Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Debuts Clover Trail For Tablets, Launches New Atom Inside

Posted by timothy on from the double-dose-of-pimpin'-action dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today, Intel is launching its next-generation Clover Trail platform. The new Intel Z2760 is a dual-core, quad-threaded device clocked at up to 1.8GHz, with support for up to 2GB of RAM and graphics provided courtesy of a single PowerVR SGX545 core. Chipzilla expects to see wide adoption from multiple partners, with a host of tablets expected to launch simultaneously with Windows 8. The new SoC is closely related to Medfield, Intel's 32nm smartphone platform that ExtremeTech reviewed earlier this year, but there are a few differences between the two."

88 comments

  1. WTF by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    Intel Debuts Clover Trail For Tablets, Launches New Atom Inside

    Clover Trail? Wazzat? A game? A processor? Actual clover? It has an atom inside? Wow, OK. Good for them? Takes a lot to launch a single atom, does it?

    Some days tech headlines just make no damn sense to me at all. Getting old, I think. Early onset discombobulation.

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post explains why governmental operations are assigned terms that may show up in casual conversation. Even if someone is trying to pay attention, they will often miss the important details.

      Dinner out is a go.

    2. Re:WTF by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Hell of a way to speak to your wife.

    3. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his wife is a modern empowered woman so I'm sure she's emotionally stable enough to handle it. if not, she should stfu, get back in the kitchen, and make him dinner.

    4. Re:WTF by mspohr · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like the Yellow Brick Road.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  2. Hmmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anybody know what 'Security Engine' is, and what exactly it is using about 1/3 as much silicon as one of the processor cores to do exactly?

    None of the thermal die shots appear to show it actually doing much of anything demanding; but I have to assume that Intel didn't put it there just because they really wanted the processor to be a bit bigger and more power hungry.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Does anybody know what 'Security Engine' is, and what exactly it is using about 1/3 as much silicon as one of the processor cores to do exactly?

      None of the thermal die shots appear to show it actually doing much of anything demanding; but I have to assume that Intel didn't put it there just because they really wanted the processor to be a bit bigger and more power hungry.

      I'm guessing it handles a lot of the security stuff, but also has a lot of extra oomph to basically do stuff while the x86 CPUs are off. Like handle music playback, video playback, etc. Stuff that can be done on a more efficient architecture (I think Intel's using MIPS) so the x86 can be powered off to have comparable battery life. Kick them on doing CPU-intensive tasks and watch the battery percentage tick downward steadily.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Trusted Platform Module AKA hardware DRM.

      or... the bit of extra hardware that means you don't own the PC you just paid for.

    3. Re:Hmmm... by KalvinB · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/13/business/fi-rup13.11

      --
      Work Safe Porn
    4. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea what a TPM chip is used for. It's basically a secure storage place for crypto keys, plus hardware assisted cryptography. It's what allows a computer to have an encrypted hard drive without the user having to enter their encryption key every time they boot.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    5. Re:Hmmm... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >A Trusted Platform Module AKA hardware DRM.
      >or... the bit of extra hardware that means you don't own the PC you just paid for.

      You are wrong. It is not a TPM. It's a thing to keep your crypto operations, including keys, away from the prying eyes of malware and side channel attacks.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Hmmm... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea what a TPM chip is used for.

      I do. But why should a TPM chip need 30% of the die space of a general purpose processor? Is that accurate? If so this sounds like, hmm, like massive chrome bumpers on the Edsel if you will be so kind as to permit me a car analogy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *You* don't know what a TPM is.

      Yes it's a secure storage for keys... but you do not control the storage root key it's baked into the TPM and never leaves it. It's there to make sure that IT companies control the TPM - not you. This "trust" then climbs up the software chain (all digitally signed)... which would all be fine... if you controlled it.

      But you do not. It's not yours.

      They (being Intel, and the various IT companies, like Microsoft) do not trust you. I can't put it any better than the original quote from Alan Cox: if you don't have the keys, then it's not about security.

      And with a TPM... you don't. It's not about security - at least, not yours. It's about DRM being sold as security.

    8. Re:Hmmm... by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      So, it includes the main thing that a TPM is used for (key storage)? Or is it only ephemeral and loses data during a power-cycle?

      Hardware-accelerated crypto and hardware RNG are both very useful features that have only recently become common on commidity CPUs. I'm somewhat impressed that they bothered to put it in a tablet-oriented chip, but I can see the logic (no pun intended).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    9. Re:Hmmm... by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Well it only needs a fraction of that but the DHS needs the other 29% to help save you from terrorists.

      Thanks for keeping me safe from myself, Microsoft!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    10. Re:Hmmm... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      away from prying eyes but potentially not just that of malware.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    11. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have no idea what a TPM chip is used for. It's basically a secure storage place for crypto keys

      Who controls the keys? Not you? Then it's not yours.

      It's a secure place for the vendors to store keys. Not the owner. The antithesis of capitalism and free enterprise.

    12. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I suppose that's why TrueCrypt uses a TPM if you have one, because it's so insecure. Right.

      By the way, it's called an Endorsement key, not a root storage key. And the point of it is that nobody has that key, it's in the black box, and it can't be forged so someone cannot emulate it.

      You know how people clone cell phones? Without this black box key, people could easily do the same. Your securely encrypted hard disk is now open to whoever has the tools to use it.

      The TPM requires a key to access it. YOU control that key, either a smartcard, or password, or some other device. Without YOUR key, the computer won't boot. So please save me the BS about who controls the keys. YOU do.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    13. Re:Hmmm... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      The other 29% is to take away control of the music and movies you've bought.

      Since it also makes it far more sensible for viewers to choose content that does not interact with that 29%, it's essentially making itself redundant.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    14. Re:Hmmm... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Interesting. So since they went XXL on the die size anyway why didn't they again also upgrade the memory controller to finally support more than 2Gb of ram? I mean they dream of people using IDEs and whatnot on those tablets.

      --
      -- no sig today
    15. Re:Hmmm... by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

      Actually capitalist forces are what is making them so popular. If you want a computing platform to be popular and SECURE then it needs a TPM to provide such security to the computer-illiterate masses. If you want commodity hardware at commodity prices, suck it up and by stuff with TPMs. If you don't then prepare for either obscure unsupported geek tech or pay out the ass for something more expensive. Stop expecting the mass market, whom many geeks regularly deride for their lack of "l33t h@x0rr skills", to subsidize your niche requirements.

    16. Re:Hmmm... by SuperMooCow · · Score: 1

      It is probably a secret requirement from Microsoft so that people can only run a special version of Windows 8 on those tablets and need to also buy a Windows 8-powered netbook or laptop too.

    17. Re:Hmmm... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's a tool. It can be used by the owner, or against the owner.

    18. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say it was "insecure". I said it's not about security - it's about control. I don't have the key... even though I paid for it.

      When Microsoft takes control of the TPM, they take control over my machine. They own it.

      As I keep saying, it's not about security... at least not yours. The fantasy of uncrackable cell phones is bullshit - all of these problems have better solutions than a TPM.

      You don't keep your key with the lock for example... you keep it elsewhere.

      Trusted Computing was designed for DRM purposes and for enforcing software licenses. If it wasn't for that purpose YOU (as the owner) would control it.

      And you do not.

    19. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. Again. You don't seem to be listening to me. YOU control the TPM, Microsoft does *NOT* take control of it. It only functions if YOU supply YOUR key to it (password, key, smartcard, etc..). Not even Microsoft can get into the TPM if you do not provide your key.

      I don't know where you get these ideas from, but they're simply not true.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    20. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not wrong. Answer this:

      When *I* buy the machine... why can't *I* know the baked-in key? So that I can exercise control over the machine that *I* paid for.

      You simply don't understand the issue. The TPM is designed to keep secrets from its owner - in effect, ensure that YOU never really own it.

      It's intellectually dishonest to say anything else... and yet, shills for the Trusted Computing crowd, still try it.

      Look up owner override... and then ponder why the companies behind Trusted Computing are so dead set against it. It's because - AS I KEEP FUCKING SAYING - it's not about security.

    21. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      You just keep repeating the same things over and over, and think you know something. But you don't. You are just repeating what someone told you.

      *NOBODY* knows what the baked in key is. It's randomly generated during the manufacturing process, and even the manufacturer of the chip doesn't know what it is. This key cannot be extracted from the chip, so Microsoft doesn't know it either.

      This garbage you keep spewing about Microsoft knowing the baked in key is complete and utter rubbish.

      This key is what the chip itself uses to sign the password you create. And it's why the chip doesn't allow anyone (not Microsoft, not even the manufacturer of the chip) to get at the key YOU created and put in the storage.

      The whole point of the TPM is that it's a black-box hardware cryptography device. If anyone knew what the key was, then it could be bypassed. And that's why YOU can't have it either.

      The TPM is designed to be an unbreakable cryptographic storage system, which keeps your computer secure from anyone other than you, the person that created the password that controls access to it's secrets.

      Can a TPM be used against the owner of a device? Sure, it can. But any kind of secure hardware device can do that. Guns can kill the owner. Cars can lock out the owner. You can lock yourself out of your own home.

      *ANY* kind of security can be used against the owner, that's no excuse to not have security. And if you depend on the security being crackable by yourself if that happens, then anyone else can also crack it.. so it's no security at all.

      The fact is, the TPM is a tool for whoever the administrator is. If you aren't the administrator on a device you buy, then that's your fault for buying that device. Vote with you wallet and simply refuse to buy any device that uses the TPM in this way.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    22. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks... all that specious drivel just proves the whole fucking point of this thread. *YOU* as the owner of the device are not trusted to know the key. Whether Microsoft knows the key or not IS NOT THE POINT.

      The TPM is designed to allow them to trust that your machine is in a particular state/configuration. THEY don't trust YOU.

      "*ANY* kind of security can be used against the owner, that's no excuse to not have security."

      You still refuse to see the issue. You don't get extra security from a TPM - you get less. A TPM (as envisioned by the Trusted Computing companies) brings nothing to the security table other than taking control over a device away from its owner and putting it in the hands of IT companies.

      The IT companies get more security... but it's not "security" as most people understand it.

      "Cars can lock out the owner. You can lock yourself out of your own home."

      Cars don't lock out the owner. My home has never locked me out. I OWN the fucking keys to those. If I lose the keys, it's my fault.

      A well secured PC is like a prison. Better cells form keeping dangerous inmate are a good thing. The problem with the vision of security sold by Trusted Computing (and by you) is that person who paid for the prison isn't the warden, he's one of the convicts. It's the IT companies who own the prison and they'll decide who goes where and when.

    23. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally... you never did answer the simple question:

      Why can't I (as the owner) know what the key is?

    24. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I did answer the question. Because NOBODY can know what the key is. It's a black-box secure hardware crypto processor.

      Knowledge of the key, even by the owner makes it pointless. If someone can bypass it, even the owner, then it's a useless device. It's entire purpose in life is to be uncrackable (within normal means.. certainly one can forensically analyze the TPM with an electron microscope, but that's way outside the bounds of all but a few people in the world).

      To put this another way, If you knew the key that would mean the manufacturer would know the key, because they would have to tell you. And that would mean any employee of the company could know the key, and the key could ten be discovered by people you don't want to know it, like an oppressive government cracking down on dissidents.

      Ok, you might say.. So how about if the key could be set by you? If the key could be set, then it can be re-set. If it can be re-set, it can by bypassed, or compromised with a key someone else knows.

      A TPM is secure because, and only because, nobody (not even the manufacturer) knows the endorsement key. If anyone knows it, then you've effectively destroyed the trustworthiness of the chip.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    25. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Knowledge of the key, even by the owner makes it pointless. If someone can bypass it, even the owner, then it's a useless device."

      If the owner can bypass it then it's pointless? Really? Why? Because that's the central question I've been trying to get you to answer... and which you keep dodging.

      The reason owner bypass is "pointless" to people like you is that... bingo.. it's not about security. I can keep my fucking key on a USB stick and don't keep it with the PC. No-one knows it but me. I control it. I have root. It's mine.

      Tahdahh... not keeping your key with the lock is a million times stronger security than a "secure black box" (which it is not). Oddly this is how security works in the real world - if you keep your house key hanging on a door nail next to the lock you're an idiot.

      Oh and... the TPM manufacturer knows the key. If you think no-one knows it (or for example the US government couldn't find it), you're an even bigger fool than I already thought.

      I mean come on... come back with another example about how your "house locks you out" or "your car locks you out". When in fact, I own the keys for those things and they aren't under the control of a corporation.

      As I have to keep repeating. TPMs are about remote attestation and DRM. They add exactly nothing to my security... unlike you... I don't enjoy being treated like a convict.

    26. Re:Hmmm... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      It's clear that you're one of those people that think you know better than experts about security. Obviously, there's nothing I can say to educate you because you refuse to believe anything other than your own misinformed thoughts on the subject.

      The TPM manufacturer does not know the key. The manufacturing process requires auditing and verification that the endorsement key generation process is secure. This is verified by an independent third party, and then verified again by an authority.

      If the manufacturer kept a copy of the key, then that's a point of insecurity. If the manufacturer was compromised, it would suddenly make millions of TPM chips worthless. Governments use these chips to protect sensitive information, and they would not allow the manufacturers to destroy the integrity of the system that way.

      Remote attestation is yet another tool for your own security. For instance, you could use it to verify that your server has not been compromised by an attacker. Can it be used in a bad way as well? Sure... so can any tool.

      The part you keep refusing to accept is that all tools can be used for good and bad. That's no excuse not to use them for the good..

      If you don't want to use software that treats you like a criminal... then here's a thought.

      Don't use software that treats you like a criminal. It's that easy. Use software that gives you the power to enforce your own security. Nobody is forcing you to buy software with DRM in it. Nobody is forcing you to buy hardware that locked with DRM. If you don't buy it, it can't hurt you.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  3. Astroturf alert by pipedwho · · Score: 3, Informative

    Astroturf alert. This is a block copy marketing pitch from a company dedicated to finding sources to buy ICs. Complete with blatant mention of themselves when they have no direct link to an Intel product they are 'announcing'.

    1. Re:Astroturf alert by Zouden · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? "Chipzilla" is a nickname for Intel.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    2. Re:Astroturf alert by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up, but I've already posted. ;-)

      "Chipzilla" isn't the company linked twice in the summary. I confused the linked article source for one of those companies that spams out daily emails with 'press releases' for the 'latest' ICs. The summary read exactly like one those emails.

  4. Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by steveha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/27/intels-clover-trail-is-a-bloated-nightmare/

    The author of this makes no attempt to pretend to be impartial, but if his facts are correct I think his conclusions must be correct also.

    My favorite comment:

    You can buy a full Nexus 7 for $30 more than what Microsoft gets for the software on a Clover Trail tablet, and that is before the added hardware costs. The Nexus works better, has better battery life, and is not a security nightmare either.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Charlie is anti-Intel but he seems to have good sources therefore his info is usually correct. Of course, he is biased when drawing conclusions and you should be aware of that when reading, since he can get a little "carried away" sometimes.
      Also, I remember that Intel has managed to crush their competition in the past while selling a significantly slower, more power-hungry and more expensive product (P4 anyone?). So even if Clover Trail is "a dog" as Charlie puts it, I guess if Intel REALLY wanted to they could probably find a way to shove it down our throats ;)

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! What a rant! I though your link would actually say something useful, but after I read the first paragraph, I felt I was reading a kid throwing a tantrum.

    3. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he's also anti-Nvidia, and he's promoting the Tegra3 powered N7, so that's saying something.

    4. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know whether that article is correct or not; but(if we assume for the sake of argument that it is) the thing that really doesn't make sense to me is what Intel's motivation would be:

      He gives the impression that both Intel and Microsoft are working against the part(Intel doesn't want the lousy margins, Microsoft is undermining Win8 x86 tablets with office licensing terms); but that the part is also a 100% hardware-locked MS-only device that they won't even let any other potential customer have a crack at, much less have any genuine enthusiasm for trying to sell it to them.

      However, if that is so, why does the part exist at all? If it is so big that it is practically an i3, why would Intel design an entirely different chip rather than just lasering something off their weaker i3s and giving them an inscrutable model number and OEM only distribution? And if Microsoft is shafting Intel on the part, why is Intel making it a Windows exclusive(and on the processor level, not merely with a locked bootloader, which would allow MS OEMs to do their thing and Intel to still sell this to Android vendors, embedded linux appliance vendors, and whoever else)?

      That's what I don't understand about the story as presented: plenty of products ship deliberately crippled because somebody prefers them that way(see all DRM systems, for instance); but that crippling isn't free, so it has to be in somebody's apparent interest for it to happen. Here, none of the players seem interested: Intel, allegedly, has a chip that can't compete with their existing products, and isn't a winner on margins. MS has a chip apparently designed just for them, except they would rather ship punchier devices with those existing products. So, who wins here?

    5. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can buy a full Nexus 7 for $30 more than what Microsoft gets for the software on a Clover Trail tablet,

      That doesn't make sense. Nexus costs, what, $200? Is he claiming that Windows OEM license for tablets costs $170? Where did he even get that number from?

      and that is before the added hardware costs

      Again, where does the number come from? As I recall, Medfield-based smartphones weren't any more expensive than ARM-based ones. Why would Clover Field suddenly be different?

      has better battery life

      Again, Medfield phones seem to show decent battery life side by side with ARM - nothing outstanding, but not lagging behind either. Why would Clover Field be different?

    6. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      Or he just needed the lowest-priced Android tablet to build the argument around?

    7. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by steveha · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make sense. Nexus costs, what, $200? Is he claiming that Windows OEM license for tablets costs $170?

      Well, you could have tried reading the article. If you do read it, you will see that indeed he is claiming $170, but for a total cost, not just the OEM license for Windows 8 itself. Expanded quote from article:

      Then there is the software costs. Microsoft threw Intel under a bus with WART [Windows on an ARM Tablet], if you buy the ARM version of Windows for about 2x the cost, you get Office for âfreeâ(TM). If you buy the x86 version of Windows 8, you get the OS for a little less than half the price, but without office. You then have to buy the full version of Office to put on it for $125 and up, way up if you want Outlook.
      That puts any Clover Trail machine at $170 for the software alone before the bloated hardware costs to store and run everything.

      I think he is assuming here that anyone who actually wants to buy a Windows 8 tablet will also want Office and probably Outlook. I think he's probably right on that point: I'm happy to run LibreOffice on Linux Mint, or use Google Docs on an Android tablet, but I'm not the target customer for a Windows 8 tablet.

      It would be more fair to take out the cost of office when comparing the cost of the tablets. But the larger point is valid: Microsoft is trying for a premium product in a market where a $200 product is already established and popular.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    8. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Technically, the product that's established and popular on the market is a 10" tablet selling for $500 for the base version. I have a Nexus 7 myself and I love it, but it's not quite the same thing, and there is a reason why it costs that much less. I've yet to see anyone pull the same price off with a larger device - even Amazon stopped at $300. And, last I heard, there were no 7" Win8 devices even announced (though that might actually have something to do with Windows license cost).

    9. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or he just needed the lowest-priced Android tablet

      Are you kidding?

      You could buy four AllWinner tablets for the price of one Nexus 7. The SoCs are selling for less than $10 in volume.

      Free shipping,boxchip,ALLWinner A13, 7.0" Android 4.0;512MB/4GB, 5 points touch capacitiive touch.Tablet PC Price: US $42.00 - 53.50 / piece

      http://www.aliexpress.com/item/free-shipping-boxchip-ALLWinner-A13-7-0-Android-4-0-512MB-4GB-5-points-touch-capacitiive/648623535.html

      http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllWinner_A1X

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    10. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 2

      I am? Wow, who knew.

                          -Charlie

    11. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, it's not like it's a bad thing! ;)

    12. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? You could buy four AllWinner tablets for the price of one Nexus 7. The SoCs are selling for less than $10 in volume.

      Yes, and they're all crap in practice. Either poorly assembled, or poor screens, or awful battery life, or sluggish.

    13. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Yes, and they're all crap in practice.

      No they're not. They're effective little machines for the price.

      I have distributed dozens of them, and with few exceptions they're all well-loved tools or toys, being used for communicating with Skype and Gtalk, auditing & inspection, as mobile manual repositories and for watching movies on flight.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    14. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by slew · · Score: 1

      Intel, allegedly, has a chip that can't compete with their existing products, and isn't a winner on margins. MS has a chip apparently designed just for them, except they would rather ship punchier devices with those existing products. So, who wins here?

      Both intel and microsoft win (they hope). By putting a product out a product that fits right in between tablets and laptops, they have the chance to permanently segment the market by poisoning the middle. No-one will be able to charge more for a tablet than the price point they set, and they will expect anything "better" to be x86. This will create a firewall which will allow microsoft to bomb the price on the tablet OS to compete with android and microsoft and intel to continue to charge more for laptops (preserving margins on those products).The only fly in this ointment is that they have to muster up enough excitement to be able to sell enough to make the firewall stick. I don't think they'll be able to pull it off, but that's why you play the game, to see who's got the game...

      Unfortunatly, it's just like getting a medical procedure for the parties involved. Intellectually, they know that even though the treatment is unpalletable, they should probably do it as it is better for them in the long run. However, a small voice inside always is thinking maybe I should just avoid it and hope things get better on their own.... Hmm, or maybe I'll try some alternative procedure and hope for the best... Then again, maybe I'll regret taking the alternative path... Decisions, decisions...

    15. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charlie is anti-Intel

      Charlie is anti-Intel like Ben "Yahzee" Croshaw is anti-videogames. Although there are a lot of interesting steps forward in the industry, there are also a lot of features being pushed that are poorly thought out, marketed as wonderful, and considered harmful.
       
      AMD doesn't have the resources to do that kind of screwing around, but they get bashed when key talent leaves.
       
      Semiaccurate is a fun read because it sounds like an insider looking out. Anandtech isn't bad either although it takes a consumer's point of view rather than a technician's. After looking at that extremetech article listed in the summary, I'm going to ignore links and stories from them from now on.

    16. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Free shipping,boxchip,ALLWinner A13, 7.0" Android 4.0;512MB/4GB, 5 points touch capacitiive touch.Tablet PC Price: US $42.00 - 53.50 / piece

      http://www.aliexpress.com/item/free-shipping-boxchip-ALLWinner-A13-7-0-Android-4-0-512MB-4GB-5-points-touch-capacitiive/648623535.html

      That page is 404 already. This is why I never buy shit from aliexpress. Dealextreme is as low as I will sink.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      AliExpress is an escrow agent and market, somewhat like an eBay for factories. You don't buy from them, you buy from the vendors who use AliExpress to sell their products.

      I linked to a vendor I found while searching for "lowest-priced Android tablet" which was what OP claimed the Nexus 7 was. I have bought many tablets successfully from other more reputable vendors selling in the same market.

      You are welcome to spend more money for the same product in Dealextreme. I used to.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    18. Re:Semi-Accurate predicts horrible failure by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      AliExpress is an escrow agent and market, somewhat like an eBay for factories. You don't buy from them, you buy from the vendors who use AliExpress to sell their products.

      Yes, and the products are cross-listed and poorly described, so that finding what you actually want can be a frustrating exercise.

      You are welcome to spend more money for the same product in Dealextreme. I used to.

      I pay more for customer service. DX's is shockingly good (so far) for being in China and not really having to care about me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. PowerVR? by pokeparadox · · Score: 1

    PowerVR again? I thought they already got burnt hard enough with the whole poulsbo issues that are still a problem for many netbooks! (including my own.)

  6. Why just 2GB RAM ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does it really make it that more power hungry/expensive to enable a few more lines for RAM addressing ? Having more RAM can help to compensate for a slower CPU -- less swapping, etc. Not all usage profiles are running a few non RAM hungry programs; even something like a web browser can end up eating lots of RAM.

    The only thing that I can think of is that they are positioning at cheap-low end and expect you to pay for a more expensive CPU if you need more RAM, kind of like what MS is doing with the cheapest Windows 7 -- it can only be sold on a machine with a max 1GB RAM.

    1. Re:Why just 2GB RAM ? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      still at 2gb of ram that just stupid. its been at 2gb sense the original atom n270. and its lack of official Linux support this chip is going to flop harder then windows 8. at least they said the next atoms will once again have Linux support this chip is more a shut Microsoft up chip then anything else.

    2. Re:Why just 2GB RAM ? by inflex · · Score: 1

      It's a legitimate pain in the butt. Intel deliberately does this to prevent the chips/chipset cannibalising their other offerings. I for one would have no problems running this hardware if I had 4~8GB. Not that it matters to Intel, but I'll be going with the AMD E450 APU instead.

    3. Re:Why just 2GB RAM ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Power. Even in standby mode, RAM is powered. The power consumption scales linearly with the amount of RAM. There's a reason why even Cortex A15 tablets (which can access 64GB of physical memory) only ship with 2GB...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Why just 2GB RAM ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason why an operating system couldn't relocate pages towards 0 and disable empty memories?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Why just 2GB RAM ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, and there is some work doing this, but memory then needs to be explicitly turned off, and that's often quite difficult to do sensibly. You then have the same problem as most power saving algorithms: that you get a performance hit when you need to come out of the low-power state and it's quite difficult working out when the transitions should take place.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. SemiAccurate reports on the chip by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, I know SA is basically a hardware tabloid, but they usually get at least some things right...

    http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/27/intels-clover-trail-is-a-bloated-nightmare/

    I'm not going to comment on anything they wrote; make your own conclusions.

  8. An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by cplusplus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I wants it. A phone like that could be my "laptop", and I'd continue to use my workstation at home for gaming and other big-time number crunching computery stuff. This new processor (and Medfield) are get ever closer to that. I bet (erm, hope) I will be able to buy one by this time next year.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    1. Re:An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by don.g · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you ran Linux, you could have this now (sort of) -- it's possible to run full Linux on a rooted android phone, and with MHL you can tether it to a display. Imagine something like the padfone with a keyboard dock...

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    2. Re:An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part about "x86" or are you referring to the not-really-out-yet x86 smartphones? If you only need to run software that's available for Linux on ARM, then yes, that would work. But if you need something that's only available for x86, even Wine won't save you.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      If there's x86 software that you need to run on your phone, you're doing something wrong.

    4. Re:An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing comments like this is very sad bubble boy.

    5. Re:An x86 phone running full Windows 8... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part about "if you ran Linux"? Those who use open source are not limited to x86.

      I know there is closed x86 software for Linux, but the idea of "software that's available for Linux on ARM" shows a poor understanding of open source. I run Gentoo on x86-64, PPC and ARM (and soon MIPS64), and it's generally the same distro and same software once you get past the bootloader. Of course there are hardware-specific issues, but that's more to do with different video cards etc. than the CPU architecture.

      (Endianness is sometimes a problem, because some programmers assume everything is little-endian, while Apple PPC machines generally run in big-endian mode. Come on, it's the year 2102 [sic] already!)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  9. But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nope it does't so here we go again get to it sourceforge! Though this time I have the feeling that all the Windows 8 tablets that will suddenly appear like magic out of nowhere will start getting dirt cheap in about a years time. IF HP, Toshiba, Acer, Asus and all the other so called "hardware" partners start to crank out iPad like Windows tablet clones.

    1. Re:But does it run Linux? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Agreed, all the signs of a massive Microsoft tablet fail are here. I wonder what they're thinking? Maybe Microsoft hopes that the usual MSOffice addiction will make everything ok? If so they're due to be sadly disappointed when naive users discover that rubber keyboards just do not substitute for even a tiny clamshell, let alone a form factor suitable for real work. And then there will be the inevitable file compatibility issues. And the confused messaging about whether you're supposed to use the tablet as a laptop replacement or whether you're supposed to drink the cloud apps koolaid.

      After the smoke clears the market will be left with a lot of unsaleable Microsoft tablet stock gathering dust in warehouses. Cue the Linux geeks to make these things actually work like usable tablets, for cheap.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:But does it run Linux? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      If the SemiAccurate article is correct, Clover Trail is pretty large in chip surface and correspondingly expensive to make. So I have my doubts about the "dirt cheap", except maybe for Microsoft selling their own Surface tablets at a loss like game console makers.

      It seems that its only justification for existing is that it will be better in performance vs. power consumption than existing Atoms.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  10. Re:Apple's A6 by citizenr · · Score: 1

    Apple's A6 goes up to 3.
    (GPU cores)

    and $13 Rockchip has Quad Mali400

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  11. single core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With clovertrail provided a single core from tablets, how to prove intel can best at the user experience? If not to be slow or middle then only above pricing can user pay for best experience. They say "power" and only think domain and voltages but user need other gfx domain.

    Wide adoption hoplesss?

    1. Re:single core by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      With clovertrail provided a single core from tablets, how to prove intel can best at the user experience? If not to be slow or middle then only above pricing can user pay for best experience. They say "power" and only think domain and voltages but user need other gfx domain.

      Wide adoption hoplesss?

      I am not sure what you mean...it's dual core with hyperthreading. It sounds like it will be a flop for other reasons but you're post makes no sense.

  12. Part Number prefixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can expect new startups to not have a sense of history, but Intel goes back almost to the dawn of electronic time :-)
    The prefix Z belongs to Zilog, a company that Intel narrowly defeated for being the basis of the original IBM PC.

  13. Ah, Fanbois by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Apple's A6 goes up to 3.
    (GPU cores)

    Gotta love fanbois. Take a look at the specs of the ARM based NVidia Tegra 3, then tell me how wonderlicious the A6 is. They are barely keeping pace.

    Tegra 3.

    1. Re:Ah, Fanbois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how people use 'overrated' as if it means 'i disagree', lol. Nothing at all innacurate up there, just some apple fan who didn't like the truths.

    2. Re:Ah, Fanbois by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      i thought troll or flamebait was disagree

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    3. Re:Ah, Fanbois by SuperMooCow · · Score: 1

      And what about the Z80? Can somebody please give us a 2GHz Z80 already? I thought this was the future! How about a 500MHz Atmel?

  14. I think people get confused by the "semi" part by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    His blog would better be known as "Rarely Accurate". Every once and awhile he gets good information but usually, he just makes shit up.

    For example he claimed that Kepler, nVidia's architecture now known as the GTX 600 series, would be under-performing and feature large parts dedicated to PhysX and that AMD's CGN would be a "clear winner". As it turns out that is not the case, the GTX 680 is extremely fast, quite energy efficient, and beats out the 7970 from AMD. And no big PhysX areas, just lots of stream processing cores (which is what GPUs are these days).

    Then when it launched and had big shortages due to extremely high demand he claimed it was because it didn't work right on TSMC's 28nm process and supply issues would forever plague it. Now, they are in stock everywhere and can be had in quantity whenever you wish.

    I really wish people would stop linking to this troll and giving him ad money. The guy is not a great source of information and worse still in the absence of actual information he'll just make shit up.

    The thing certainly doesn't use a ton of power, it's TDP spec is less than 2 watts and I have never seen Intel underspec a TDP. That means it will never, under any situation, dissipate more than 2 watts and by extension never draw more than that.

    The question is, of course, how well it performs at that power level, particularly compared to competition at the same level.

    1. Re:I think people get confused by the "semi" part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have never seen intel underspec TDP? So you've never seen the specsheet of a intel CPU since the P4?
      Bit of history: back then intel redefined "TDP" to *typical* design power so it didn't look quite as bad compared to a Athlon64. And it has been that way ever since.
      Take a "77W" ivy bridge, load integer and vector pipes and the igpu simultaneously, north of 90W.
      And surprise, when bulldozer turned out to be a hog, AMD also switched to using "typical" power...

  15. PowerVR? fucking nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect non-existent driver support in 3, 2, 1..... *boom*

    1. Re:PowerVR? fucking nuts by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Expect non-existent driver support in 3, 2, 1..... *boom*

      it's for win8 / possibly android.

      also - intel can't design gpu's worth shit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  16. Dejavu cuz my girlfriends all said that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never knew atom inside was a bad thing.

  17. Microsoft and Intel dont benefit from phone-laptop by rsborg · · Score: 2

    ...I wants it. A phone like that could be my "laptop", and I'd continue to use my workstation at home for gaming and other big-time number crunching computery stuff. This new processor (and Medfield) are get ever closer to that. I bet (erm, hope) I will be able to buy one by this time next year.

    So you're saying that Microsoft and Intel will create a device that lets you stop paying for laptop and corresponding OS and Office upgrades just so you can buy a phone with likely less margin than an iPhone?

    This is fantasy. Do not expect these companies to disrupt their own markets - it's not in their DNA and it's not in their best interest. Expect this phone to NOT be able to do nearly everything your laptop could do, even if it has the power to do so (Apple has gotten quite good margins from their "can't really do what a laptop can" iPad - MSFT and Intel just want in on the action).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting