I wonder if having an x86 arhitecture it will allow booting other operating systems... I dream of a maemo/meego like distro for this class of smartphones...
As much as I know about it, Maemo/Meego and many Linux distributions are ARM ready. Only Windows (until Win8RT) is x86 exclusive (not talking about OSX here). The issue is that most of the devices don't let you get their drivers on your own. There are a few tablets on which you can install Ubuntu for example. But a lot where you can't, even with similar architecture.
Not sure what the implications are for these Medfields for smartphones, but that Linux announcement by Intel was specifically about Clover Trail support for Win8 tablets.
Nevertheless, has Motorola changed their name to Google, or are you simply ignoring everything Google has ever said about the acquisition and assuming that Google has been designing all upcoming phones for Motorola for the past 6 months?
Feels like Google is just doing Intel another favour here,after all Otellini is on Google's board but after Chromebooks and GTV maybe it's time to cut their loses.
So Intel wants to get away with marketing a "2 Ghz processor", when in fact it will use only 1.3 Ghz most of the time, except perhaps in benchmarks, to make it seem like that processor runs at that speed all the time. Nice trick Intel.
As soon as you tax an ARM SoC, yes. You can verify the current clock speeds and the history of selected clock speeds with specific apps. If you don't tax it, there's no need to run at the highest frequency, but that's a different thing to the one Intel does.
Their SoC runs at max. 1.3GHz and has a 'turbo', 'boost' option to ramp up to 2GHz if possible (low temperature). The longer you use your phone the more likely it gets that it's 'too hot' to go up to 2GHz.
This means for benchmarks: The first run gives you competive results because the Smartphone is cold and the SoC often ramps up to 2GHz. The second or third run however reveals the continous results, which are much lower, because the default max. frequency remains 1.3GHz.
This means for the user: Occasional short use --> good performance Long sessions, like gaming or even longer web browsing --> poor performance.
ARM SoCs don't have such a burst mode/turbo mode yet.
You're not a newbie. You know that benchmarks are what matters. Let's wait and see what they are. Intel has used "turbo" mode for their mainstream processors for quite awhile and it's a nice feature. It's a good thing.
Yes, they have, but have you ever wondered why Intel never advertises the "turbo-boosted frequency" and instead they only advertise the "real" non-TB'ed frequency? It's because they would be misleading people if they did it otherwise. When they say they have a dual core 2.2 Ghz quad core i7, that's what it is. It's not a 3.1 Ghz quad core i7 (if you add TB). A quad core 3.1 Ghz would have MUCH higher TDP, which means, that the turbo-boost is maybe used 5% at the time at most - but probably just 1-2% of the time, when your machine is really struggling with the tasks you've thrown at it.
But this is not what they are doing with this Atom chip for RAZR i. They are doing the opposite. They chose to be misleading this time, and say it's a 2 Ghz chip, when it's not. This is the first time Intel has done this, and it shows their desperation to enter the mobile market.
According to CNET, Motorola's RAZR i with Intel's chip is essentially the same phone as their recently announced RAZR M for Verizon with Qualcomm inside.
Moto says the Intel version battery life is a little bit better than the Qualcomm version. In the end, it comes down to benchmarks and data, not marketing.
It'll be interesting to see how these 2 stack up against each other and I'm looking forward to Anand's in-depth reviews
On this, a friend noted hardware image stabilization was in the Haswell graphics tech, and that seems like a feature that's really for phones (maybe it'd have some use in a tablet).
AnandTech guys have any info or speculation about when Intel will put their own graphics, or _something_ well matched to other future SoCs, in their phone chips?
(Or is a 544MP2 still pretty hot? It would've been at one time.)
And here I thought from the Motorola layoff announcement that Motorola was going to be making less phones. To make a new Razr just to put an intel processor/sticker on it seems to say that they are still going to be making 27 versions of the same phone.
Anyone know what frequencies this will have? I'm especially interested in AWS (T-Mobile USA). Would be great if it were Pentaband... but one can only hope.
Razr i posts a 50% increase in egypt classic over older z2460 phones, that would equate to a 200 mhz increase in gpu clock (to ~600mhz). Wouldn't be very power efficient to clock it that high. It's likely using a different gpu, possibly sgx544. There are reports of a z2480 SoC, which would make sense. z2480 could be a z2580 with CPU0 fused off, and the 544mp's at a lower clock.
Turbo boost is a good thing on a multi core chip when only one core is working 100% Then you'll have enough thermal envelope to sustain the boost (1.3->2 GHz) I'm waiting for the 22nm shrink using FinFet/TriGate transistors Me thinks @14nm Intel will grab the tablet market so we'll have to wait 'til 2015 in order to C if this prediction even realizes such a long wait... almost 2*10^16 CPU cycles...
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.
32 Comments
Back to Article
icebox - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
I wonder if having an x86 arhitecture it will allow booting other operating systems... I dream of a maemo/meego like distro for this class of smartphones...Death666Angel - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
As much as I know about it, Maemo/Meego and many Linux distributions are ARM ready. Only Windows (until Win8RT) is x86 exclusive (not talking about OSX here). The issue is that most of the devices don't let you get their drivers on your own. There are a few tablets on which you can install Ubuntu for example. But a lot where you can't, even with similar architecture.Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Very much doubt it. Intel is not supporting Linux with its latest line-up of Atom chips, probably because it uses a different GPU this time.Hector2 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Not sure what the implications are for these Medfields for smartphones, but that Linux announcement by Intel was specifically about Clover Trail support for Win8 tablets.hyvonen - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Incorrect.http://www.informationweek.com/development/mobilit...
chilko - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
there is white version too. check the images on motorola press site."A stand out white version will also be coming to select markets. "
xdrol - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
It is funny to see that not even Google manages to deliver a new in-house phone with Jelly Bean.. How long is it out? Next week will be 3 months..teng029 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=g...xdrol - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
And when did Google buy*IGNORE THIS LINE THIS IS NOT FUCKING SPAM*
Samsung?
bplewis24 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Nice effort to shift the argument.Nevertheless, has Motorola changed their name to Google, or are you simply ignoring everything Google has ever said about the acquisition and assuming that Google has been designing all upcoming phones for Motorola for the past 6 months?
kmmatney - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Only for GSM networks?fic2 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
In other news - it's funny you don't know what you are talking about....shaolin95 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
The sweet moment when a troll realizes he made an ass of himself..good job xdrol..or xtrolljjj - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
"A stand out white version will also be coming to select markets" source http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom...Feels like Google is just doing Intel another favour here,after all Otellini is on Google's board but after Chromebooks and GTV maybe it's time to cut their loses.
Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
So Intel wants to get away with marketing a "2 Ghz processor", when in fact it will use only 1.3 Ghz most of the time, except perhaps in benchmarks, to make it seem like that processor runs at that speed all the time. Nice trick Intel.niko_ - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Do you think ARM always run at nominal speed? Hahapiroroadkill - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Mostly, Christ, my touchpad is pegged a lot even on simple animations.UpSpin - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
As soon as you tax an ARM SoC, yes. You can verify the current clock speeds and the history of selected clock speeds with specific apps.If you don't tax it, there's no need to run at the highest frequency, but that's a different thing to the one Intel does.
Their SoC runs at max. 1.3GHz and has a 'turbo', 'boost' option to ramp up to 2GHz if possible (low temperature). The longer you use your phone the more likely it gets that it's 'too hot' to go up to 2GHz.
This means for benchmarks: The first run gives you competive results because the Smartphone is cold and the SoC often ramps up to 2GHz. The second or third run however reveals the continous results, which are much lower, because the default max. frequency remains 1.3GHz.
This means for the user:
Occasional short use --> good performance
Long sessions, like gaming or even longer web browsing --> poor performance.
ARM SoCs don't have such a burst mode/turbo mode yet.
Hector2 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
You're not a newbie. You know that benchmarks are what matters. Let's wait and see what they are. Intel has used "turbo" mode for their mainstream processors for quite awhile and it's a nice feature. It's a good thing.Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Yes, they have, but have you ever wondered why Intel never advertises the "turbo-boosted frequency" and instead they only advertise the "real" non-TB'ed frequency? It's because they would be misleading people if they did it otherwise. When they say they have a dual core 2.2 Ghz quad core i7, that's what it is. It's not a 3.1 Ghz quad core i7 (if you add TB). A quad core 3.1 Ghz would have MUCH higher TDP, which means, that the turbo-boost is maybe used 5% at the time at most - but probably just 1-2% of the time, when your machine is really struggling with the tasks you've thrown at it.But this is not what they are doing with this Atom chip for RAZR i. They are doing the opposite. They chose to be misleading this time, and say it's a 2 Ghz chip, when it's not. This is the first time Intel has done this, and it shows their desperation to enter the mobile market.
Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
2.2 Ghz quad core i7*Hector2 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
According to CNET, Motorola's RAZR i with Intel's chip is essentially the same phone as their recently announced RAZR M for Verizon with Qualcomm inside.Moto says the Intel version battery life is a little bit better than the Qualcomm version. In the end, it comes down to benchmarks and data, not marketing.
It'll be interesting to see how these 2 stack up against each other and I'm looking forward to Anand's in-depth reviews
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57514407-94/motor...
1008anan - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Will Intel ever include graphics faster than the PowerVR 540 in Medfield? Or will faster graphics have to wait for 22 nm Atom Z?UpSpin - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5592/intel-atom-z258...Intel Atom Z2580: PowerVR SGX 544MP2 @ 32nm
Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
The graphics performance seems to be beaten by a significant margin even by the Adreno 225:http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/motorolas-razr-...
hyvonen - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
You're looking at the wrong chip - Z2580 isn't benched yettwotwotwo - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
On this, a friend noted hardware image stabilization was in the Haswell graphics tech, and that seems like a feature that's really for phones (maybe it'd have some use in a tablet).AnandTech guys have any info or speculation about when Intel will put their own graphics, or _something_ well matched to other future SoCs, in their phone chips?
(Or is a 544MP2 still pretty hot? It would've been at one time.)
fic2 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
And here I thought from the Motorola layoff announcement that Motorola was going to be making less phones. To make a new Razr just to put an intel processor/sticker on it seems to say that they are still going to be making 27 versions of the same phone.pookguy88 - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Anyone know what frequencies this will have? I'm especially interested in AWS (T-Mobile USA). Would be great if it were Pentaband... but one can only hope.feur - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - link
Razr i posts a 50% increase in egypt classic over older z2460 phones, that would equate to a 200 mhz increase in gpu clock (to ~600mhz). Wouldn't be very power efficient to clock it that high.It's likely using a different gpu, possibly sgx544. There are reports of a z2480 SoC, which would make sense. z2480 could be a z2580 with CPU0 fused off, and the 544mp's at a lower clock.
Arnulf - Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - link
"Mototorla"CyberAngel - Monday, October 15, 2012 - link
Turbo boost is a good thing on a multi core chip when only one core is working 100%Then you'll have enough thermal envelope to sustain the boost (1.3->2 GHz)
I'm waiting for the 22nm shrink using FinFet/TriGate transistors
Me thinks @14nm Intel will grab the tablet market
so we'll have to wait 'til 2015 in order to C if this prediction even realizes
such a long wait... almost 2*10^16 CPU cycles...