POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

Back to Article

  • alkarl - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    could moblin run epsxe on such devices ?? Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    When I look at this huge LG phone thingy, I feel set back to the 90s with its phone monstrosities.

    Looks like x86 is still far away from being ready to power really small devices. I wouldnt be surprised if we're looking at 4-5hrs standby here. :P

    Next please.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    Pessimist:

    http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/01/mo...">http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news...artphone...

    "LG says that the product has a 1850mAh battery and can endure five hours of 3G browsing on a single charge."

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357918,00.as...">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357918,00.as...

    "The GW990 gets about 4 hours of talk time and 300 hours of standby on its 1850 mAh battery."

    5 hour 3G Browsing Time
    300 hour standby

    The Aava concept is much smaller.
    Reply
  • nofumble62 - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Direct competition to my iPhone hah?? go take a hike. Reply
  • pcfxer - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    How was the Starbucks? Or was that not yours? Reply
  • velanapontinha - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    This is totally off topic, but I had to let you know: the OCZ DDR3 ad in the homepage is very flashy at spreading ignorance: "lifetime warranty for piece of mind" PIECE of mind??? Reply
  • MadMan007 - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    The LG Smartphone actually made me 'lol.' It's like a funhouse mirror version of an iPhone...sooo goofy looking! Reply
  • Roland00 - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    I am curious of the aspect ratio for that display Reply
  • Manabu - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    I wonder the battery life of those devices. Especially the last phone. This should be really a jump in power efficiency for Intel. I'm surprised.

    BUT, those tablets wont be able to run Windows 7, right?
    Reply
  • jigglywiggly - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    I really can't wait for this, Intel's perf on these cpus will kill everything arm has to offer. Reply
  • WilcoD - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Actually an in-order Atom is slower per MHz than the out-of-order Cortex-A9 and uses far more power as well. A dual core Cortex-A9 can run at 2GHz and still use less power than a single 1.6GHz Atom, so an ARM CPU kills Atom by a big margin on both performance and battery life.

    It doesn't look like this will change any time soon. And given none of these devices run Windows, why use x86 at all?
    Reply
  • Fox5 - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    From the few benchmarks I've seen, general purpose compute power of Atom is about equal per mhz to that of an A8. It will probably be inferior to the A9.
    However, Atom has monster FP performance with SSE that is well beyond that of the A8 or A9 per mhz (but probably hobbled by x86's limited register set, Intel refusing to allow atom to run in 64 bit and get 8 more registers, and the lack of software optimized specifically for Atom). But I can't think of much else devices like these would use powerful FP performance other than video and 3d graphics, and the higher end mobile graphics parts look like they could beat intel's igps in power and efficiency.
    Reply
  • WilcoD - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    Atom has a higher peak SP Flops/cycle of 6 vs 4 for Cortex-A8 and A9, for DP it is 1.5 Flops/cycle for both Atom and A9 (Atom's non-pipelined DP SSE is much slower). However the out-of-order A9 will be much better at sustaining its peak. So calling Atom having "monster FP performance" is a bit optimistic... Reply
  • vol7ron - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    As I said in my other article, I'd like to see in-depth analysis on these phone/pdas. The time has come where these are more useful than ever.

    I hope to have (4) different PC devices:
    1) Pocket-sized (phone)
    2) Tablet-sized (control home system; eg lights, audio, surveilance, wifi devices)
    3) Laptop (high-power computing on the go; mainly for mobile work/light gaming)
    4) Desktop PC (high-power computing for business and gaming use)


    What do you think?
    Reply
  • hyc - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Your (1) and (2) should just be a phone that slots into a cradle for tablet use. Put an HDMI jack on the phone, and put a larger battery and screen in the tablet/cradle. Mate the two via USB+HDMI connectors. No need for a separate standalone device here; that just makes data management/synchronization more tedious.
    Reply
  • InternetGeek - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    I'm actually looking to get a 3G enabled tablet that can take/make phone calls. On the laptop side a good desktop replacement can do heavy gaming along all your other tasks. Reply
  • vol7ron - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    But laptop is still not as powerful as a desktop. Besides, I don't want to have to plug my laptop in whenever I want to hook up to all my monitors and nice keyboard and gaming mouse. Besides, I use my home desktop as a mini-server. There's no static IP, but I don't care about it's uptime. In the ease of comfort, I'd like a computer bundle for ~$4K that bundles all 4 devices, that's taking into consideration a bundling discount. Reply
  • jimhsu - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    No, it's not power. Laptops with core i7 and dual 280M SLI are quite powerful for basically any task that you might be interested in aside from high end multi monitor apps. The real problem is that finding good performance and good battery life is almost impossible. Asus got a lot of things right with the UL80vt, but as a desktop replacement/semi-replacement it simply isn't powerful enough. On the other side, something like the G51J is an excellent desktop replacement candidate, but has really pathetic battery life.

    The real problem is that I think manufacturers just aren't interested enough to make innovative solutions - testing high-end processors for undervolting potential, implementing switchable/hybrid graphics solutions, optimizing heat flow through the laptop, etc. And we're probably simply not there with the tech yet to make things like processors that can run from 0.2-1.5V.
    Reply
  • ErikO - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    As of 9th Dec 2010, there IS a laptop with both i7 AND Sli?

    Not sure that exists - been looking to buy one all week.
    Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    But that's still not as powerful as a desktop. You can't overclock that i7 and GTX280M is just a G92 and far behind a 5870 in performance. A powerful desktop + netbook/tablet should be better for most people, both for mobility and performance. Reply
  • vol7ron - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Agreed. But I also believe the future of computing (games and applications) may be cloud-driven. Therefore, gpu, cpu, and RAM are no longer needed to purchase. You plug in your HD (if you want to) and you use an internet computer for processing/playing. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    I'd say we are a long way away from connection speeds being able to handle that. If gamers are already picky over the latency of wired vs wireless mice, imagine if frame rendering was being done somewhere else. Reply
  • vol7ron - Saturday, January 09, 2010 - link

    There are ways around that and a lot of untapped technology out there (lots of theoretical). It'll be a long while before that's possible, but if so, response times might be negligible.

    There are many reasons why you wouldn't have just an internet computer, though. The most important one being power failures, etc. Though the day will come when you can have 1TB on your keychain and be able to plug into a socket at the mall, or starbucks and do whatever you like. Maybe it could even be done wirelessly (if that technology improves).

    The ideas are endless.
    Reply
  • vol7ron - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    "Besides"x2 -- ewww. So much for proof reading. Reply
  • quiksilvr - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    But now it seems that there are literally over a dozen alternatives, which is a good thing.

    These past three years have been "iPhone" this and "iPhone" that. Maybe this will be the year when we will hear "iPhone what?" amongst these really superior competitors.
    Reply
  • vol7ron - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    I have an iPhone and I have to say, if it wasn't jailbroken, I probably would have turned my phone in after I bought it.

    I don't use the jailbreak to install apps illegally, instead I use it to gain control of features that Apple should have gotten off their ass to introduce (eg, multi-tasking, text messaging from w/in an app, password protecting certain apps, app organization, custom backgrounds/icons, the ability to turn off background processes, controlling sound on/off from an app). There are so many useful things that just make the iPhone inept.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    Still don't understand that Apple is about the "experience", not the features? Reply
  • CloudX - Sunday, January 17, 2010 - link

    iphone owners should have full control..... bottom line Reply
  • taltamir - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    the experience being the lack of features Reply
  • pcfxer - Friday, January 08, 2010 - link

    ...I dunno? I can see why they want to have control over certain aspects of the iPhone but I don't quite think that we have all of the information here.

    I like it when companies just come out and say what is up. "We f#$$@ up!" or "The idiots at AT&T, Verizon, Rogers, etc. won't let us give users the freedom because their management is afraid of 'security' issues."

    I'm thinking a bit of both on this part.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, January 07, 2010 - link

    The engineers worked a lot to improving Moorestown, not just the CPU, but the platform overall. This is nothing like Pine Trail.

    Intel 45nm SoC process, platform level power gating, integration of many chips that were previously on motherboard in one single chip.

    Can't wait to see more details!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now