Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Announces Clover Trail+ Atom Platform For Smartphones and Tablets

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the check-it-out dept.

Intel 56

MojoKid writes "Today, Intel announced the follow-on to their Medfield Atom platform for smartphones, code-named Clover Trail+. Clover Trail is powering a few Windows 8 Pro tablets currently. However, Clover Trail+, Intel's new performance and feature-optimized version of Clover Trail for smartphones and tablets, has a long row to hoe versus incumbents like Qualcomm, Samsung and NVIDIA, at least in the highly competitive handset arena. What's interesting this time around is that Clover Trail+ seems to really have the chops (at least on paper) to keep pace with the performance of current, best-of-class ARM-based architectures that have been so dominant in smartphones. Clover Trail+ is another 32nm design and Intel has beefed up almost every major functional block on the platform. From its now dual-core, 4-thread capable Atom CPU, to its new PowerVR SGX 544MP2 graphics engine, 2GB of LPDDR2 1066 DRAM, up to 256GB of NAND storage, a higher resolution 16MP camera and Intel's XMM 6360 HSPA+ 42Mbps modem, with LTE support from their XMM 7160 radio moving forward; Intel's Clover Trail+ smartphone reference design brings a lot more to the table than Medfield ever did."

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43006939)

I can use my phone in the winter *and* keep my hands warm.

Oh Intel, what would I do without you!

Re:Finally (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019379)

Either the summary/article writer or Intel are still sadly delusional, but the problem with Intel's designs have not been that they were not "beefy enough" for small mobile devices.

It has been entirely about them sucking too much power and generating too much heat [related problem].

Too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43006985)

ARM won.

Re:Too late. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007213)

Flawless Victory.

Mythbusting time! (3, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007009)

Myth 1: Intel can't make x86 power/performance competitive with ARM: Being busted as we speak.

Myth 2: ARM can't scale up performance: Beginning to be busted with the A15, more to come with the 64-bit chips.

Myth 3: ARM can just press a button and get Intel level performance without using any extra power: Busted wide open by ARM themselves with the whole "littleBIG/BIG/little/etc" approach and by the conspicuous lack of high-end A15 chips in smartphones (note Tablet != Smartphone, and look at the Cortex-A9 based Tegra4i for the latest example of manufacturers not putting high-clocked A15s in smartphones).

Re:Mythbusting time! (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007061)

Fact 1: If it is not ARM your games will be slow. Anything using the NDK is not likely to even work on non-ARM cpus or be very slow if they can emulate ARM.

For now x86 has a huge disadvantage in the market.

Re:Mythbusting time! (5, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007099)

Fact 2: Compilers exist.
Fact 3: x86 compilers exist.
Fact 4: NDK for x86 exists.
Fact 5: ARM fanboys who say that ARM will win simply be recompiling Linux while claiming that it is physically impossible to run Linux on an x86 architecture are almost as amusing as they are ignorant.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007231)

None of the games you want to play are compiled for x86, nor will anything that that uses the NDK. They will not be until that is a popular architecture in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22.

I am no ARM fanboy, I am just pointing out reality.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007543)

Now you've gone and done it!

I am off building an ARM to Atom binary compiler, and see what that gives.

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43009131)

Intel's version gives, clock for clock, Cortex A9 performance.

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43009137)

"none of the games you want to play are compiled for x86"

WTF are you talking about?

% ./configure

% make

Now it is compiled, dipshit.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009951)

I believe the post referred to closed-source binaries from Google Play.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43014049)

None of the games you want to play are compiled for x86, nor will anything that that uses the NDK. They will not be until that is a popular architecture in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22.

Here's how it used to sound: "None of the games you want to play are compiled for Android, nor will anything that that uses the Cocoa Touch API. They will not be until Android is a popular OS in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22." So how did games get onto Android in the first place? It could be that some game developers such as Rovio have a policy of getting their apps onto anything and everything with an app store, even if it means completely rewriting them in another language like C# or JavaScript. And I seem to remember a months-old Slashdot story linking to an article about Intel working with the developers of major NDK-using apps. Intel might even be able to score deals to produce Intel-exclusive games, such as ports of classic mouse-driven games originally designed for MS-DOS or Windows 9x.

Games came afterwards (1)

rsborg (111459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019551)

None of the games you want to play are compiled for x86, nor will anything that that uses the NDK. They will not be until that is a popular architecture in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22.

Here's how it used to sound: "None of the games you want to play are compiled for Android, nor will anything that that uses the Cocoa Touch API. They will not be until Android is a popular OS in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22." So how did games get onto Android in the first place?

What happened was that iOS, (and then Android) started eating everyone's lunch in the mobile market by providing something that Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry and others found difficult to impossible: a true media-centric portable computer with near-first-class browsing and touch interface. A tantalizing canvas and paintbrush on which you could draw your masterpiece (or partake of someone else's). Developers saw virgin territory all while the incumbents said "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” [1].

The gordian knot is cut simply, but it takes a glittering, savage sharp knife and the requisite hand wielding it.

[1] http://daringfireball.net/2006/11/colligan_head_stuck [daringfireball.net]

Re:Games came afterwards (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019669)

Here's how it used to sound: "None of the games you want to play are compiled for Android, nor will anything that that uses the Cocoa Touch API. They will not be until Android is a popular OS in this market. That will not happen until the games are there, classic catch 22." So how did games get onto Android in the first place?

What happened was that iOS, (and then Android) started eating everyone's lunch in the mobile market by providing something that Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry and others found difficult to impossible

Cocoa Touch is the name of the iOS API. I'm asking how Android managed to gain ports of proprietary commercial games despite the dominance of what was then called "iPhone OS".

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009349)

Fact 6: Neon code has to be re-written :(

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43010681)

Yes. Also one more word: jazelle.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43013493)

Yes. Also one more word: jazelle.

On upscaled HW, Jazelle will give you vastly diminished benefits since you have the resources to run a more thorough compilation process.

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43007327)

NDK has been cross-compiling for x86 since Android 2.3, buddy.

In fact, since 3.0, running the x86 build has been the only way to make the Android emulator even slightly usable.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007401)

Go count how many AAA games are compiled for x86 in the market.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009219)

AAA games are supposedly the class of Skyrim and GTA V, not Angry Birds and remakes of GTA III. There is no AAA game compiled for ARM so far.

Re: Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43011165)

And no AAA titles that will run on Atom. Best of both worlds?

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43013455)

AAA mobile games is what I meant and you know it. The best of class, not the best ever.

Compiling iOS games for x86 (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015327)

AAA mobile games is what I meant

As I understand it, all iOS games are compiled for x86 (even though not deployed in that state) because the simulator in the iOS SDK is not an emulator; instead, it's iOS recompiled for x86 running in a virtual machine on an x86 Mac. That's why the iOS SDK wouldn't work on PowerPC Macs when it was first released in 2008.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43015341)

There is no AAA game compiled for ARM so far.

Are you trying to imply that no AAA games have been ported to Nintendo 3DS with its ARM11 or PlayStation Vita with its quad-core Cortex-A9?

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43016583)

Not trying to, but it's certainly what I do imply, right or wrong. But note that I don't consider big money titles like GTA 3 when they're ported to a new arch 10 years later, or the dumbed-down version of id's Rage for iOS for that matter. Those are just toys cobbled together from the leftovers of the real game development.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009029)

You're implying that Android games are relevant.
You're a funny guy, aren't you.

Re:Mythbusting time! (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007371)

Myth 1: Intel can't make x86 power/performance competitive with ARM: Being busted as we speak.

I read the summary and the article twice. I have not found anything that said what the power consumption of this SoC is. In fact, the article gushes all about specs EXCEPT power consumption.

Are they at the 1mW/MHz level of ARMs yet or aren't they? The closest thing I cound is "Hurry Up and Get Idle" thing which doesn't tell me a thing about power.

As for A15 power guzzler, yes, it's a huge drain, but that doesn't mean you have to use where power is a concern (big.LITTLE is a way to mitigate it, but there are problems, though you can run all cores at once if you wanted). It's also a microarchitecture issue - enough such that 64-bit actually scraps a lot of things that the 32-bit ARM had purely because it doesn't work cleanly to a modern superscalar processor (e.g., conditional execution).

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43007723)

I'll believe Intel power claims when I see a retail phone with Atom and decent battery life.

Re:Mythbusting time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43008079)

The Motorola Razr I has a Medfield chip, great battery life, and good benchmark results. It's a retail GSM phone in many parts of the world, just not in the US. We've had to import from the UK to have them here.

Most of the time, people reporting Razr I battery life have come to realize it is linked to screen-on time rather than what particular activities they are performing... the underlying cost of the Atom processor running Android and all the background stuff doesn't seem to be an issue. I assume the screen-on power consumption (vs. screen off) has mostly to do with the OLED display, not the Atom SoC.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43008421)

Are they at the 1mW/MHz level of ARMs yet or aren't they?

I think they passed that quite some time ago, the Medfield [anandtech.com] platform had these figures for SoC Power Consumption last year:
100MHz 600MHz 1.3GHz 1.6GHz
~50mW ~175mW ~500mW ~750mW

That is more like 0.5 to 0.3 mW/MHz, of course presumably without any GPU load. They're just one in the crowd though, they'll have to do better to win.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007733)

We always knew Intel could do it. The question was if they would do it. The answer will be in the form of a popular retail product.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007943)

For myth 1, I don't know how the cpu cores have evolved over time, but the older atoms had a hard time keeping up with the A9's, despite having a larger die and clockspeed advantage: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pandaboard_es&num=1 [phoronix.com] .

For myth 2, the A15 design is significantly faster than A9, which was a big step up from the A8's. In four years we've gone from A8 to A15. It's quite impressive to consider how fast the phones in our pockets have gotten is such a short time, and I think it's a little early to forecast the trend. For myth 3, the Qualcomm Krait design is pretty equal to the A15 reference platform, and it's using a very power-efficient asynchronous design. Big-little isn't necessary, it's a less-elegant design solution that ARM chose. I think by the holiday season, the market will be flooded with A15-based phones. I believe the Apple A6 is also an A15 reference CPU, since they don't have an architectural license like Qualcomm and Marvell.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43008735)

For myth 1, I don't know how the cpu cores have evolved over time, but the older atoms had a hard time keeping up with the A9's, despite having a larger die and clockspeed advantage: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pandaboard_es&num=1 [phoronix.com] .

Uh, that article shows single-core Atoms generally beating the ARM by 50+%. The ARM did well to match or beat it in a couple of cases, but I don't see any evidence that the Atom 'hard a hard time keeping up' with an ARM CPU that it soundly beat in most of those benchmarks.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about a year and a half ago | (#43010929)

And it's hyperthreaded, so both are capable of processing the same number of threads. Atom wins some and loses others, despite a significant clockspeed advantage.

Re:Mythbusting time! (2)

Artraze (600366) | about a year and a half ago | (#43008771)

> conspicuous lack of high-end A15 chips in smartphones

Sort of? Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 chips have a custom A15-styled "Krait" core [wikipedia.org] which has been in phones for a while. It's a little different than a stock A15 design, but not massively. It's just a few design tweaks (Added a L0 cache, reduced L1, reduced pipeline) that make a fair bit of sense. Performance is only slightly reduced (~5%).

With that said, I don't know if that "ARM can just press a button" myth was ever really present. There may have been some discussion that ARM would be able to do so with Intel-quality manufacturing processes, and to a degree that's true: the A9 - A15 (or Qualcomm's A8/9-ish Scorpion to Krait at least) transition is a pretty good example of that being true.

> Myth 1: Intel can't make x86 power/performance competitive with ARM: Being busted as we speak.

First, Intel is still nowhere near Context-M (embedded; controls your toaster) levels of power/performance, and that's a target they are highly unlikely to ever hit. Even though it is not as high-profile/large(?) a market the Cortex-A, it is still a very important one, and enough to cement ARM as a very important architecture. At those power levels, ISA matters a lot as there is no cache, branch prediction, register renaming, out of order execution, etc. You are just running the instructions as written, and ARM has solid advantages over x86 there.

As for the Cortex-A (phones) levels, well, it very much remains to be seen. Intel is competitive but not really surprisingly. Manufacturing has advanced to a point where you can put enough transistors in a chip to use a lot of the aforementioned optimizations. That means the ISA is starting to be abstracted enough that things like x86's limited registers aren't going to hurt and much, and the CISC instructions show some benefit. However, the conspicuous lack of power specification indicates that they probably haven't gotten there quite yet.

So it's still a battle, but I think that myth is pretty fact-y yet. As manufacturing improves and designed matures, we will probably see them meet in the middle, but Intel/x86 flat out winning? Pretty unlikely. (Keep in mind that it's not just x86 vs ARM, but also SSE vs NEON and MMU vs MMU. ARM is a little less burdened with history as was more designed with low power and concrete use cases in mind.)

As you allude to, though, 64bit ARM is coming, and it's going to change a lot. X86-64 addressed many of x86's shortcomings, so the battle will begin anew there.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43010985)

Cortex-M operates in a completely different market than the stated market that Intel wants to reach... and BTW that market isn't insanely profitable for even an IP-only company like ARM. The Intel-fanboy response to your ARM-fanboy propaganda would be to say that ARM has no products that are even a bad imitation of Intel's high-end Xeon chips, which is equally as true and equally as irrelevant.

As for the Krait == A15 business, that is complete and utter bunk. Review after review after review have shown these things:
  1. Krait's power efficiency is somewhat better than Medfield's (not miraculously better).
  2. Medfield definitely outperforms Krait.
  3. The A15's are way ahead of Krait in both performance, but also in having a much higher power draw.
    4. Once and for all, just because Qualcomm licensed the ARM instruction set does *not* mean that Krait == A15. Krait == Krait and that is all. It would be just as correct (read: completely wrong) to say that the Atom chips are "Haswell styled" because they have the same core instruction set... no they are not.

Re:Mythbusting time! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43012675)

FACT. We have yet to see ANY ARM chip get even in the same ballpark as the first gen Core Solo, in fact only by optimizing like mad and being VERY picky about which tests to run have they shown (on paper) an ARM chip beating a PENTIUM 4, which was a badly designed dead end that has been dead more than half a decade!

So I'm sorry ARM fanboys but its simply easier to cut features on an already insanely overpowered chip and get it to fit into a power envelope than it is to take a new design (the 64bit chips) and get it to scale without blowing the power budget all to shit. Intel has three BIG advantages, they are the leaders in fabs so they can hit die shrinks sometimes a full year and a half before anybody else is ready, they have a chip design that is insanely overpowered with a huge lead in IPC, and finally they have the consumers themselves who are demanding more and more from their mobile devices when it comes to speed, responsiveness, and basically wanting a computer as fast as their desktop (or at least one that feels as fast) in their pocket which plays to Intel's strengths.

I'm sorry but its Intel's game to lose, and this is coming from somebody that hasn't bought a single Intel chip since Prescott. They have such huge advantages that frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Intel owns the all important $299 and up device market in less than 2 years. ARM will still have its place, nobody can compete with ARM on price, but as Apple has shown you can make a hell of a good living simply ignoring the low end and sticking with the high margin sales and I have a feeling that is what Intel is gonna go after.

Battery Life ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43007093)

All the MIPS but no mention of battery life ?

Re:Battery Life ? (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007275)

"Total platform power at its full 2GHz clock speed does appear to be higher than most of the current high-end competition..."
Sound like it will be a power hog like previous Atoms.

does it have a SD card slot? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007335)

does it have a SD card slot?

Re:does it have a SD card slot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43007443)

no, but it runs Crysis.

Re:does it have a SD card slot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43007703)

no, but it runs Crysis.

At 1 FPS...a third of the speed as an i7 with a high end GPU.

Can't help myself. (3, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43007867)

It's an ARMs race!

The graphics still sucks (3, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43008529)

Intel is unwilling to pair a higher end GPU with a lower end CPU, since given that much of the CPU is pent on eye candy and CODECs these days, doing so would cannibalize higher end CPU sales.

If they could guarantee that this would only every be used in a hone or a tablet without a keyboard dock like the transformer, they'd likely be willing to go for it, but just as the recent Samsung ARM ChromeBook demonstrated, phone/tablet chips can and will be used in laptops, and likely eventually desktops. The thing which has stopped this so far is the need for Intel software compatibility, which the ChromeBook side-steps by not running (non-NaCl'ed) native code, and being mostly a browser.

If Intel came out with a CPU that was not a compute giant, but had a good GPU which could be used for higher powered math calculations, thus obviating the need for a high powered CPU, then there would quickly be a lot of machines in the laptop space grabbing them up. This wouldn't be terrible for Intel, as long as they charged higher prices for the things based on the GPU power rather than the CPU power --- but doing that would be disastrous for their ability to compete in the tablet/phone market, so they are somewhat pilloried by having one monolithic instruction set across their product line. Ironically, capping the instruction set to make it inappropriate for desktop would throw the CPU out as yet-another-Intel-incompatible-ARM-competitor, so Catch-22.

All maximized all the time (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43024409)

The thing which has stopped [ARM desktops] so far is the need for Intel software compatibility

Are you sure it's that, or the fact that users of laptops and desktops want a window management policy other than all maximized all the time? The biggest thing keeping me on my 10" laptop (which is a collector's item now), as opposed to a dockable tablet of the same size, is the ability to have more than one window on the screen. Android and iOS don't support this because their programming models initially targeted smartphones, whose screens aren't big enough for a tiled window manager, and their developers failed to add anything like Side Stage [wikipedia.org] when adapting the operating systems to tablets. A Google representative admitted that Android applications are allowed to assume that the screen size never changes after installation other than by swapping the width and height when the device is rotated. If a GNU/Linux laptop with an ARM CPU were marketed properly, at least some major publishers of proprietary software for Windows would make a port using Winelib.

Not paranoid enough.... (1)

strangeattraction (1058568) | about a year and a half ago | (#43008531)

It seems Intel is destined to be the next Zilog:) They need to get back their paranoia.

What does the 80 in Z80 stand for? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43024427)

It seems Intel is destined to be the next Zilog

Seeing as the Z80 was originally an enhanced, binary-compatible alternative to the Intel 8080, you may be right.

What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009095)

I don't really get the selling point of Intel on smartphones or, to a lesser degree, tablets.

Current CPU's are already plenty fast in phones. For all the benchmarks out there, any actual difference in use is mostly due to the GPU and to how well the OS is written to give a smooth user experience. Even games are mostly GPU-limited; actual CPU limited mobile apps are few and far between. Power consumption, price and size are really far more important than speed.

Intel brings x86 compatibility. But that's no benefit on mobile, and will often be a slight liability. You will have to hope that the high-performance apps you want to use are all built and offered in an x86 version in your app store. If not, you'll end up with slower performance than ARM, not faster.

And of course, the ARM architecture is offered by multiple makers, in all kinds of configurations of core types and numbers, clock speeds and so on. With Intel you get what one single company decides to offer, and that's it. Not directly relevant to us consumers of course, but it does mean it's more likely the ARM set-up in your phone or tablet is adapted specifically for that hardware, not a more generic one-size-fits-all spec.

So, why, exactly? Take away the x86 compatibility and what's left? At this point I actively avoid mobile hardware with Intel CPU's; I see no point and worry that I'll get bitten by compatibility issues.

Re:What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

pchan- (118053) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009387)

Intel brings x86 compatibility. But that's no benefit on mobile, and will often be a slight liability.

It's actually a massive liability. I can boot an ARM Cortex-A9 in 1000 lines of assembly. An Atom requires a multi-megabyte binary blog delivered by Intel (source unavailable) to simple turn on an Atom. And yes, it does start out in 16-bit real mode as if anyone wants that. Can you guess which one of these is more debuggable?

And of course, the ARM architecture is offered by multiple makers, in all kinds of configurations of core types and numbers, clock speeds and so on. With Intel you get what one single company decides to offer, and that's it. Not directly relevant to us consumers of course, but it does mean it's more likely the ARM set-up in your phone or tablet is adapted specifically for that hardware, not a more generic one-size-fits-all spec.

Today Intel sells three versions of the same desktop chip; a high end one with all of the features enabled, a midrange one with some features disabled, and a low end one with most features disabled. Device makes know that once Intel is in a position of strength, they will do to mobile chips exactly what they are doing to desktop chips today. Let's look at one feature: SHA hashing engine. Intel Core i7 devices have this built in. Core i3 also has this but disables it. What if you want a low end SoC with a SHA engine? Any ARM vendor will sell you one, SHA engines are cheap and easy and everyone has one. Intel makes you pay for the high end part just to get a minor feature. Multiply this by all of the other SoC components and you'll see why nobody wants Intel to be in the lead. With ARM, chip vendors are competing on features, performance, and price. Nobody is picking ARM the company, they are picking the ARM ecosystem of chip designers and chip fabricators where everyone competes.

Re:What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009555)

Look, I really want to run my old DOS 6.22 applications on my phone, OK? Also I think Windows 3.1 would make a fantastic mobile operating system.

Re:What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about a year and a half ago | (#43009563)

...especially with the included Hot Dog Stand theme? Who *doesn't* want that?

Re:What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43012077)

On tablets, I get the point. On smartphones, no.

One word - Windows 8. It sucks as a desktop OS, but its only chance - if it is a tablet OS on something that can run Wintel apps written for PCs. While not all applications would work on it, some would, and to that extent, a tablet w/ this chip would be handy. But yeah, if the idea is to run Android or any non Windows OSs, then either any ARM based CPU, or even a MIPS based one, like the Xburst, would be preferable to Intel.

I don't see Intel winning in either the phone or tablet markets, however. Neither will PCs be going anywhere - they are still needed for content creation - that content does have to be created for it to be consumed

Re:What is the selling point, exactly? (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019099)

Could an Atom CPU really run typical x86 applications fast enough though? Especially those that need fairly hgih performance and can't easily by recompiled for other architectures due to optimizations and inline assembly?

What I'm getting at is, how good is Atom as a desktop OS system?

Can't be recompiled because it's proprietary (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43024733)

Could an Atom CPU really run typical x86 applications fast enough though?

Yes. I have a 10" laptop with an Atom CPU and Xubuntu OS. I'm satisfied with it at the moment, but I wonder what I'd do should it break now that 10" laptops are collector's items. I'd switch to a 10" tablet with a detachable keyboard if 1. it were affordable enough, and 2. developer tools without a recurring fee were available, and 3. the window manager had a policy other than "all maximized all the time". Right now, iPad and Windows RT tablets fail all three, Android primarily fails #3 (and it'll take a few Android revisions for Cornerstone to fix it), and Windows 8 tablets fail #1.

Especially those that need fairly hgih performance

Other than games and hardcore engineering and art software, the kind of software that professionals and enthusiasts expect to run on a desktop, not a lot of software run on laptops and the like needs "fairly high performance". PC sales have slowed down because current PCs are "good enough".

and can't easily by recompiled for other architectures due to optimizations and inline assembly

Apart from early to mid-1990s PC games, it's more likely that software "can't easily be recompiled" because it's not distributed as free software than because it uses "optimizations and inline assembly".

Can't wait! (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43013087)

For thee hour battery li
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>