Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: Doug Siebert (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), January 24, 2012 2:03 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
According to Intel's stats, the reference platform uses a 5.55 Wh battery. The iPhone 4S uses a 5.3 Wh battery so those are pretty comparable.
Other than standby time, which is 360 hours for the reference platform versus the iPhone's 200 hours, the other numbers show no advantage for Intel at all. The reference platform has one hour less talk time, two hours less video watching time and one hour more browsing time.
While the standby time is a big advantage, its the least important one since few people leave their phone on standby for a week without using it or charging it.
There are three smartphone markets that anyone (other than RIM shareholders) think will matter in two years. iPhone, Android and Windows Phone. The first market is likely closed to Intel, the second will be the bulk of the market, and for the third it remains to be seen if it will amount to more than Blackberry does today.
Intel needs a clear advantage if they want to do anything more than have a good chance of being the standard CPU for the Windows Phone products. If Intel ships 22nm when ARM is at 28nm, and 14nm when ARM reaches 20nm, they must do better than match ARM as they appear to do here or they'll be left hoping that Windows Phone turns out to be more than just a niche market.
Yes, I know Intel will make architectural improvements to complement their process improvements, but so will ARM. The large number of ARM licensees mean there will be a much larger variety of ARM solutions to fit every need, whereas Intel will have one architecture per generation and try to serve everyone by varying the frequency and number of cores in the CPU and GPU. This scenario is actually somewhat comparable to the wide variety of Android phones of all types and pricepoints versus the iPhone trying to serve everyone by varying the age of the design and the amount of onboard memory as their only segments.
Other than standby time, which is 360 hours for the reference platform versus the iPhone's 200 hours, the other numbers show no advantage for Intel at all. The reference platform has one hour less talk time, two hours less video watching time and one hour more browsing time.
While the standby time is a big advantage, its the least important one since few people leave their phone on standby for a week without using it or charging it.
There are three smartphone markets that anyone (other than RIM shareholders) think will matter in two years. iPhone, Android and Windows Phone. The first market is likely closed to Intel, the second will be the bulk of the market, and for the third it remains to be seen if it will amount to more than Blackberry does today.
Intel needs a clear advantage if they want to do anything more than have a good chance of being the standard CPU for the Windows Phone products. If Intel ships 22nm when ARM is at 28nm, and 14nm when ARM reaches 20nm, they must do better than match ARM as they appear to do here or they'll be left hoping that Windows Phone turns out to be more than just a niche market.
Yes, I know Intel will make architectural improvements to complement their process improvements, but so will ARM. The large number of ARM licensees mean there will be a much larger variety of ARM solutions to fit every need, whereas Intel will have one architecture per generation and try to serve everyone by varying the frequency and number of cores in the CPU and GPU. This scenario is actually somewhat comparable to the wide variety of Android phones of all types and pricepoints versus the iPhone trying to serve everyone by varying the age of the design and the amount of onboard memory as their only segments.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/23 01:51 PM |
server error | bakaneko | 2012/01/24 03:00 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 04:02 AM |
Fixed | Joel | 2012/01/24 07:43 AM |
Fixed | Ricardo B | 2012/01/24 11:25 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:29 PM |
Fixed | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/01/24 01:07 PM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:30 PM |
Reference platform battery life | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/24 02:03 PM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 06:58 AM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 03:42 AM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/26 04:02 AM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 12:39 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 01:22 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 02:08 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 06:03 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 08:57 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 09:01 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/27 09:32 PM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:15 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/27 02:41 PM |
Reference platform battery life | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 10:09 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 03:23 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:19 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:30 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:32 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 11:34 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 11:56 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 02:07 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Alberto | 2012/01/25 12:54 PM |
Atom HT gain | Wilco | 2012/01/25 05:43 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 06:53 AM |
Atom HT gain | none | 2012/01/25 07:04 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 07:35 AM |
Atom HT gain | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 07:06 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 08:21 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 10:13 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 04:30 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | none | 2012/01/25 06:14 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 07:18 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | observer | 2012/01/26 04:17 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/26 06:25 AM |
Process numbers | Alberto | 2012/01/26 09:29 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/02/02 12:38 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | tupper | 2012/01/25 04:27 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Linus Torvalds | 2012/01/25 08:37 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 02:12 PM |
Medfield article online | Andreas | 2012/01/25 03:10 AM |
Medfield article online | Alberto | 2012/01/25 09:44 AM |
Medfield article online | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 10:24 AM |
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 09:58 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 01:20 PM |
Medfield article online | Eric | 2012/01/26 06:10 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:40 PM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 09:28 AM |
64-bit | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 10:23 AM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 02:34 PM |
64-bit | Ungo | 2012/01/25 04:08 PM |
64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/01/26 12:55 PM |
Saltwell memcpy | SHK | 2012/01/26 02:41 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/26 03:09 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 05:54 PM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/28 02:22 PM |
Medfield article online (NT) | Anil | 2012/01/26 05:57 PM |
Medfield article online | Anil | 2012/01/26 06:11 PM |
Medfield article online | Mr. Camel | 2012/01/26 06:26 PM |
Medfield article online | none | 2012/01/27 01:41 AM |