Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: Anon (no.delete@this.email.com), January 26, 2012 6:03 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon@anon.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Anon (no@email.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Foo_ (foo@nomail.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Yes. I think smartphones will trickle down in the coming years, because the price
>>>>of entry-level smartphones will decrease and the price of 3G data access will decrease
>>>>too. So people like me will soon switch to smartphones even though they won't make
>>>>a heavy use of it, and they will expect decent standby times out of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are and will be many low end Android phones coming out which will cause smartphones
>>>to entirely replace the feature phone market over the next few years. A lot of
>>>the "smartphones" will be only in name as their owners will use them only as phones,
>>>and never use any smartphone functionality such as browsing or apps. I wouldn't
>>>be surprised in fact to see disabling the ability to load apps, removing the browser,
>>>Wifi capability etc. on the very lowest end models as a method of artificial market segmentation.
>>>
>>>I'm sure someone will make (if they aren't already) Android phones that are a bit
>>>thicker to accomodate a jumbo battery, which would allow a month of standby time
>>>for those who almost never use their phone. You're not the only who has this usage
>>>model, my retired parents have a cell phone that they only use when travelling.
>>>I think maybe my dad also brings it with him when he goes to the grocery store
>>>so he can call my mom if he can't find something on her list :)
>>>
>>>My point in dismissing the advantage in standby when compared to the iPhone 4S
>>>is that customers who buy the iPhone or an Android phone comparable to the Medfield
>>>reference platform are buying them to be used heavily as smartphones. The battery
>>>life when actually using them is pretty much the same. The difference in standby
>>>time is only relevant to a certain segment of the feature phone replacement market,
>>>and I doubt Intel plans to (or even can) compete with ARM in that ultimate cut throat
>>>market where saving even a few pennies in the BOM rules supreme.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would agree pretty much.
>>
>>One other thing to consider, I suspect that cutting down a high end phone to such
>>minimal capability (smaller dimmer screen, slower cpu, lesser gpu, less memory,
>>no 3g, no wireless, no gps, less sensors, etc) would allow a significant increase
>>in the standby time without having to look too deeply at the core architecture.
>
>No, you're not looking at the complete picture. I mean, your statement is correct,
>but when you have less peripheral power draw, then you have relatively larger idle
>core power draw. So it becomes more important to have lower power core.
>
>Manufacturers of course want to put the smallest, cheapest battery on there that they can.
I'm not missing the point, thats why I said 'slower cpu' as by my understanding idle power demands also tend to drop heavily with lower end CPUs due to their base silicon being on lower leakage processes.
I have not verified that, but it does make a certain amount of sense, no?
---------------------------
>Anon (no@email.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Foo_ (foo@nomail.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Yes. I think smartphones will trickle down in the coming years, because the price
>>>>of entry-level smartphones will decrease and the price of 3G data access will decrease
>>>>too. So people like me will soon switch to smartphones even though they won't make
>>>>a heavy use of it, and they will expect decent standby times out of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are and will be many low end Android phones coming out which will cause smartphones
>>>to entirely replace the feature phone market over the next few years. A lot of
>>>the "smartphones" will be only in name as their owners will use them only as phones,
>>>and never use any smartphone functionality such as browsing or apps. I wouldn't
>>>be surprised in fact to see disabling the ability to load apps, removing the browser,
>>>Wifi capability etc. on the very lowest end models as a method of artificial market segmentation.
>>>
>>>I'm sure someone will make (if they aren't already) Android phones that are a bit
>>>thicker to accomodate a jumbo battery, which would allow a month of standby time
>>>for those who almost never use their phone. You're not the only who has this usage
>>>model, my retired parents have a cell phone that they only use when travelling.
>>>I think maybe my dad also brings it with him when he goes to the grocery store
>>>so he can call my mom if he can't find something on her list :)
>>>
>>>My point in dismissing the advantage in standby when compared to the iPhone 4S
>>>is that customers who buy the iPhone or an Android phone comparable to the Medfield
>>>reference platform are buying them to be used heavily as smartphones. The battery
>>>life when actually using them is pretty much the same. The difference in standby
>>>time is only relevant to a certain segment of the feature phone replacement market,
>>>and I doubt Intel plans to (or even can) compete with ARM in that ultimate cut throat
>>>market where saving even a few pennies in the BOM rules supreme.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would agree pretty much.
>>
>>One other thing to consider, I suspect that cutting down a high end phone to such
>>minimal capability (smaller dimmer screen, slower cpu, lesser gpu, less memory,
>>no 3g, no wireless, no gps, less sensors, etc) would allow a significant increase
>>in the standby time without having to look too deeply at the core architecture.
>
>No, you're not looking at the complete picture. I mean, your statement is correct,
>but when you have less peripheral power draw, then you have relatively larger idle
>core power draw. So it becomes more important to have lower power core.
>
>Manufacturers of course want to put the smallest, cheapest battery on there that they can.
I'm not missing the point, thats why I said 'slower cpu' as by my understanding idle power demands also tend to drop heavily with lower end CPUs due to their base silicon being on lower leakage processes.
I have not verified that, but it does make a certain amount of sense, no?
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 |