The 14nm tri-gate for process from Intel has currently been seen in both Core M (Broadwell-Y) and Broadwell-U, with some discussions at Mobile World Congress regarding Atom x5 and Atom x7 both featuring 14nm cores at their heart. For the mini-PC and laptop space, Core M fits nicely with a 4.5W TDP and the Core architecture, however Intel’s Atom line also occupies a similar segment but at a lower price point. The upgrade from Bay Trail is Cherry Trail, from 22nm Silvermont cores to 14nm Airmont cores. Technically it would seem that Cherry Trail is a catch-all name with the SoCs intended for mini-PCs will also ride under the name ‘Braswell’, using up to four Atom cores and Generation 8 graphics within a 4-6W TDP.

CPU World recently published details of four Braswell SKUs. For Braswell, similar to Bay Trail, Intel designs its Atom SoCs in terms of dual core modules, where each core is separate apart from a shared L2 cache. The SoC then puts one or two of these modules on die (for two or four cores) without an overriding L3 cache. The Braswell SoCs will support DDR3-1600 memory, with SIMD instructions up to SSE4 with support for VT-x and Burst Performance Technology offering higher clocks for extremely short periods when required.

The four SoCs are presented as follows:

Intel Braswell SKUs
SKU Cores /
TDP Price
Celeron N3000 2 / 2 1040 2080 1 MB 4W $107
Celeron N3050 2 / 2 1600 2160 1 MB 6W $107
Celeron N3150 4 / 4 1600 2080 2 MB 6W $107
Pentium N3700 4 / 4 1600 2400 2 MB 6W $161

This is similar to elements of both the Bay Trail-M (Mobile) the Bay Trail-D (Desktop) product line, which would perhaps mean that we will see both inside mini-PCs as well as some laptop designs, such as Chromebooks. In the current Braswell list there are two dual core models and two quad core models, although in the Bay Trail-D line there are six in total with four Celeron and two Pentium. The Celeron N3000 from the Braswell line is an interesting element to consider, especially when we compare it against the similar TDP of the Core M 5Y10.

  Celeron N3000 Core M 5Y10
Architecture Airmont Broadwell
Cost $107 $281
Cores / Threads 2 / 2 2 / 4
Base Frequency (MHz) 1040 800
Turbo / Burst (MHz) 2080 2000
L2 Cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L3 Cache - 4 MB
TDP 4 W 4.5 W
GPU 'Gen 8' HD 5300
Execution Units Unknown ? 24
GPU Frequency / MHz 320-600 ? 100-800
DRAM DDR3-1600 DDR3/L-1600

Ultimately Intel’s differentiation lies with the architecture and price, meaning Core costs more, and historically this also correlates with performance. That being said, Core M is susceptible to both cTDP-Up and cTDP-Down depeding on how the OEM wants to use it. Braswell may be in a similar position, although we do not have confirmation of this as of yet.

It will be interesting to see what applications for Braswell will be released first. I would imagine everything we currently see in Bay Trail-D form should get an upgrade. We have already seen shots of ECS’ roadmap for the LIVA which states a Q2 2015 launch for example.

Source: CPU World

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • 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.
    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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now