Error
  • JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Tuesday, 27 December 2011 09:56

Medfield performance leaked, looks impressive

Written by



Scares the beejeesus out of Qualcomm, Nvidia


Intel is slowly starting to hype up its new Medfield chip, a 32nm SoC that should find its way into next generation tablets and smartphones next year.

According to VR Zone, the new chip looks like a world beater and it is faster than current ARM chips with Nvidia and Qualcomm stickers on them. In fact, a 1.6GHz Medfield scores about 10,500 in Caffeinemark 3, ahead of the Tegra 2 and Snapdragon MSM8260, which score 7500 and 8000 respectively. However, it’s worth noting that Nvidia and Qualcomm already have faster chips on their hands, i.e. Tegra 3 and S4.

VR is reporting that other performance figures also look quite good and Medfield should be quite competitive. However, in terms of power consumption it still lags behind ARM players. The prototype consumes about 2.6W in idle and Intel hopes to hit 2W by the time Medfield is ready for production. In 720p Flash playback, Medfield consumes 3.6W, and the target is 2.6W.

So, on paper Intel’s first proper SoC looks pretty good, although power consumption could be, or rather has to be better. In case Intel fails to shave off a watt or two, it will probably have a hard time in the smartphone market, but Medfield looks like a decent enough processor for tablets.

More here.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
0 #1 fteoath64 2011-12-27 10:36
Are you kidding ?. Comparing with Tegra 2 which is an old chip running only at 1Ghz. It should be compared to a 1.6Ghz A15 with a Mali or PVR 544 gpu. Then the answer will be:

cpu: Medfield advantage 10%
gpu: ARM advantage 250%
batt: Arm advantage 60%
cost: Arm advantage 30%

Game over Medfield. Oh, did you see that A15 scales to 2.5Ghz ?.
 
 
0 #2 Ferdinand 2011-12-27 11:34
[q]Scares the beejeesus out of Qualcomm, Nvidia[/q]
Apparently it is the opposite. All the ARM players must be laughing and laughing at Intel. If Intel would make an ARM soc they would probably destroy the competition with their technical expertise and 2 year lead in process technology. Intel still might make a power efficient x86 soc but it won't be this one. Call us when Intel reaches 250mW.
 
 
-1 #3 maroon1 2011-12-27 11:58
Quoting fteoath64:
Are you kidding ?. Comparing with Tegra 2 which is an old chip running only at 1Ghz.



Clock for clock comparison is a joke

What really matters is power consumption and performance per watt. If you overclock Tegra 2 to 1.6GHz it might beat Medfield, but the power consumption is going to be a lot higher and it won't be suitable for small devices.


Quote:
It should be compared to a 1.6Ghz A15 with a Mali or PVR 544 gpu. Then the answer will be:



How could they compare it to unreleased product ? You must be joking

A15 won't come out until late 2012 or 2013
 
 
+5 #4 muziqaz 2011-12-27 12:08
@maroon1, are you nuts? is Medfield already released? Do we have any devices with it? No. So I think it would be obvious to compare it with also unreleased but announced competing products. Scare bejeezus out of everyone - what a joke :D
By the way, my gripe with ALL the mobile device manufacturers is that they now concentrate on perfromance, but batery is left behind. I would gladly have a smartphone which holds 5 days on heavy use, not 1 day like my current Nexus S. nvidia should get kick in the head with their campaign about quad core is the best, and idiots are following them announcing quad cores left and right. Give me a frikkin longer battery life not quad cores.
 
 
-1 #5 nele 2011-12-27 12:22
Quoting Ferdinand:
[q]Scares the beejeesus out of Qualcomm, Nvidia[/q]
Apparently it is the opposite. All the ARM players must be laughing and laughing at Intel. If Intel would make an ARM soc they would probably destroy the competition with their technical expertise and 2 year lead in process technology. Intel still might make a power efficient x86 soc but it won't be this one. Call us when Intel reaches 250mW.


I think that beejeesus stuff was sarcasm...
 
 
+1 #6 hybry 2011-12-27 13:46
Quoting muziqaz:
By the way, my gripe with ALL the mobile device manufacturers is that they now concentrate on perfromance, but batery is left behind. I would gladly have a smartphone which holds 5 days on heavy use, not 1 day like my current Nexus S. nvidia should get kick in the head with their campaign about quad core is the best, and idiots are following them announcing quad cores left and right. Give me a frikkin longer battery life not quad cores.

+1
The performace at the moment is sufficient for most users but they should concentrate on making more efficient SoC to increase the battery life.
 
 
+2 #7 Memristor 2011-12-27 14:07
Intel's only chance in this segment is the 20 and 14nm process. That's when they will be able to increase performance substantially and all with much lower power requirements. But that is not due until late 2014 or even 2015. Two to three years for ARM to come out with another faster SoC that supports 64bit and multiple CPU's. The race is definitely on.
 
 
0 #8 nt300 2011-12-27 15:02
I can see AMD competing for this market over Intel. Intel's arrogance is the problem.
 
 
0 #9 saneblane 2011-12-27 16:04
Quoting nt300:
I can see AMD competing for this market over Intel. Intel's arrogance is the problem.

You might be right about that, If Intel makes arm chips and fabs them in house they would always have a process advantage and have a lower power consumption chip. They are beating the life out of x86 it's getting ridiculous now.Intel has been an Arm licensee for a long time now, they can make Arm chip tomorrow if they wanted to, or better yet they can become the preferred Fabricator for 22nm and beyond Arm chips, Tsmc and Glofo is not going to have an answer for intel anytime soon.Intel and Amd should partner up on an arm ship, with both teams designing the cpu, and Amd providing the graphics and intel fabbing it on 22nm,that chip would scare the bejjessus out of everyone.
 
 
0 #10 ajvitaly 2011-12-27 16:37
Even with a 32nm node process advantage over Tegra 3, and assuming Intel can hit their power draw goals, it still consumes 8 times more power at idle and 5 times more power under load. On top of that, it's slower than Tegra 3. What phone manufacturer would want this?

There will be plenty of 28nm ARM processors out by then, probably with better performance than Tegra 3 in apps that aren't deeply threaded and will have lower power usage than Tegra under load. Even Nvidia will have shrunk Tegra 3 down to 28nm, making it all the more attractive. Intel is way behind.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments