x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Intel Medfield chip gets benchmarked, beats the ARM competition

Intel Medfield chip gets benchmarked, beats the ARM competition

Posted: , by Nick T.

Tags :

Intel Medfield chip gets benchmarked, beats the ARM competition
Not long ago, we showed you a picture of an Android smartphone with an Intel processor under its hood. In particular, the chip was a last-gen Atom model bearing the Medfield codename. The handset was said to be a reference device that manufacturers could use while building their own smartphones powered by Intel's chips. Sadly, the silicon's performance was something that we knew very little about.

However, it now becomes apparent that the Medfield processor has already been benchmarked, and the results look quite promising. The testing has been performed using Caffeinemark 3, which is an Android benchmarking app that measures Java performance. Clocked at 1.6GHz, Intel's processor scored nearly 10,500 points and surpassed Samsung's Exynos 4210, which is now second best with a result of about 8,500 points. For comparison, a Qualcomm Snapdragon MSM8260 scores about 8,000 points and a Tegra 2 by NVIDIA gets about 7,500. And by the way, the results from the quad-core Tegra 3 have yet to be made official, so it isn't sure how long the Medfield chip will hold the top spot for.

So, we know that the Intel Medfield chip is fast, but the area where the manufacturer needs to work on is power consumption. When installed inside of a prototype tablet device, the processor consumes 2.6 watts when idle, while Intel's target is 2 watts. At the same time, it sucks 3.6 watts under load, and that figure needs to be dropped below the 2.6 watts mark.

The first devices powered by the Medfield processor are expected to be announced during the second quarter of 2012. However, further information regarding the chip and the smartphones and tablets that it will be used in is likely to be unveiled at CES 2012 next month.

source: VR-Zone via Electronista

  • Options

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 08:14 10

1. arcq12 (Posts: 733; Member since: 13 Oct 2011)

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..

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 08:49 3

2. jasongohjr (Posts: 75; Member since: 26 Sep 2011)


posted on 28 Dec 2011, 11:19

3. jove39 (Posts: 1976; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)

Is it a single core or dual?

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 11:27 2

4. cober319 (Posts: 11; Member since: 10 Nov 2011)

That little thing does all that? my mind is continuously blown by technology. I feel like an old man saying that...

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 15:02

5. thebikerboi2 (Posts: 144; Member since: 01 Apr 2011)

Ahh but what about the ARM cortex A15

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 23:34 1

11. crankyd00d (Posts: 191; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)

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 :-)

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 15:16 2

6. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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.

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 15:54 1

7. downphoenix (Posts: 3165; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)

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.

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 16:19

8. bbstorm2435 (Posts: 37; Member since: 21 Oct 2009)

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.

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 18:18 1

9. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

the atrix has a massive battery because motoblur constantly syncs.. it takes a lot of juice. Nothing to do with nvidia

posted on 28 Dec 2011, 19:57

10. jroc74 (Posts: 6019; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

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.

posted on 29 Dec 2011, 16:22

12. bbstorm2435 (Posts: 37; Member since: 21 Oct 2009)

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.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories