Something is wrong with the Core-M column, in the L2 cache it currently reads "0.5 W" and under L3 cache it reads "4 MB". The ARK claims 4 MB total cache (with no L2/L3 given), so I think maybe there was a typo or two that offset a column or something?
The L2 size is 256 kB, as it always has been since the first Nehalems. The L3 is inclusive, so it mirrors everything present in the smaller caches. Hence 4 MB L3 result in 4 MB total cache size.
That's why they are now trying to be as misleading as possible to the market. They want the market to believe that these chips are "almost" as powerful as Core chips, which is why they "deserve" the $100 price tag.
They don't. They have the same performance of a $25 ARM chip.
No, don't. Those FIRST "Haswell Celeron" Chromebooks were heavily subsidized. All the latest ones use Atom "Celerons" at the same price points. Intel tricked the market, because it showed the "powerful yet cheap Haswell Celeron Chromebooks", and now everyone wants an "Intel-powered Chromebook" for $200, even though it NOW uses an Atom chip...that's just as powerful, if not less powerful than the latest ARM chip.
If Intel wants to compete in the mobile space they have to lower prices and not leave out features. They don't seem to understand the idea that they are acting like phones are just low end computers and should use feature stripped chips. But for ARM, Samsung, and Qualcomm high end chips go into the phones with all features the power budget allows.
I don't think it's that simple. Intel has to use their superior process technology and engineering to drop x86 into the power envelope. The features they are leaving out consume power. The fact that Atom does a decent job on the desktop is a testament to how far it (and Windows) has come, and it is only getting better.
I will seriously consider this Surface 3. It's pretty much everything I wished MS would do. I was hoping for a slightly lower price, but considering they are starting at 64GB of storage AND added the pen integration, the price isn't too bad. A comparable iPad or Galaxy Note are no cheaper.
Wait for Anandtech Cherrytail review before spreading FUD, last time intel surprised many people with the improvement in the performance of atom line with Baytrail, lets wait for reviews before predicting such outrageous comments like " no CPU imorovements "
The Atom x7 in Surface 3 should be an interesting Anandtech review.
Agreed. Since Cherry Trail is using the new AIRMONT core, I assume Intel did SOMETHING to it, rather than change the name of the core from Silvermont to Airmont and do nothing. I don't expect massive changes like there were from Cedar Trail to Bay Trail, but I'd be shocked if there were no changes that resulted in IPC gains going from Bay Trail to Cherry Trail.
Beyond any possible CPU gains (BTW, the base clock is higher than Bay Trails was), the GPU, at least not including any possible thermal throttling, looks like it could pack roughly 4x the performance. 4EUs at 667MHz (or 720-730MHz for the newer Bay Trail chips) compared to 16 at 600MHz, but a newer generation of graphics to boot.
Just the GPU change alone would justify wanting this chip. Based on benchmarks I've seen, the old Bay Trails managed roughly 1/3 the performance of brand new ARM chips that are over a year newer than Bay Trail. Cherry Trail top end is possibly bringing 4x the performance, even if it doesn't manage that fully, it should deffinitely place Cherry Trail neck and neck with the current best ARM GPU offerings.
I am however waiting for an actual review of Cherry Trail before I take any of that as gosspil, but I think it is safe to say Cherry Trail is going to be massively better on the GPU side of things and probably a little better on the CPU side of things as well.
ROFL...Baytrail sucked. Hence the giving away $4.1Billion a year in contra revenue to sell them now. Hence people like JP Morgan saying they should drop mobile altogether as they won't catch arm via process now. That party is over for Intel. If you couldn't beat the competition at 22nm+finfet when they were 28nm, you gain nothing from going to 14nm+finfet2 etc as they beat you to the shrink with 20nm. Even worse, they're hitting with samsung 14nm+finfet at xmas (NV/Qcom both on it, samsung already on it for exynos 7). So unless Intel will be producing volume 10nm by xmas this race is over and Intel will either cede market they keep buying (contra) or lose another 4Billion a year chasing something they can't win.
Can you explain to me how any of these chips will beat Qcom/NV/Samsung 14nm+finfets they will be facing? TSMC is late, but samsung got their yields figured out, hence the move from qcom/nv to samsung and tsmc putting everything they have into fixing their process and delaying other work.
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/37159-samsung-... So galaxy S5 had 28nm planar, but S6 comes skipping 20nm, and going 14nm finfet. Good luck Intel. Apple will be using it too, so who will Intel sell this crap to? NOBODY. But they'll stupidly keep trying to give it away costing 4B more. They need to buy Nvidia to out ARM ARM so to speak. The only way to close the gap and become competitive is to produce the best ARM soc they can buy (NVDA) on their process and take the world by storm with gaming power. At the same time they get #1 discrete gpus, #1 workstation gpus, grid, etc. Imagine all of it filling Intel fabs instead of them idle as they are now (IE 610mm^2 dies from Titanx, 980ti coming up, M6000 etc take up lots of wafers even when doing 14nm, along with all the other chips NV sells).
Intel's process is better, but not when it's x86 vs. arm. It would make a dent if it was Intel ARM vs. ARM from anyone else, and even better that Intel's ARM would have NV gpu, and even more R&D to throw at Denver custom CPU. One more note, samsung getting to 14nm means qcom will get hurt as exynos will be the only chip in galaxy s6 etc, no need for qcom now. Qcom likely just lost a few of the largest selling devices, and cat10 already ready for samsung too, so again if no need for modem exists, qcom gets hurt.
ROFL if you don't know that Intel has a set R&D allocation of $3 billion per division you really shouldn't be posting. Just because Samsung is shipping 14nm doesn't mean it has yields figured out. When other OEM's are using 14nm on Samsung fabs than they might have yields figured out as they will need every last wafer for S6 volume. I am sure there is some kind of capacity agreement with GloFO if Samsung can't get yields up in return for their Fauxteen nm tech. When Morganfield with real 14nm launches from Intel it's going to hit like a ton of bricks. We already can see what a "crappy" 22nm moorefield can do in the Zenfone 2 posting 50k + in antutu. The jump from S5 to S6 was huge and that's not even a full shrink. With a full shrink from 22nm to 14 nm and better uarch on Intel process the gains should be massive with Morganfield.
I like how Intel keeps wanting to lie to the market more and more. "Braswell" as in "basically Broadwell". Except it's F-KING NOT. It's Atom and it uses Atom's architecture, not that of the Core chips.
Intel keeps hoping that OEMs and consumer will eventually want to buy $100-priced Atom chips from them, when they could get $30 ARM ones at the same performance levels. Keep dreaming Intel. It's never going to happen.
The N3700 is available with a motherboard from ASrock for 99 bucks free shipping. I'd be surprised if Asrock paid more than 20 bucks for that processor... makes ya wonder how much the lower end ones are. I bought a celery 3050 powered 14" laptop for 170 bucks. between the windows license key and the rest of the hardware, that thing can't be more than 10 bucks...
is that work fast than the old in computer's desktop ?? it can work faster than the old intel pentium if we run our application that must process a lot of data.
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.
30 Comments
Back to Article
Essence_of_War - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Something is wrong with the Core-M column, in the L2 cache it currently reads "0.5 W" and under L3 cache it reads "4 MB". The ARK claims 4 MB total cache (with no L2/L3 given), so I think maybe there was a typo or two that offset a column or something?MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
The L2 size is 256 kB, as it always has been since the first Nehalems. The L3 is inclusive, so it mirrors everything present in the smaller caches. Hence 4 MB L3 result in 4 MB total cache size.Essence_of_War - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
That was my suspicion on the L2, thanks for confirming! Either way, I don't think the L2 is "0.5 W" though :)ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
I believe it is 256KB per core, making it 0.5MB.Drumsticks - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Psh, you've never had half a watt of L2 cache before?ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Oh, I have, along with 8 nanosecond of TDP and half a gig of latency. Intel is the best!ToTTenTranz - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
I had no idea Intel charged so much for the BayTrail-M and D parts. It's 4 to 10x (!!) more than the BayTrail-T parts from the same cookies.hammer256 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Yeah, wow. 100 bucks for an atom chip. Weren't Intel subsidizing their mobile department? I wonder if that's why the prices were so low before...djvita - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Gotta pay the salaries of 10k employeesKrysto - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
That's why they are now trying to be as misleading as possible to the market. They want the market to believe that these chips are "almost" as powerful as Core chips, which is why they "deserve" the $100 price tag.They don't. They have the same performance of a $25 ARM chip.
witeken - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Take those prices with a grain of salt. For example, there are Chromebooks of $250 with a ~$200 Haswell Celeron CPU.psychobriggsy - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Indeed, it seems very few OEMs ever pay list price for Intel CPUs, the discounts are very deep in some cases.And that's before contra-revenue giveaways!
Krysto - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
No, don't. Those FIRST "Haswell Celeron" Chromebooks were heavily subsidized. All the latest ones use Atom "Celerons" at the same price points. Intel tricked the market, because it showed the "powerful yet cheap Haswell Celeron Chromebooks", and now everyone wants an "Intel-powered Chromebook" for $200, even though it NOW uses an Atom chip...that's just as powerful, if not less powerful than the latest ARM chip.MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Don't joke about cookies.MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
aaaand I fail at life... responded to the article and not the commentMrCommunistGen - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Don't joke about cookies.Wardrop - Thursday, April 2, 2015 - link
You failed twice. Impressive.En1gma - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
afaik, Airmont is name of CPU cores, Braswell is name of SoC and Cherry Trail is name of platform, like Silvermont - Valley view - Bay TrailShadowmaster625 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Those prices are simply outrageous.Ammaross - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
New theory: maybe Apple pays list price for their CPUs, hence their prices....toyotabedzrock - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
If Intel wants to compete in the mobile space they have to lower prices and not leave out features. They don't seem to understand the idea that they are acting like phones are just low end computers and should use feature stripped chips. But for ARM, Samsung, and Qualcomm high end chips go into the phones with all features the power budget allows.MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
I don't think it's that simple. Intel has to use their superior process technology and engineering to drop x86 into the power envelope. The features they are leaving out consume power. The fact that Atom does a decent job on the desktop is a testament to how far it (and Windows) has come, and it is only getting better.I will seriously consider this Surface 3. It's pretty much everything I wished MS would do. I was hoping for a slightly lower price, but considering they are starting at 64GB of storage AND added the pen integration, the price isn't too bad. A comparable iPad or Galaxy Note are no cheaper.
sonicmerlin - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link
Cherry Trail has no CPU improvements over Bay Trail. The GPU is improved but is still far weaker than high end ARM chips.BMNify - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
Wait for Anandtech Cherrytail review before spreading FUD, last time intel surprised many people with the improvement in the performance of atom line with Baytrail, lets wait for reviews before predicting such outrageous comments like " no CPU imorovements "The Atom x7 in Surface 3 should be an interesting Anandtech review.
azazel1024 - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link
Agreed. Since Cherry Trail is using the new AIRMONT core, I assume Intel did SOMETHING to it, rather than change the name of the core from Silvermont to Airmont and do nothing. I don't expect massive changes like there were from Cedar Trail to Bay Trail, but I'd be shocked if there were no changes that resulted in IPC gains going from Bay Trail to Cherry Trail.Beyond any possible CPU gains (BTW, the base clock is higher than Bay Trails was), the GPU, at least not including any possible thermal throttling, looks like it could pack roughly 4x the performance. 4EUs at 667MHz (or 720-730MHz for the newer Bay Trail chips) compared to 16 at 600MHz, but a newer generation of graphics to boot.
Just the GPU change alone would justify wanting this chip. Based on benchmarks I've seen, the old Bay Trails managed roughly 1/3 the performance of brand new ARM chips that are over a year newer than Bay Trail. Cherry Trail top end is possibly bringing 4x the performance, even if it doesn't manage that fully, it should deffinitely place Cherry Trail neck and neck with the current best ARM GPU offerings.
I am however waiting for an actual review of Cherry Trail before I take any of that as gosspil, but I think it is safe to say Cherry Trail is going to be massively better on the GPU side of things and probably a little better on the CPU side of things as well.
TheJian - Friday, April 3, 2015 - link
ROFL...Baytrail sucked. Hence the giving away $4.1Billion a year in contra revenue to sell them now. Hence people like JP Morgan saying they should drop mobile altogether as they won't catch arm via process now. That party is over for Intel. If you couldn't beat the competition at 22nm+finfet when they were 28nm, you gain nothing from going to 14nm+finfet2 etc as they beat you to the shrink with 20nm. Even worse, they're hitting with samsung 14nm+finfet at xmas (NV/Qcom both on it, samsung already on it for exynos 7). So unless Intel will be producing volume 10nm by xmas this race is over and Intel will either cede market they keep buying (contra) or lose another 4Billion a year chasing something they can't win.Can you explain to me how any of these chips will beat Qcom/NV/Samsung 14nm+finfets they will be facing? TSMC is late, but samsung got their yields figured out, hence the move from qcom/nv to samsung and tsmc putting everything they have into fixing their process and delaying other work.
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/37159-samsung-...
So galaxy S5 had 28nm planar, but S6 comes skipping 20nm, and going 14nm finfet. Good luck Intel. Apple will be using it too, so who will Intel sell this crap to? NOBODY. But they'll stupidly keep trying to give it away costing 4B more. They need to buy Nvidia to out ARM ARM so to speak. The only way to close the gap and become competitive is to produce the best ARM soc they can buy (NVDA) on their process and take the world by storm with gaming power. At the same time they get #1 discrete gpus, #1 workstation gpus, grid, etc. Imagine all of it filling Intel fabs instead of them idle as they are now (IE 610mm^2 dies from Titanx, 980ti coming up, M6000 etc take up lots of wafers even when doing 14nm, along with all the other chips NV sells).
Intel's process is better, but not when it's x86 vs. arm. It would make a dent if it was Intel ARM vs. ARM from anyone else, and even better that Intel's ARM would have NV gpu, and even more R&D to throw at Denver custom CPU. One more note, samsung getting to 14nm means qcom will get hurt as exynos will be the only chip in galaxy s6 etc, no need for qcom now. Qcom likely just lost a few of the largest selling devices, and cat10 already ready for samsung too, so again if no need for modem exists, qcom gets hurt.
Guest8 - Sunday, April 5, 2015 - link
ROFL if you don't know that Intel has a set R&D allocation of $3 billion per division you really shouldn't be posting. Just because Samsung is shipping 14nm doesn't mean it has yields figured out. When other OEM's are using 14nm on Samsung fabs than they might have yields figured out as they will need every last wafer for S6 volume. I am sure there is some kind of capacity agreement with GloFO if Samsung can't get yields up in return for their Fauxteen nm tech. When Morganfield with real 14nm launches from Intel it's going to hit like a ton of bricks. We already can see what a "crappy" 22nm moorefield can do in the Zenfone 2 posting 50k + in antutu. The jump from S5 to S6 was huge and that's not even a full shrink. With a full shrink from 22nm to 14 nm and better uarch on Intel process the gains should be massive with Morganfield.Krysto - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link
I like how Intel keeps wanting to lie to the market more and more. "Braswell" as in "basically Broadwell". Except it's F-KING NOT. It's Atom and it uses Atom's architecture, not that of the Core chips.Intel keeps hoping that OEMs and consumer will eventually want to buy $100-priced Atom chips from them, when they could get $30 ARM ones at the same performance levels. Keep dreaming Intel. It's never going to happen.
Fost04mach - Friday, November 20, 2015 - link
The N3700 is available with a motherboard from ASrock for 99 bucks free shipping. I'd be surprised if Asrock paid more than 20 bucks for that processor... makes ya wonder how much the lower end ones are. I bought a celery 3050 powered 14" laptop for 170 bucks. between the windows license key and the rest of the hardware, that thing can't be more than 10 bucks...rjkman - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link
is that work fast than the old in computer's desktop ?? it can work faster than the old intel pentium if we run our application that must process a lot of data.