Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorola's First Intel-Based Handset Launches In UK

Posted by timothy on from the perhaps-it-could-skipped-across-the-pond dept.

New submitter lookatmyhorse writes "As promised, Google's Motorola unit has released its first Intel-powered smartphone. The Razr i is based on a mid-range model sold in the U.S. that features an ARM-based Snapdragon processor. Motorola said the change of chip meant improved camera performance. However, it has also meant Google's Chrome browser is not installed on the device. Intel recently cut its sales forecasts citing weaker demand. Although it dominates PC chip sales, it is a niche player in the smart device sector. The handset is Motorola's first to feature an Intel processor; its existing smartphone partners — ZTE, Lenovo, Lava, and Gigabyte — are all relatively minor smartphone forces in Western markets. So, Intel's tie-up with Google — which also makes the Android system — is widely seen as its most significant effort to crack the market to date. The handset will be offered in the UK, France, Germany and Latin America."

11 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. So many problems... by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Motorola using an intel processor?!? (ok, so it's really Motorola Mobility which is really motoroogle, but still...)

    2. A Google phone without Chrome?!?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:So many problems... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Apparently Chrome can be downloaded, which is a damn good thing because the default Android browser is pretty unimpressive(ie. the 'play' store won't flag it as incompatible with the device); but the Chrome built for Android apparently has some ARM-based optimizations or assumptions that make it less than it might be on x86, TFA isn't specific about what they are.

      It's a trifle odd, though, given that Google certainly spends a fair amount of time polishing Chrome for x86 on Windows, OSX, Linux, and their own 'ChromeOS', and Intel has the same access to the Chromium source code as everybody else(if their engineers see something that could be improved), as well as giant fucking buckets of cash with which to induce Google to work a bit faster on making the Android version of Chrome really scream on x86(not that Google would have any obvious interest in Android working worse on any platform; but a little sweetener could probably get you moved up the priority list a bit)... You'd think that Chrome would have been a major target.

    2. Re:So many problems... by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to TFA you can still install Chrome from the Play store (which is what most Android users do since Chrome is not installed by default on most Android devices). The one thing Chrome users with the Intel chip will lack is hardware accelerated page rendering.

      I'm not sold on this chip, but I do like to see competition in the mobile CPU segment.

  2. Was sort of hoping for x86 by kriston · · Score: 2

    I don't think I was the only one hoping for x86-compatible instead of yet again another ARM-based processor.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:Was sort of hoping for x86 by hattig · · Score: 2

      The European model (Razr i) is based around an Intel Atom at 2GHz with two threads via SMT.

      The US model (Razr M) is based around the Qualcomm ARMv7 Snapdragon - dual-core at 1.5GHz.

  3. Re:battery life by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Intel has previously released a 1.6Ghz chip that is at least somewhat similar(possibly worse, I don't know how much improvement there has been between that one and this 2Ghz model). It didn't feature in any phones of particular interest, a few mid-ish range ones on non-US carriers; but benchmarks suggested that it was pretty much even, in performance and battery life, to ARM phones in the dual 1.5Ghz processor range...

    It does seem that the 'smartphone' category has been pegged at "Well, one working day of use is all the battery life people care about, so if you find yourself above that, make the phone slimmer, the screen bigger, or add a uselessly overpowered cellular modem..." territory; but Intel does seem to have things down to less risible power levels.

    This certainly isn't the first-gen Atom combined with a 20-watt 945G...

  4. Zero performance, where it matters... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Android is an ARMv7 platform, just like Windows is x86, no matter how hard anyone tries to change it.

    With x86 Android, all the CPU-intensive apps, WON'T RUN. They mention Chrome, but Firefox is also out. Non-trivial games won't run, as they're all native ARMv7. I know I make extensive use of emulators like MAME and others on my phone, but not if it's missing an ARMv7 CPU.

    Multimedia apps are almost all out of the question, as they're ARMv7 for performance reasons. This includes Flash, so no luck if you wanted to use it. For multimedia, you're pretty much stuck with the piss-poor built-in audio and video players, since they've gone through the trouble of recompiling/porting them to x86.

    My point is simple... No matter how fast the CPU may be, you aren't going to be able to run ANY apps that would benefit from a fast CPU, cause none of them will run, AT ALL. I think the potential for a non-ARM chip will have to come from the low-end instead... Maybe China's ridiculously cheap, low-end MIPS CPUs will make for cheap enough low-end tablets, that aren't fast enough for games and video anyhow, that developers slowly begin porting their apps, and opening the door for high-end MIPS devices as well.

    Intel's strategy seems inherently doomed.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Zero performance, where it matters... by Microlith · · Score: 2

      I know. There's no way in hell they could recompile them for x86. It sucks when you write software and it's forever locked to one architecture.

    2. Re:Zero performance, where it matters... by david.given · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, sure, except that when writing Android NDK apps, making them run on x86 is as simple as changing:

      APP_ABI := armeabi

      ...to:

      APP_ABI := armeabi x86

      ...in your Application.mk file. Then you end up with an APK which installs and runs fine on both. And if you want MIPS as well?

      APP_ABI := armeabi x86 mips

      Of course, this won't help existing apps that haven't been cross-compiled, but the Intel San Diego we have here does seem to have a ARM emulator. But I haven't looked at that in much detail because TBH it doesn't interest me much.

  5. Re:20 hours between charges by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Here is a review of one of the phones based on the 1.6Ghz atoms, with some benchmarks and battery life testing. A bit of googling around for that model will yield more of the same.

    I'm not really interested in getting into a flamewar about a device category I don't even own an example of; but all the benchmarks I've read indicate that the 1.6Ghz single-core atom is basically equivalent to a dual 1.5Ghz ARM. Not bleeding edge(their GPU, especially, is an older part); but neither substantially slower nor substantially hotter than the silicon in other phones in the price range.

  6. Re:Why is everyone saying power consumption is hig by repvik · · Score: 2

    The Atom Z2460 beats most phones in benchmarks, and plays in an even field regarding power usage.

    Compared to most phones produced last year, yes. Compare it with HTCs One X or the Samsung Galaxy SIII (or the iPhone 5), and try again.
    Also, it beats few phones on GPU performance. That, and power consumption, is probably why Motorola slapped a crappy 540x960 screen in the phone.

    Also, the Motorola Razr i has a 1780mah battery while the old Razr M had a 2000mah. Both are specified to run roughly 24h.

    Spec sheet for the Razr i says "Up To 20 Hours". That's make it worse off for power consumption than the old Razr M.
    Seriously though. Are those actual standby numbers? Do these phones have to be charged atleast once daily, without being used?
    I easily get 48h+ on my Galaxy Nexus with light usage (a few phonecalls, some sms/gtalk, checking twitter/mail). It's got a 1750mAh battery.