qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2011-12-27 22:36 發表
根据新加坡VR-Zone从Intel内部得到的消息，Intel此前对移动业务进行了整合，新部门由Mike Bell和Hermann Eul领导。在合并后不久的一次会议上，Intel透露了采用32nm Medfield Atom处理器平板电脑的部分性能参数。

距离32nm ...

3.6W太高了

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2011-12-28 11:33 發表 [url=http://discuz.servehttp.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=787376&ptid=47691][/
Just the beginning.

In fact this is a disappointment

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-28 18:50 發表 [url=http://discuz.servehttp.com/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=787843&ptid=47691][/url

W/performance which one is better?

3.6w@tablet ~ 65w@notebook
does performance matter?

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-28 20:16 發表

I mean compared to the ARM counterparts.

if you can only use it for 2-3 hours,
it does not matter whether it has i7 performance

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-28 20:31 發表

I don't bother if it matches i7's performance, just curious why did you say disappointed.
If W/perf is similar to ARM, just clock the freq down will do.

Moreover, we are now waiting the predecessor  ...

Totally bullshit
Clock i7 to 200MHz, can it match ARM with power consumption?

I have told you many times, if you can scale it to that low, why would Intel / AMD bother making Bonnell / Bobcat?

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-28 20:48 發表

Is Medfield a i7?

decrease 50% freq > decrease 20% power consumption

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-28 20:58 發表

Do those I/O take up so much power?

you don't know this?

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2011-12-28 22:53 發表

3.6W for the whole tablet actually allows it to run for 7 hours considering the same battery as iPad2, while no idea if this 3.6W is just the CPU's consumption.

For Galaxy 8.9", 3.6W = < 2hr

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2011-12-28 22:58 發表

I understand, I don't know why but iPad 2's battery is ridiculously large in volume.
Anyway, if there is 1 tablet in the market utilizing such battery, Intel can just do the same so this won't be a p ...

~10W-h is more plausible with low price...

<2.5W load power is not bad, suggesting Intel's target is good, but they cannot achieve it.

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 ccw 於 2011-12-29 01:04 發表
Actually what I worry the most is its multimedia ability.......Intel...

Power consumption is more severe

Another point is Intel do not want to start a price war

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-29 11:20 發表

Where is AMD?

Better than AMD = Better than competition ?

If Intel think like this, they will never win

qcmadness

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+M ... er/article23611.htm

引用:

Medfield: Battery-Guzzler Edition

Now the bad news: the power budget is quite high.  The platform reportedly has a 2.6W TDP at idle and a maximum power consumption of 3.6W when playing 720P Flash video.  By launch the maximum power is intended to drop to 2.6W, while the idle is also likely to drop a fair bit.

Still, these numbers are pretty horrible if Intel hopes to squeeze Medfield on a smartphone.  Some quick "napkin math":

    An average smartphone battery is around 1600 mAh
    The output voltage is typically 3.7 V
    The total battery power is thus 5.92 Wh
    Thus the platform would last a bit over two hours at idle in a smartphone before dying

In other words there's no way Intel can hope to launch this chip in a smartphone.

It's disappointing to see Intel is still trailing so badly in power.  For example, a loaded Tegra 2 reportedly draws around 1 W, meaning that it could sip the aforementioned battery for around 6 hours before kicking the bucket.  Intel's chip is fast, but it appears to be a "battery-guzzler".

More troubling is the fact that these results come from a 32 nm part, where as NVIDIA and Qualcomm have 40 nm parts (Samsung is also at the 32 nm node).  In other words, that process advantage Intel is always talking about appears to be nonexistent here.

Intel's best hope power-wise is its 3D FinFET technology, which wil be introduced to Medfield sometime in the 2013-2014 window.  That will likely be the true test of Intel's fading hopes in the mobile space.  If Intel's 22 nm finFET transistor chip can't meet or beat ARM in power budget, it's game over.

Still want to argue in power consumption front?

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2011-12-31 02:47 發表
Who said AMD don't have anything for Tablet ?
http://www.techpowerup.com/15772 ... -AMD-Z01- APU.html

5.9W

qcmadness

引用:

原帖由 Henry 於 2011-12-30 23:36 發表

Sold to Marvell and now Marvell

in fact this is a good move
just Intel and AMD invest too little in low-power computing