I missed the original articles about the Asus 810 and the Acer W510...is it terrible that I want to buy one of the Acer convertibles because it looks so cheesy? Seriously, a white edge around a black bezel with a silver backing? It just looks so...dated.
But seriously, though, I love it, and that is no lie. Acer, if you land that thing stateside for under three Benjamins (one cent will do, even), and it's "Metro app" performance is competitive with a Surface RT tablet, I'll buy one as a development tool. I'll even forgive you the worn-out hinge in my Timeline.
Looking at it "the morning after", as it were, I gotta say...I'd still hit that. I definitely like that there appears to be an anti-glare coating on the screen. The thing I don't understand is, why is the Acer logo on the bezel of the tablet positioned in such a way that it is partly covered when it's docked? Completely visible or completely covered would make much more sense from an aesthetic perspective.
...but not at $600-$800. Dammit, Acer, no wonder you're terrified of a $200 Surface RT. You can't tell me that a IPS touchscreen takes what is essentially an Atom netbook and tacks on an additional $300 to $550.
Though is Intel really trying to position this as a smartphone part? If they are then I agree with the OP's sentiment; they've got an uphill battle in the smartphone arena unless the TDP on these is shockingly good.
Intel has shown they can be competitive with Arm in terms of Price/performance and TDP with Medfield. Intel has had decades of experience, has the best manufacturing and design teams on the planet, they would be the last company I would count out in terms of competing with Arm.
I don't think Intel was really trying to enter into the smartphone market back in 2007. They probably didn't anticipate the explosive growth. Now, they see the potential of the market, but also the potential of their ARM competitors...which is a good thing. I'm looking forward to seeing their Medfield successor...
"The big news are the four integrated Gen7 graphics engines, which I can only assume refer to Intel's EUs (Intel's HD 2500 has 6 EUs, while HD 4000 has 16 EUs). We've expected Intel to move away from licensing Imagination's GPUs for quite a while now, and it seems like Valleyview might be the first attempt at doing just that. By the time Intel gets to 14nm, I wouldn't be too surprised if it starts playing around with gen-graphics in a smartphone."
So Silvermont based 22nm smartphones SoCs in H2 2013 will still have Imagination GPUs?
And when you write "we'll see Silvermont based smartphone SoCs in 2013" do you mean retail smartphones or just chip availability?
"So Silvermont based 22nm smartphones SoCs in H2 2013 will still have Imagination GPUs?"
In support of that notion, this slide (http://www.expreview.com/topic/img/review/News/201... puts Valleyview at, like, Q4 2013, so Atom chips may be Silvermont+PowerVR between now and then. And I bet the chart's of SoC availability; I read it as Valleyview products either in 2014 right at the end of 2013 (in time for holiday shopping). But I'm doing fuzzy math here, so don't believe me.
" The timing on Valleyview and the Bay Trail platform appears to be late 2013 and into 2014. This seems a bit late, but the netbook/nettop platform isn't really begging for a faster refresh. "
I've said it before, I'll say it again. THIS is Intel's Achilles' Heel. The cost of maintain full x86 compatibility (including all that crap, from segments to PAE to SMM to MMX to virtual 8086 mode to ...) that is completely irrelevant to tablets and phones is NOT specifically power, and it's NOT specifically performance and it's NOT specifically area (though it does hurt all three).
The REAL cost is agility. Intel simply cannot update these chips faster than the schedule we're seeing here because they are so damn complex. The best they could do is emulate their desktop setup --- seven (or more) parallel teams, each working on the model for a different year. That's a hell of a lot of money to throw at a dubious market; and IMHO the very fact that Intel has not done this shows that they have little confidence that they can actually beat ARM.
So what we see here is something like Apple TV --- a hobby project. Will it one day take off?Who knows? (For either product.) But what I see in this roadmap is more of the same as the past few years --- a chip that's OK for netbooks and for the (unproven) Windows 8 non-RT tablet market, but not competitive in phones or most tablets.
The Atom was never about CPU and graphics processing power. It's about having a very low-power x86 processor. This article covers virtually everything *except* the most important subject: What is the TDP?
This will be an epic battle these 22nm atoms that are no longer glorified Pentium 3. Out of order execution is added along with competent GPU. AMD's Jaguar might be beaten here. Jaguar vs the new atom!
I love my brazos, and I wanted to love atom. I still prefer x86 and these little beast are going to be great. This is going to be interesting
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
samirsshah - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
Smartphones are already going to cross featurephones (50%) in 2013 according to IHS Suppli.Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
I missed the original articles about the Asus 810 and the Acer W510...is it terrible that I want to buy one of the Acer convertibles because it looks so cheesy? Seriously, a white edge around a black bezel with a silver backing? It just looks so...dated.But seriously, though, I love it, and that is no lie. Acer, if you land that thing stateside for under three Benjamins (one cent will do, even), and it's "Metro app" performance is competitive with a Surface RT tablet, I'll buy one as a development tool. I'll even forgive you the worn-out hinge in my Timeline.
JNo - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Yeah, in a strange contradictory way, it's kinda retro cheesy future cool...Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Looking at it "the morning after", as it were, I gotta say...I'd still hit that. I definitely like that there appears to be an anti-glare coating on the screen. The thing I don't understand is, why is the Acer logo on the bezel of the tablet positioned in such a way that it is partly covered when it's docked? Completely visible or completely covered would make much more sense from an aesthetic perspective.Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
...but not at $600-$800. Dammit, Acer, no wonder you're terrified of a $200 Surface RT. You can't tell me that a IPS touchscreen takes what is essentially an Atom netbook and tacks on an additional $300 to $550.tviceman - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
If Intel can't beat arm in TDP and they can't beat ARM in price, then as Blade would say, they are trying to ice skate uphill.rs2 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Not really, given that everything in the PC world runs on x86 and very little of it can work on ARM without a significant amount of effort.Exodite - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Backwards compatibility with existing x86 software isn't remotely as relevant when it comes to smartphones though.Tablets are a little better in that regard, though not much.
rs2 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
That's entirely true.Though is Intel really trying to position this as a smartphone part? If they are then I agree with the OP's sentiment; they've got an uphill battle in the smartphone arena unless the TDP on these is shockingly good.
Tormeh - Thursday, August 30, 2012 - link
Not really. You're all forgetting that all Android software runs on a JVM-like virtual machine.StevoLincolnite - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Intel has shown they can be competitive with Arm in terms of Price/performance and TDP with Medfield.Intel has had decades of experience, has the best manufacturing and design teams on the planet, they would be the last company I would count out in terms of competing with Arm.
michael2k - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
I wouldn't count them out, exactly, but they've been uncompetitive since 2007. It's only in 2012 that they finally caught up.vortmax2 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
I don't think Intel was really trying to enter into the smartphone market back in 2007. They probably didn't anticipate the explosive growth. Now, they see the potential of the market, but also the potential of their ARM competitors...which is a good thing. I'm looking forward to seeing their Medfield successor...Mike1111 - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
"The big news are the four integrated Gen7 graphics engines, which I can only assume refer to Intel's EUs (Intel's HD 2500 has 6 EUs, while HD 4000 has 16 EUs). We've expected Intel to move away from licensing Imagination's GPUs for quite a while now, and it seems like Valleyview might be the first attempt at doing just that. By the time Intel gets to 14nm, I wouldn't be too surprised if it starts playing around with gen-graphics in a smartphone."So Silvermont based 22nm smartphones SoCs in H2 2013 will still have Imagination GPUs?
And when you write "we'll see Silvermont based smartphone SoCs in 2013" do you mean retail smartphones or just chip availability?
twotwotwo - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
"So Silvermont based 22nm smartphones SoCs in H2 2013 will still have Imagination GPUs?"In support of that notion, this slide (http://www.expreview.com/topic/img/review/News/201... puts Valleyview at, like, Q4 2013, so Atom chips may be Silvermont+PowerVR between now and then. And I bet the chart's of SoC availability; I read it as Valleyview products either in 2014 right at the end of 2013 (in time for holiday shopping). But I'm doing fuzzy math here, so don't believe me.
twotwotwo - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Sorry, the slide is at http://www.expreview.com/topic/img/review/News/201...name99 - Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - link
"The timing on Valleyview and the Bay Trail platform appears to be late 2013 and into 2014. This seems a bit late, but the netbook/nettop platform isn't really begging for a faster refresh.
"
I've said it before, I'll say it again. THIS is Intel's Achilles' Heel. The cost of maintain full x86 compatibility (including all that crap, from segments to PAE to SMM to MMX to virtual 8086 mode to ...) that is completely irrelevant to tablets and phones is NOT specifically power, and it's NOT specifically performance and it's NOT specifically area (though it does hurt all three).
The REAL cost is agility. Intel simply cannot update these chips faster than the schedule we're seeing here because they are so damn complex. The best they could do is emulate their desktop setup --- seven (or more) parallel teams, each working on the model for a different year. That's a hell of a lot of money to throw at a dubious market; and IMHO the very fact that Intel has not done this shows that they have little confidence that they can actually beat ARM.
So what we see here is something like Apple TV --- a hobby project. Will it one day take off?Who knows? (For either product.)
But what I see in this roadmap is more of the same as the past few years --- a chip that's OK for netbooks and for the (unproven) Windows 8 non-RT tablet market, but not competitive in phones or most tablets.
rs2 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
So what is the TDP of these new parts?The Atom was never about CPU and graphics processing power. It's about having a very low-power x86 processor. This article covers virtually everything *except* the most important subject: What is the TDP?
twotwotwo - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
I'm curious too, but I think Intel hasn't revealed any of that, even after glancing at the original slides linked in the post.cyrusfox - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
This will be an epic battle these 22nm atoms that are no longer glorified Pentium 3. Out of order execution is added along with competent GPU. AMD's Jaguar might be beaten here. Jaguar vs the new atom!I love my brazos, and I wanted to love atom. I still prefer x86 and these little beast are going to be great. This is going to be interesting
hechacker1 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
Right. I was about to build a HTPC/storage server using an AMD part, but 4 cores, OoO, and a fast encode/decode engine sound REALLY good.AMD needs to put some fixed function encoders in their chip. Their current GPUs suck at it. And the software sucks too.
AlB80 - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - link
What about AVX support?