Intel's Medfield & Atom Z2460 Arrive for Smartphones: It's Finally Here
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 10, 2012 8:00 PM ESTThe GPU
The PowerVR SGX 540 in Medfield is no different from what you'd get in an OMAP 4460, with the exception that it's clocked a bit higher at 400MHz.
The SGX 540 here is a remnant of Intel's earlier strategy to have Medfield out far sooner than it actually is going to show up on the market. Thankfully Intel has plans to introduce a PowerVR SGX 543MP2 based Medfield successor also before the end of the year.
Video Decode/Encode Support, Silicon Hive ISP
Intel relies on two more IP blocks from Imagination Technologies: the VDX385 and VDE285 for 1080p video decode and encode. Intel claims support for hardware accelerated 1080p30 decode, High Profile. Maximum supported bitrate is apparently up to 50Mbps, although Intel only demonstrated a 20Mbps High Profile stream:
Intel also claims support for 1080p30 video encode.
Medfield's ISP is provided by Intel owned Silicon Hive. The ISP supports cameras ranging from 5MP to 16MP (primary sensor), with the reference design standardizing on an 8MP sensor. Medfield supports burst capture at up to 15 fps (8MP).
The Process
Intel bifurcated its process technology a few years ago, offering both low power and high performance versions of each of its process nodes. Today those process nodes are staggered (45nm LP after high perf 32nm, 32nm LP debuts after high performance 22nm, etc...) however Intel plans on bringing both in lockstep.
Medfield debuts on Intel's 32nm LP process. The only details we have from Intel are that leakage is 10x lower than the lowest on 45nm. Compared to Moorestown, Medfield boasts 43% lower dynamic power or 37% higher frequency at the same power level.
The bigger and more valid comparison is to TSMC's 28nm process, which is what companies like Qualcomm will be using for their next-generation SoCs. It's unclear (and very difficult) to compare different architectures on different processes, but it's likely that Intel's 32nm LP process is more comparable to TSMC's 28nm LP process than it would be to any 4x-nm node.
It is important to note that Intel seems very willing to sacrifice transistor density in order to achieve lower power consumption where possible. I don't believe Intel will have the absolute smallest die sizes in the market, but I also don't believe it's clear what the sweet spot is for mobile SoCs at this point. It's quite likely that Apple's ~120mm^2 target is likely where everyone will eventually end up in the near term.
The Roadmap
Although Medfield is already posting competitive performance numbers, its current competition is roughly a year old. Within the next two quarters we'll see smartphones and tablets shipping based on Qualcomm's Krait. The next-generation Snapdragon platform should be Cortex A15-like in its performance level
Today we have Medfield, a single core Atom paired with a PowerVR SGX 540 built on Intel's 32nm LP process. Before the end of the year we'll see a dual-core Atom based Medfield with some form of a GPU upgrade. I wouldn't be too surprised to see something like a PowerVR SGX 543MP2 at that point either. In tandem Intel will eventually release an entry level SoC designed to go after the more value market. Finally we'll see an Intel Atom based SoC with integrated Intel baseband from its Infineon acquisition - my guess is that'll happen sometime in 2013.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
164 Comments
View All Comments
janderk - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
The numbers are still impressive, but there isn't such a thing as a stock Gingerbread browser performance.The Intel phone currently runs Android 2.3.7 in which browser performance is on par with Honeycomb/ICS. You can't compare those numbers with a S2 or Sensation running old Honeycomb versions. If you do, you are comparing Android versions more than hardware.
Google seems to have backported some browser code pieces to Gingerbread. A galaxy S2 on 2.3.6 with a stock ROM/browser scores around 90.000 in the Browsermark and around 2200 in the Spidermark. Ask Brian. He double checked and got even better numbers than I got.
Lucian Armasu - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
That's a very good point. I wouldn't put it past Intel to "hype up" their marketing a little too much. I've been watching them very closely regarding this lately, and a lot of what they are saying is simply BS.Let's wait until we actually have the product in the market before we evangelize their yet to be seen chips.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
While I like your article, you can't really conclude anything about micro archictures based on 2 micro benchmarks which have likely been highly tuned by Intel. Also note the Atom runs at 1.6GHz while the Nexus runs at 1.2GHz, so much of the performance difference is simply due to frequency.For a recent comparison between Cortex-A9 and Atom, check out these:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1201051-AR-1112...
In these 1.0 and 1.2GHz Cortex-A9 SoCs completely obliterates 1.6GHz netbook Atoms in performance on mostly single-threaded benchmarks. So in terms of micro architecture comparison, your article is dead wrong. When compared using same compiler and OS, the A9 beats Atom at a much lower frequency due to having higher IPC as a result of out-of-order execution. Note how it scores much higher on most memory benchmarks.
milli - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
Actually the Z2460 runs at 1.3Ghz but can turbo to 1.6Ghz.Something might be up with the PandaBoard ES. Phoronix also has a Tegra 2 based review and that one also scores better on some tests than the PB-ES (just like the Exynos). The problem is that the scores are not really comparable because all three (PB-ES, T2, Exynos) use different compilers and kernels. Only the PB-ES uses the same compiler (and probably parameters) as the x86 systems. So you'll need to wait for real Medfield reviews when the time comes (or for Phoronix to do a better comparison). Especially the Exynos results need to be taken with a grain of salt since they used a total of three compilers there.
It's known that Atom's single threaded performance is bad. It has HyperThreading to cover that up. Since Android's JavaScript engine is multi-threaded, Atom performs well.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
True, but you can bet Intel ensured the benchmarks were run at 1.6GHz, even if that wouldn't be feasible in a real phone due to cooling. So we have to wait for an actual phone with a standard Android version for the real comparison.There are indeed issues with the Panda board, the Ubuntu version used isn't compatible with the OMAP4460 so it isn't setup correctly. There are also compiler option issues and use of a slow flash card which reduces the scores. In terms of compilers used, GCC 4.5 or 4.6 doesn't make a major difference, so these benchmarks give a reasonable indication how Cortex-A9 would do vs Medfield.
If Android JavaScript is multithreaded, you'd expect a dual core A9 to do much better than Atom as you get a 100% speedup from the second core, not just 30% from hyperthreading. I suppose we'll see when the Intel improvements are added to the mainstream Android version.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
True, but you can bet Intel ensured the benchmarks were run at 1.6GHz, even if that wouldn't be feasible in a real phone due to cooling. So we have to wait for an actual phone with a standard Android version for the real comparison.There are indeed issues with the Panda board, the Ubuntu version used isn't compatible with the OMAP4460 so it isn't setup correctly. There are also compiler option issues and use of a slow flash card which reduces the scores. In terms of compilers used, GCC 4.5 or 4.6 doesn't make a major difference, so these benchmarks give a reasonable indication how Cortex-A9 would do vs Medfield.
If Android JavaScript is multithreaded, you'd expect a dual core A9 to do much better than Atom as you get a 100% speedup from the second core, not just 30% from hyperthreading. I suppose we'll see when the Intel improvements are added to the mainstream Android version.
BSMonitor - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
"If Android JavaScript is multithreaded, you'd expect a dual core A9 to do much better than Atom as you get a 100% speedup from the second core, not just 30% from hyperthreading. I suppose we'll see when the Intel improvements are added to the mainstream Android version. "No, you wouldn't get 100% speed bump because there are many more factors besides CPU resources that ultimately affect performance.
You are clearly a noob fanboy on a rant.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link
How much speedup you get obviously depends on lots of factors. However the fact remains that 2 cores have much more raw performance than 1 core with hyperthreading, so if JS is really multithreaded then the advantage would be to ARM, not Atom.virtual void - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link
You have to keep, at least, two things in mind here1. The efficiency on the second HT in Atom is much higher than the 20-30% you see on Sandy Bridge. On Atom, 50-60% is probably a more accurate number based on a number of test I've done myself. And this is not because Atom in anyway is better than Sandy Bridge, it is quite the opposite. The in-order design and simple executions units in Atom will cause a lot more pipeline stalls which means that the other thread will get access to all the power (or lack of power) in the CPU.
2. You are that two physical cores has more raw power than two HT on the same core. But when you run a single program on two treads and work on the same data, HT has a huge benefit in that the two program threads will communicate via the L1 cache (shared between the HT) while two threads running on different physical cores will communicate via the L2 cache. The L1 cache has a much lower latency and much higher bandwidth compared to the L2 cache.
So HT can be very efficient in accelerating things where two threads are working on the same data-set. But two physical cores is probably always better when you have two threads running different programs or at least working on a data-set that is completely thread local.
Wilco1 - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link
You're right if 2 threads belong to the same process and communicate a lot then HT has lower overheads, but the downside is that you quickly start trashing the small L1 caches. HT works better on Atom indeed, but 50-60% on average sounds a bit high, especially since Atom stalls on cachemisses.