Henry

等待22nm成品.

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 18:36 發表

In fact this is a disappointment

W/performance which one is better?

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 19:26 發表

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

I mean compared to the ARM counterparts.

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 20:16 發表

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

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 of Cedar Trail, which suppose to have a better W/perf and better battery performance.

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 20:16 發表

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

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 of Medfield, which suppose to have a better W/perf and better battery performance.

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 20:32 發表


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?

Is Medfield a i7?
Does Medfield need to lower its power consumption to its 1/5 to 1/10?

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 20:49 發表

decrease 50% freq > decrease 20% power consumption

Do those I/O take up so much power?

Henry

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-12-28 20:59 發表

you don't know this?

I know they take up power, but actual amount........

Henry

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2011-12-29 01:30 發表


3.6W TDP , 食電 又 熱
玩得3個鐘既 Atom Tablet , 收工吧啦

Where is AMD?

Henry

引用:

原帖由 dom 於 2011-12-30 03:08 發表
Sadly Intel sold Xscale

Sold to Marvell and now Marvell