Intel launches Oak Trail tablet chip in attempt to catch iPad

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 50
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,461member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I just hope it's not Poison Oak.



    If it dies badly will they rename it Treaty Oak?
  • Reply 42 of 50
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 43 of 50
    rasimorasimo Posts: 59member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


    If it dies badly will they rename it Treaty Oak?



    That's pretty cold, lol.
  • Reply 44 of 50
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    Atom is slower, more power-hungry, and more expensive to purchase and implement.



    Have you got anything that actually backs up that statement?



    I know that Atom is more expensive and doesn't have the performance/watt of ARM, however I had the impression that not only do Intel's chips totally spank anything from ARM as far as raw performace goes, ARM also has very little chance of getting to Intel's performance levels any time in the next decade.
  • Reply 45 of 50
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Have you got anything that actually backs up that statement?



    Instead of asking for data go out and do your own research. By doing so you will have a richer understanding of the trade offs between ARM and x86.

    Quote:

    I know that Atom is more expensive and doesn't have the performance/watt of ARM, however I had the impression that not only do Intel's chips totally spank anything from ARM as far as raw performace goes,



    The thing you need to realize is that when buying ARM an engineer has a very wide array of performance options. The latest Cortex chips are very powerful and in some ways more advanced than ATOM. Beyond that an engineer has a much freer hand in implementing the hardware required, thus can tailor performance to the application.

    Quote:

    ARM also has very little chance of getting to Intel's performance levels any time in the next decade.



    With respect to ATOM this simply isn't true or at least needs to be qualified. For many apps a Cortex A9 based system would be an overall winner. Beyond that many ARM based products are under clocked in order to manage power better. Also ATOM comes with what amounts to a terrible GPU, these days Cortex A9's are being coupled to some pretty impressive GPUs. In the end ARM based designs often out perform the ATOM based designs by a large margin. A good GPU and a few special (dedicated) logic circuits can go a long way to delivering better performance at a lower cost.



    The other tricky thing with ARM is the configurability. A SOC might be Cortex A9 based but that does not imply it is built just like every other A9 based SOC. For example there are different options for the FPU. So there can be a considerable delta between SOC built on the Cortex A9 platform itself. You really have to be careful about the specifics of a comparison between ARM and ATOM.



    As a side note there is a great deal of speculation about Apples A5 and it's chip size. It is actually rather big compared to many Cortex A9 chips. One of the more common speculative assertions is that Apples A5 comes with a fully pipelined FPU. Unfortunately we really don't know what all Apple has stuffed into that chip but eventually we will see some benchmarks that might actually be useful to compare to ATOM.



    On top of all of this we have to remember that the overall architecture has a lot to do with the perception of performance. Again looking at Apple and their new AIR laptops we get the impression that even a very slowly clocked CPU can demonstrate good performance, from the user perspective, if the other subsystems helps it out a bit. In AIRs case the GPU and the flash memory help balance the system out. One can not underestimate the importance of a good GPU and dedicated logic blocks in a modern computing device. It is no mystery that iPad 2 got a significantly beefed up GPU as it directly impacts what the user experiences on the platform. In the end Intel can't compete because the ATOM hardware simply isn't balanced to service the mobile devices world needs.
  • Reply 46 of 50
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,860member
    We all know that ATOM simply can't compete with ARM on a performance per watt basis. This seems to be pretty well established fact. Thus in the embedded very small form factor markets ATOM is effectively dead. However ATOM isn't doing to well when put up against AMDs current Fusion product. Zacate for example offers far superior performance with only a minor increase in power consumption. Part of that power consumption goes to a very nice GPU.



    So what we have here is AMD actually leading Intel as far as a processor that is suitable for the netbook and larger device market. It is very easy to argue that AMDs Fusion architecture is a better long term play that the current ATOM designs. The tight coupling to the OpenCL compatible GPU is a milestone that will be looked upon as a major turn in the design of computing systems. People often knock AMD for their lack of decent mobile CPUs but in the ATOM space Zacate is clearly superior.



    The otherthing here is that I really think Intel is either daydreaming or delusional to be thinking that a move to 22nm will save them in mobile. For one thing ARM is already there, but many ARM SoC have yet to transition to 32nm production. At 32nm we could have ARM chips with double the cores and still running far cooler than Intels offerings at 22nm. 22nm MIGHT give Intel parity with today's ARM chips at 40 to 45 mm but frankly who cares? By the time that happens several 32nm lines will be pumping out ARM SoCs. Also as was mentioned ARM designs have already taped out at 22nm for purposes of process development. So even if Intel comes up wIth a 22nm wonder chip they still have a lot of existing infrastructure to compete with.
  • Reply 47 of 50
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Love these Intel code names. "Oak Trail"? What are they selling? Granola bars?



    Quote:

    Intel has historically named integrated circuit (IC) development projects after geographical names of towns, rivers or mountains near the location of the Intel facility responsible for the IC. Many of these are in the American West, particularly in the state of Oregon (where most of Intel's CPU projects are designed; see well-known project codenames). As Intel's development activities have expanded, this nomenclature has expanded to Israel and India. Some older codenames refer to celestial bodies. There is a pattern with recent desktop processors. Since Core 2 all quad-core desktop processors tend to end in "field" (e.g. Kentsfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield) and most desktop dual-cores end in "dale" (e.g. Wolfdale, Allendale, Clarksdale), with the exception of Arrandale, a mobile processor codename for the mobile i3/i5/i7s. Platforms consisting of a CPU plus a Southbridge end in "trail" (e.g. Bone Trail, Skull Trail, Pine Trail). Server processors for two sockets now end in "town" (e.g. Harpertown, Gainestown, Gulftown), while server processors for four or more sockets end in "ton" (Tigerton, Dunnington, Beckton).



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_codenames
  • Reply 48 of 50
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    I would've thought Intel was trying to catch ARM, not Apple.
  • Reply 49 of 50
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post


    I don't see why Intel is trying to catch Apple, useful click bait maybe but seriously they are trying catch ARM.



    The only far flung notion is that either Apple would switch to Intel, or if Apple stays massively dominant so Intel customers don't really buy much volume. They are unlikely to get Apple's buy as Apple is designing custom silicon which they could not do with an Intel chip. As for everyone else, well Intel has to compete against other shelf variants of ARM chips making volumes even smaller.



    One wonders if Intel can justify in the long haul continued dollars thrown at something that may never yield volume sales and return.



    Ah I see you pipped me quite a while back.
  • Reply 50 of 50
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    oh it's an atom?



    Should have put that in the thread title I wouldn't have bothered reading the article then.



    Maybe if they call it a "tablet CPU" enough people will forget it's an Atom.
Sign In or Register to comment.