceable for basic tasks... still have and use that laptop...

 

[ninaholic37]

Near Core 2? really?
Braswell is a true dissaster from Intel! (and Atom was a dissaster before Bay Trail)
Even Cat and Mullins are doing great... even VIA can return from the dead with that movement.
The CPU power is so bad that even ARM has a chance here.

Intel Braswell is the Bulldozer of Intel.

I don't think people really had high performance expectations for Braswell? Unless it's worse than Bay Trail, I don't really see the issue. It's just a die shrink right? It was made to be cheaper for Intel, and to differentiate Core M probably - heh.