Intel seeking to speed up development of its mobile chips
Currently, Intel is releasing just one to two mobile chips a year, which is not going to cut it against ARM based competitors like Qualcomm. Additionally, a number of handset manufacturers are making their own chips which adds to the pressure on Intel to produce more mobile silicon. Besides the phone manufactures with their own chips like Samsung, Huawei and Apple, companies like Qualcomm and NVIDIA are formidable competitors in the high to mid range area while MediaTek is now associated with the low-end of the market. It doesn't leave much room for Intel to compete.
New Intel CEO Brian Krzanich, who is a Google Glass wearer, sees opportunity in the upcoming surge for wearable computers and says that Intel will be powering more mobile devices toward the end of this year and the beginning of 2014. In the past, newer equipment was used to make PC chips while the mobile Atom line was produced on older equipment, something that will change under Intel's new leadership. The CEO says that Intel now sees its mobile line as being as important to the company as its Core line of PC chips. "We see that Atom is now at the same importance, it's launching on the same leading edge technology, sometimes even coming before Core (Intel's line of PC chips)," says Krzanich, who currently sports a Samsung Galaxy smartphone but changes up each month to test out what's new.
While Samsung recently announced that an Intel processor will power the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1, Intel has even better news for its supporters. The company last month announced its new Silvermont processor. With improved performance and better battery life, analysts believe that with this processor, Intel is now ready to compete with Qualcomm for a larger share of the mobile industry.
1. ihatesmartphone (unregistered)
"...,Intel is now ready to compete with Qualcomm for a larger share of the mobile industry."
Go Intel, Go Intel, Go Intel :D
2. Topcat488 (Posts: 974; Member since: 29 Sep 2012)
Don't leave Samsung out of the picture because even though Exnos is having problems right now, in SAR rating they're still the lowest.
Lowest rating is best... Not so fast a headache, and so.
18. Shatter (Posts: 1747; Member since: 29 May 2013)
SAR = amount of radiation the phone produces.
14. TheLolGuy (Posts: 463; Member since: 05 Mar 2013)
Wow I seriously hope I we won't have to see an Intel tax on anything mobile... or else I'm goin' home. *sigh*
3. FlushGordon (unregistered)
Too bad they can't even compete with Mediatek
4. Shubham412302 (Posts: 292; Member since: 09 Nov 2011)
dual-core clover trail plus performs as good as exynos 5 octa.
wait for bay trail.
12. TylerGrunter (Posts: 757; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Come on now! Be at least a bit serious.
Clover Trail+ can compete as much compete with Exynos quad and Tegra 3.
This is the difference of Clover Trail+ (the most powerfull of them to be fair and Exynos Octa :
The Octa swaps the floor with it in EVERY aspect.
It will take at least Bay Trail for Intel to be on that level of performance
19. Shatter (Posts: 1747; Member since: 29 May 2013)
Yes but the clover trail+ is using way less power than a15 does.
24. livyatan (Posts: 495; Member since: 19 Jun 2013)
Even the lower clocked, more frugal version is comparable to dual core A-15.
It has bettet idle power draw, but reaches higher consumption under load.
Read the numbers in the Nexus 10 review on Notebookcheck.net(the best reviews on internet imo)
The load consumption of 9watts is lower than that of the Clover Trail (9 vs over 10 watts)
Considering how vastly more powerful the Exynos GPU is, there goes another bubble bursting in the Intel fanboy face
25. livyatan (Posts: 495; Member since: 19 Jun 2013)
Uh, alright i failed there.. have to correct myself.
Forgot that the surface RT uses Tegra 3.
The Clover Trail(base version) scores are 2.6-6.4 watts actually, whereas the Exynos 5 dual numbers are 9.4w(both idle and under load).
BUT my point remains.. the Octa is actually much superior, scoring 5.1w under load.
6. livyatan (Posts: 495; Member since: 19 Jun 2013)
Shubham, you should know better than comparing chips like that - SYSTEM on chip vs system on chip, not core vs core, otherwise you are completely missing the point.
Look at the whole picture.
A quad core Clover trail + would be far too large(dual core variant is already about twice bigger than the quad core Snapdragon!), too power hungry and too expensive to even think of being competitive in phones.
Besides, you are wrong about the performance part anyway.
Clover trail + is on pair with Octa in AnTutu(and pointless java script browser benchmarks) which is basically a real life usage emulation, not a true synthetic benchmark.
If you want a true performance picture, look at geekbench.
Here are the results:
2.0Ghz Intel Clover trail + (Lenovo K900) - around 1600 points
1.6Ghz Exynos Octa - around 3100 points
2.3Ghz Snapdragon 800 - over 4000 points
So yeah, sorry for bursting your bubble but ARM based SoC's are still FAR ahead in terms of performance.
Silvermont will only close the gap
13. TylerGrunter (Posts: 757; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Fully agree, but you are a bit off with the Exynos Octa, it takes normally well over 3500. And very rarely under that, so it easily doubles the Core Trail+
23. livyatan (Posts: 495; Member since: 19 Jun 2013)
Thanks for the correction.
I got confused by the.. seemingly deleted!.. article about Samsung GS4 being the fastest and having the best battery endurance.
17. trustory (Posts: 95; Member since: 23 Jan 2013)
why does it matter when the real life usage emulation scores are more or less equal
7. Zeus.k (Posts: 78; Member since: 13 Jun 2013)
that would be very interesting. bring it on Intel.
8. Kevinphantom (Posts: 82; Member since: 17 Jun 2013)
Hahaha look at snapdragon 1000 qualcomm trying to share it to the market it has 4 krait 2.5 ghz and adreno 420
9. Sondae (Posts: 180; Member since: 02 Jan 2013)
I hope intel will make a variety from low range, mid and high end processor.
10. lyndon420 (Posts: 1464; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
The article mentioned phone manufacturers who have their own chips. Sammy yes they make chips, Huawei not sure, Apple...everyone knows they don't manufacture their own chips because they just divorced their long time partner Sammy.
11. PapaSmurf (Posts: 5823; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Huawei produces their own chips. They're pushing their own quads on their new flagships, but they're not even close to performance as the S600 or Octa.
15. MartianMe (unregistered)
what do you expect ??? .. this article is written by Alan F ... this phagggot thinks that apple built its own hardware ... the only thing they manufacture is trolls like him n lawsuits... i've told him many times to switch to cnet, that would b perfect for him.
21. Cod3rror (Posts: 49; Member since: 06 Apr 2013)
I'm very excited that Intel is finally feeling the pressure and are serious about mobile. Intel is no joke and X86 going mobile is super interneting. Imagine a smartphone that has a Windows Phone but when you dock it a full Windows opens and you have the support for all legacy of applications.
And who do we have to thank for all this? ARM and the outdated battery technology. It's like what's happening with cars and Europe. Emissions standards forced manufacturers to think of efficiency and not just throwing more cylinders at a problem, while at the same time improving the performance. In the same way bad batteries forced companies like ARM to think of super efficient processors and in turn ARM forced Intel into thinking about efficiency and not just throwing more voltage at CPUs, while at the same time competing for performance.
22. RapidCat (Posts: 350; Member since: 12 Jun 2012)
what about the game and apps. not all apps and games support x86