Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 1/27/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>anon (anon@anon.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>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.
>
>
>Well, to look at the even larger picture, the beancounters will want the CPU +
>battery cost to be minimized for whatever given standby time is targeted. Whether
>they can accomplish that with a more expensive CPU that has an absolute minimum
>idle power draw, or by using a cheaper CPU and a slightly larger battery to compensate is the question.

The context was around the fact that Intel's SOC has worse standby power, and the core itself will be significantly worse than lower end ARM chips that can go in a non-smartphone.