Slashdot Mirror
Intel Announces Atom x3, x5 and x7, First SOCs With Integrated 3G and LTE Modems
MojoKid writes Intel is unleashing a new family of Atom processors today, taking a cue from its highly successful Core series with model branding. Similar to the Good, Better, Best strategy with the Core i3, i5 and i7, Intel is renaming its Atom family with x3, x5, and x7 designations. The biggest news comes from the low-end Atom x3, which will be available in three distinct variants; all of which will come with integrated modems — a first for the Atom family. All three variants are 64-bit capable cores. The Atom x3-C3130 tops out at 1GHz, incorporates a Mali 400 MP2 GPU, and includes an integrated 3G (HSPA+) modem. The Atom x3-C3230RK bumps the max clock speed to 1.2GHz, throws in a Mali 450 MP4 GPU, and the same 3G modem. Finally, the Atom x3-C3440 clocks in at 1.4GHz, features a Mali T720 MP2 graphics core, incorporates a Category 6 LTE modem, and can optionally support NFC. Using handpicked benchmarks, Intel claims that the Atom x3-C3230RK can offer up to 1.8x the media editing performance of competing SoCs from Qualcomm and MediaTek. Then there's Intel's Cherry Trail-based Atom x5 and x7. These are the first 64-bit Atom SoCs to be built using a 14nm manufacturing and they incorporate eighth generation Intel graphics. While the Atom x5 and x7 don't feature integrated modems like the Atom x3, they do support Intel's next generation XMM 726x and 7360 LTE modems. Intel claims that the Atom x7 offers two times the graphics performance of the existing high-end Atom Z3795 in the GFXBench 2.7 T-Rex HD benchmark and 50 percent greater performance on the 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited benchmark.
The X3 line is very weak, and will be competing against $5 to $10 SoCs from MediaTek, AllWinner, etc. This market is very price sensitive, and battery life is also important.
The X5 and X7 look more capable, it will be interesting to see how they compare against the competitor SoCs using A57 cores. The 14nm process will also help with the battery life significantly.
In this case there is no legacy software advantage for x86, and a lot of cost disadvantage. Intel are subsidising their products in the mobile area massively but that can't last forever.
In addition, some manufacturers are doing their own chips now, and will not see any benefit to losing control of design to Intel in this area.
The Atom core is not great either in terms of performance - an A57 core should be more powerful, and Samsung have got their 14nm process working so that advantage for Intel is not as clear-cut as it once was.
There wasn't really a legacy software advantage for x86 in the Mac arena either. In fact, of the three major tablet OSes, one actually does have a bit of a legacy software advantage if run over x86. I'll go into that in a moment but first:
As far as performance goes, I got an HP Stream 8 a few months ago. It's running Windows 8.1 and has a recent Atom in it, but obviously not a top-of-the-line thing because it's a really cheap tablet, despite supporting 3G. And I have to say I have no complaints whatsoever about performance. It's running everything I throw at it at a decent speed.
Now I'd admit, mentally I'm comparing it to Android. The fastest Android device I've used was a Galaxy Nexus, and the Stream is easily smoother and more responsive than that. It may well be the difference is, in part, Windows and Metro - I get the impression Google really doesn't understand the importance of UI responsiveness. But the truth is with the Stream I really, really, have no complaints relating to speed.
Back on x86 legacy advantages: The other issue I'd raise is that there are quite a few "tablet operating systems" that are languishing in "Not Android" land that might well do well if more hardware comes out supporting x86. The stuff Ubuntu and GNOME are trying to make work might, for example, end up turning into something very, very, powerful if they can get the UIs fixed and if a surfeit of x86 tablets comes out.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Incorporating Mali GPUs is bound to piss off the OSS crowd - they tried that before with PowerVR before, and those chips were the bane of any nettop user. They should have tried to slim down their own GT chips.
I would love to be able to install my x86 desktop aps on my mobile devices, even on my phone! This is all I have ever really wanted from mobile devices.
Sure.. a lot of them will suck cramped into a small screen and a touch interface they were never designed for. But.. they would not be totally unusable when I really need them. If they weren't then nobody would bother with vnc or remote deskop on their phones!
If such an environment was common then new versions of applications would be developed to scale well to both small and large screens and to work well with both keyboard/mouse and touch interfaces. Proving it is possible I have seen some Android devices that do this really well on a lapdock when they switch between their phone and tablet modes. In the tablet mode they don't just blow up the same view, they have different layouts with additional controls enabling more desktop-like features.
This is how mobile computing should have played out in the first place. Blackberry and Symbian plus the later iOS and Android have been only a poor imitation of what could have been and have slowed down mobile development as all the wheels have had to be re-invented.
Over the weekend I had an opportunity to play with a friend's Intel Windows 8 tablet. It was nice using real, full featured applications for once. An x86 Windows phone would definitely tempt me away from Android although I would much prefer a Linux (as in real Linux desktop) phone. That did almost exist once. There was an alternative desktop named GPE which ran on old Zaurus and HP PDAs back in the day. It used GTK on top of X. Qt was available as a separate package. So.. pretty much any Linux software, if you had the source it could be built! It even had a phone dialer although I don't know of any hardware that the dialer could be functional on. Unfortunately the cross-compiler was nearly required a PHD to get working and there weren't enough tools included to build packages on the device itself. It would have been a mini-desktop if it weren't for that.
Maybe someday....
Oh.. also on my wishlist.. these desktop-software running mobile devices should have HDMI out and USB host. When it does everything a desktop does there is no reason we shouldn't be able to plug it in and use it like one when we are not on the go.
Additionally... there is no reason it shouldn't work with something like the Motorola Lapdock. Except.. there should be some upgrades on that device which Motorola never offered. How about a touch screen? Better speakers? And.. why not make that keyboard removable. Then it becomes just a bigger screen for your phone.. your phone is a tablet.. is a laptop. Of course you could still have the HD docking station so it's a desktop too! Unless you want an always on-server then your phone is the only computer you need!
This is how it should be. What we have now sucks in comparison.