Intel Medfield chip gets benchmarked, beats the ARM competition
1. arcq12 posted on 28 Dec 2011, 08:14 10 0
sounds like it's very promising.. but they still have a lot of work to do.. what i'm expecting in intel chips is they better be more power-efficient than ARM-chips.. thats the REAL LIFE selling point.. not benchmark..
4. cober319 posted on 28 Dec 2011, 11:27 2 0
That little thing does all that? my mind is continuously blown by technology. I feel like an old man saying that...
11. crankyd00d posted on 28 Dec 2011, 23:34 1 0
If I'm not mistaken the ARM Cortex-A15 uses the ARM v7 instruction set (RISC) while the Intel chips will use the "good old" x86 instruction set (CISC?, the same that's been on Wintel computers for decades) so they're not compatible with each other, like for example the old Macs using PowerPC vs newer Macs using x86. Anyway ARM claims the Cortex-A15 will be 40% faster than A9 all things being equal, and ARM has always had the advantage in power consumption so I think Intel will need at least 1 more generation to catch up to ARM. Still we all know Intel always goes for the kill so things will be getting a lot more interesting soon :-)
6. remixfa posted on 28 Dec 2011, 15:16 2 0
They got a boost in power from the fact thst they were running with more juice. They wouldn't survive the market if they launched the chip with that much voltage. The battery life would be horrible.
7. downphoenix posted on 28 Dec 2011, 15:54 1 0
theoretically it could do decent in a tablet form as long as a nice, beefy battery was powering it. As far as phone though, Phones typically have batteries about 2-4x less juice, so yea as a phone it might last 2 hours LOL.
8. bbstorm2435 posted on 28 Dec 2011, 16:19 0 0
Well also remember Nvidia's first venture into mobile chipsets. The Atrix was a battery hog as well. I mean it needed a 1930 mAh battery which at the time it came out was pretty big compared to dual-core devices nowadays such as the Galaxy SII has a 1650 mAh battery. So, I think its a trend that manufacturers coming from the PC world to the mobile phone world are going to have those difficulties at first with the battery.
9. remixfa posted on 28 Dec 2011, 18:18 1 0
the atrix has a massive battery because motoblur constantly syncs.. it takes a lot of juice. Nothing to do with nvidia
10. jroc74 posted on 28 Dec 2011, 19:57 0 0
Actually....there is an article on phonearena about dual core ships that mention how Tegra 2 had the worse battery life of all the upcoming dual core chips back in Aug 2010:
"Buried in the Tegra's white papers, though, we found stats for 140 hours of audio on a standard 2000mAh battery, while the big boys are achieving 120 hours, but from a 1000mAh battery."
Maybe that was old news now or by the time the Atrix launched, but it was linked to Tegra 2 at the time. Look at how the RAZR has a 1700 mAh battery and gets lil higher talk time, the Bionic too with a similar size battery. And they have Zumocast and Moto cast that kills the battery like mad by syncing. The music player on the RAZR does too.
12. bbstorm2435 posted on 29 Dec 2011, 16:22 0 0
Yeah, you can say MotoBlur had some things to do with it, but overall the Tegra 2 chipset was a battery hog when it first came out. Other MotoBlur headsets didn't have such big batteries before. I mean for instance, the time when MotoBlur was probably the WORST OS overlay, in the Bravo had a 1540 mAh battery and had good battery life estimates. The point is that you can look at every chipset that hits the market first that introduces a new technology, and there is always some kind of problem with it. That's why it's good to wait a few months for them to get all the bugs out. I mean even jroc posted an article on here about how the Tegra 2 was bad at battery consumption. There was a reason all of these phone manufacturers started to switch from the Tegra 2 chip to the TI chip besides a little speed gain. It was because the TI chip was much more battery efficient.