POST A COMMENT

41 Comments

Back to Article

  • iwod - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Intel's problem past the current generation isn't with tech. But Pricing. How are these Merrifield priced? Like I have said the high end market are dominated by Apple SoC, Samsung's SoC as well as Qualcomm. Which leaves very little space for other OEM racing to the bottom.

    "3G XMM 6260 was widely used by many OEMs as it was an incredibly reliable, and cost-effective solution"
    May be i haven't been following closely, Which OEM uses it?

    XMM 7260, i seriously hope Intel put some pressure on Qualcomm, the current 4G LTE Modem are hugely expensive. On paper it is the second largest BOM cost next to Display.
    Reply
  • Dribble - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    It's not just that, it's that Intel have a history of controlling what users of their tech can do. They locked down x86 and dictated how the rest of the world could use it and what prices to pay. Now these companies have finally broke free of that with ARM they are vary wary about letting Intel get into a position again where they can pull the strings. Hence they'd all much prefer to create their own IP then rely on Intel's. Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    All intel does is brag about how good atoms are, post vague, carefully selected and manipulated benchmark slides, yet real life tablets and phones with intel chips are not only a rarity, but a far cry from high end. They don't have the performance to compete, nor the competitive pricing, I guess they might even be selling those at a loss...

    Intel had a sweet time with AMD because of its illegal uncompetitive practices that it used for years against its sole competitor, until it was all exposed and they were forced to "play fair" but only after AMD was completely crippled. ARM chips came after intel was exposed, and we see the "powerful giant" squirming and failing to compete for years now.
    Reply
  • blaktron - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    So I'm typing this from a Bay Trail tablet. And I promise you that its faster than anything but a top end iPad Air, and is not as uncommon as you think.

    Also, Asus Acer and Samsung have all been using Atoms in their android tablets and i assume that will continue since companies consider supply chain proficiency before SoC performance, and Intel dominates at vendor relations.
    Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I'd buy a bay trail tablet myself if only there was one not deliberately crippled to only 2 gigs of ram. I've tested a few bay trail products myself, and despite your promises, it is ONLY competitive to current gen arm products, and ONLY in terms of CPU performance, whereas GPU performance is more like on par with low end arm chips. And arm chips are scheduled for a big performance bump this year, which will widen the gap between arm and atoms even further.

    I know you must be an "intel lover" but that should not diminish your capacity to admit they were way too slow to adapt to the changing market and are still struggling to compete 5 years after the boom of mobile platforms.
    Reply
  • Ikefu - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I actually tend to the AMD camp but I'm writing this from a Dell Venue 11 Pro with Bay Trail. I have Visual Studio, AutoCAD, 123D, Eagle CAD, and Torchlight 2 all installed and running great. I agree that 4Gb of RAM would be nice but with everything running smoothly and with 12+ hours of battery (keyboard dock) its just luxury at this point. Bay Trail is an amazing step forward but perception lags reality so it will take a while for people to come around to it. Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I need more ram for productivity too. 2 gigs is not enough, for example, 2 gigs with VS you will only be able to compile very small projects.

    I went the longer way - got a note 10.1 with 3gigs of ram, built GCC for ARM HOST and DEVICE myself as well as all needed libraries, and I can assure you, note 10.1 with 3 gigs of ram beats bay trail with 2 gigs of ram BIG TIME. Not only is compilation time significantly better, but I am able to compile projects which fail to compile even with 4 gigs under windows with VS, much less with 2 gigs.

    It is a shame and an industrial crime really, with RAM being so dirt cheap...
    Reply
  • Kornfeld - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    The reason these devices are only shipping with 2GB RAM is because of lack of OS support. There have been allegations that, in order for Microsoft to keep its shipping date for Windows 8.1, they had to drop adding x64 support for Atom. It seems like that is going to get addressed in March. Expect to see a Dell Venue Pro with Atom and 4GB shipping. Lenovo and HP haven't released their enterprise Bay Trail devices at all and I suspect they will be doing so once the OS roadblock is removed. Reply
  • fteoath64 - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    So you are saying MS is crippling their OS but limited the RAM it can address on purpose ?. Where is the data stating this ?. As far as Android and Linux goes, it use the full amount the ram unless the efi/bios equivalent limits it by partitioning for gpu Vram portion. So there is no restrictions on Linux as to the Ram support on 32-bit version. So 3GB can still be addressed including the video frame buffer. Anything over 4 GB is for 64bit territory unless the chip support PAE and uses that in the OS to allow for larger than 4GB slices per core or per process. Reply
  • Kornfeld - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    I don't think it would be appropriate to refer to this as crippling an OS. The content was not ready. If the content were ready for launch and Microsoft had disabled it, I think it would be fair to refer to that as 'crippling'. There have been a number of articles written about this and I'm definitely not going to go looking for the choice examples now, but here is one that mentioned this long ago: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048599/windows-81-... Beyond that, I have more specifics but I'm definitely getting to close to NDA territory for me to get specific. Reply
  • Hrel - Thursday, February 27, 2014 - link

    Agreed. I think by 2020 Intel will command a significant slice of the mobile market. That's an absolute latest guess. Seems to me 2015 will be the deciding fiscal year. Reply
  • name99 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Competitive in tablet seems to be much easier than competitive in phone.

    What's your model her for how this plays out? Intel (EVENTUALLY) gets competitive in phones? Or users and vendors, after a period of experimentation, are happy using/supporting ARM phones and Atom tablets, and they all play happily together with Dalvik/ART hiding the differences? That works for users, not so much for vendors or developers.

    Meanwhile pricing remains a problem...

    I have to wonder if the tablet phenomenon is basically a consequence of ARM (and its partners) screwing up the 64-bit transition (along with everything that implies for a more efficient ISA and a designed from the ground-up supporting µArch). As is admitted, Apple (with silicon 6 months old) is competitive with this unreleased product. Will the entire ARM high-end ecosystem be in the same position as Apple in a year once this temporary hiccup/stupidity of overlooking 64-bit is over?
    Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Intel has spoiled itself, its anticompetitive practices made it a monopoly with no real competition, expecting fat profit margins. The model of 3 and 4 digit chips and expectations of ridiculous profit margins cannot compete with the business model of ARM chips. Which is why I expect intel is currently selling those at a loss, just for the sake of grabbing some market. Reply
  • fteoath64 - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    Well said!. At least in this iteration, the Atom comes with a more serious gpu from the Rogue and pricing is certainly crucial for them to get to market. One look at the benches, one can spot the discrepancy so it is pure junk unless third-party tested on shipped products. SoC customers are very choosy so lots of Intel's PR bs cannot really do Intel much good. Unlike the x86 market, Intel has no cloud in the mobile space so it would have to play like a new-kid-on-the-block. Hmmm, this "new" kid looks like an old teenager now ..... Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    Well, tehnically laptops are mobiles too, and intel is doing pretty well there, at least so far. What intel fails at is producing ultra mobile platforms at competitive prices.

    I expect that the new wave of higher TDP ARM chips will steal sizable chunk of intel's laptop share the moment software for ARM platforms catches up.
    Reply
  • hamoboy - Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - link

    "I expect that the new wave of higher TDP ARM chips will steal sizable chunk of intel's laptop share the moment software for ARM platforms catches up."

    That is never going to happen. x86 on the desktop has such a library of legacy software, that ARM on the desktop will never catch up. Windows will always be an x86 thing, Windows RT proved that, and Apple knows full well that the popularity of it's macbooks stems in part from it's ability to dual boot Windows. Moving OS X away from x86 to ARM will cause some significant portion of macbook buyers to look elsewhere.
    Reply
  • Mondozai - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    2012: Everyone said "INTEL WILL CRUSH ALL".

    2013: It didn't happen.

    2014: Now Intel are hopelessly behind!

    Hopefully by next year The Hive Mind can have more realistic expectations from Intel. Their node advantage didn't translate into domination. And Broadwell's been delayed twice anyway.

    Nevertheless, their efforts on the integrated GPUs and LTE technology is starting to yield benefits. China for the first quarter ever last quarter saw a decline in the absolute number of smartphones shipped. It is reaching saturation. Many other developing countries have not yet reached that point but by and large, we seem to be moving into the "good enough" era.

    That's why Galaxy S4 sold so badly.

    And it is here that Intel will have a strong advantage going forward, as they will be able to compete in this segment with strong performers. As someone already said, Bay Trail performs really fast in tablets that does not cost much at all.

    Intel won't dominate the landscape like they did in desktops, but we're finally reaching the point where the market dyanmic and Intel's own internal evolution are joining paths.
    Reply
  • tahyk - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    ""3G XMM 6260 was widely used by many OEMs as it was an incredibly reliable, and cost-effective solution"
    May be i haven't been following closely, Which OEM uses it?"
    Iphone3/4, SG2/3, just to mention a few. It was an Infeneon heritage.
    Reply
  • Krysto - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    Intel is actually losing money with Atom because they are subsidizing a lot of the Atom price.

    http://pocketnow.com/2014/02/06/intel-soc-subsidie...

    If they actually "won" the mobile race, I'd bet you the prices would go double of their competitors as soon as they'd do that. So don't have any sympathies for Intel. They'll screw us over as soon as they can.
    Reply
  • krumme - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Does anyone read these Intel commercials anymore? Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Intel talks.... nuff said :D

    Continuing the momentum? Of being unable to compete I guess LOL
    Reply
  • Jon Tseng - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    >Despite being aimed at the performance and mainstream segments, Intel expects it to be
    >performance competitive with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 and Apple's A7.

    >Intel shared a bit of Merrifield performance data, although we weren't able to run any ourselves.
    >Intel's data puts the dual-core Merrifield CPU performance ahead of Apple's 1.3GHz A7 by 16% >in WebXPRT. Given how close the Bay Trail/A7 performance race was, Intel's numbers sound
    >believable here.

    I'm curious - Bay Trail was a bit ahead of S800 and a bit behind A7 with four cores. Why should it be comparable to S800 and A7 with two cores and a more thermally constrained form factor? Doesn't make sense to me...
    Reply
  • ArthurG - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    +1
    intel is barely catching up... with last year SoCs !
    their GPU will be at best average when it will available in devices. K1 and S805 will destroy it.
    Reply
  • A5 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Blasting Intel for being behind the curve and then talking up an Nvidia ARM design is pretty hilarious. Reply
  • ddriver - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Not as much as the completely unsubstantiated fanboy comment of someone named after an apple chip LOL Reply
  • lefty2 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Looks like it'll be greatly successfull .... as long as the "contra revenue" is high enough :-D Reply
  • lefty2 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    So Merrifield only works with the XMM 7160? That means there is no WCDMA, nor TD-SCDMA. That effectively rules it out of American and Chinese markets. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    The 4th slide says Merrifield will work with the 6360, 7160, and 7260 basebands. The second slide lists WCDMA and TD-SCDMA as being supported on the 7260. Reply
  • lefty2 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I don't see that. The image in the article shows Merrifield only supporting the 7160: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7789/Screen%20Sho... Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Inconsistent slides for the fail. I was looking at this one which implied that both chips would support all 3 basebands.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7789/Screen%20Sho...
    Reply
  • Assimilator87 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    My dream phone is based on an x86 processor and runs a full version of Windows 8. Then I can free myself from the shackles of inferior mobile OSes and make no compromises. I'd prefer AMD's Mullins, but Merrifield will do for now. Reply
  • mindingthegap - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    An OQO for 2014 would be interesting (with either AMD or Intel and a 20% larger screen size). Then sell a 'Padfone' like dock with tablet and keyboard accessories, so the same device can be a tablet a notebook and a desktop. Reply
  • ruzveh - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I am failing to understand one thing that why a chip has to support codecs like x265.. Why cant it be like our desktop PC where we can fire anything we want.. even future technologies.. Reply
  • Trader200 - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Assimilator is correct, Win 8 and possibly MacOS will come to this chip. Unfortunately for Intel the cost will be a low power Core chip instead of an ARM chip in a phone or Tablet. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    Dedicated hardware decode is orders of magnitude more power efficient. While it doesn't matter (much) if your desktop CPU is at 5% power or 90% power while playing a video; if your phone CPU is at 90% power instead of only 5% during a cattube session your battery life is going drop faster than a kitty chasing a laser pointer off the table and onto the floor. Reply
  • Jeffrey Bosboom - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    The fine print on those slides: "Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors." I know Intel's compilers/math libraries do this on desktop/server platforms (only dispatch to optimized routines if the CPUID vendor is "GenuineIntel"), but I hadn't heard of this being done on mobile. Reply
  • Krysto - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    > Intel continues to follow the industry's terrible lead and quotes max turbo frequencies rather than base clocks in its marketing materials.

    How can you say that, Anand? What other company advertises a whole 1 Ghz or so on top of their base clock speed, other than Intel? Are you saying Snapdragon 800's real speed is more like 1-1.5 Ghz, too?

    You know that's not true. Intel is far more deceiving than the rest. They are in their own class of misinformation. So don't put them together with the rest.
    Reply
  • fteoath64 - Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - link

    "You know that's not true. Intel is far more deceiving than the rest.". I agree!. But let us just contrast the 2 sides to see where this deception lies to really get the picture correct.
    Intel's claim of clock speed is Turbo Max. eg Normally at 1.6Ghz but can turbo to 2Ghz for short periods due to TDP restrictions on cooling. ie heat issues.
    Arm vendors do not do Turbo Core. Their claim is like QC 2.25Ghz (in S800 case) is max clock and cannot be pushed further by the OS but it will downclock all the way to 200Mhz idle and potentially 0Mhz at sleep node.
    The difference here is ARM chips CAN sustain their max clock while Intel chip, the turbo core will DOWNclock due to heat issues after some time. So for a 2Ghz Intel chip you cannot get a sustained 2Ghz even of you wanted to. So you are short-changed in your purchase.
    Reply
  • Honest Accounting - Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - link

    Clearly this part is intended for the Moto X. It's the reason they launched their flagship with the S4 part last year (and took all the associated lumps: "last years specs", "only dual core", etc) and introduced the X8 architecture. It was in preparation for the Z34x0. 2x CPU cores, 4 x GPU cores (clusters), NLP, and contextual cores is still valid if you swap in the Intel part. Hardware H.265 isn't an issue either since there's a Omicron co-processor (maybe it sholud be the X9 architecture?) in the design already that will drive 4K. Assuming they can apply the same aggressive clocking configuration, they will have the fastest Android phone this year. It might even outrun the new A8 from Apple.
    You have have to remember the deal Motorola signed a few years back with Intel - it's just that Intel were behind with delivering this part (due to the LTE modem) in time for the Moto X launch last year.
    Reply
  • Honest Accounting - Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - link

    edit: omnivision Reply
  • Fidelator - Thursday, April 24, 2014 - link

    The main problem here would be that GPU, it's already behind Qualcomm and by the time this hits the market so will the S805, widening the gap even more, considering the K1 is coming out later this year too, you'll be outdated in no time, Intel needs to step its GPU game up if they plan on actually being inside a decent device. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now