Another site is reporting a different GPU (the dual core phone CPU is supposed to use the GPU you listed while the tablet uses another... supposedly). Someone better get their facts straight. As for performance, SPECint and SPECfp looked very good. No idea how that will translate into real world performance under Windows 8.
[citation][nom]jblack[/nom]Maybe I missed it, but where did they say 7"?[/citation]
When it said "tablets... as light as 1.5 pounds." It's implied, but it's there as long as they're planning on putting it into 7" tablets.
[citation][nom]vpoko[/nom]"...provides exceptionally long battery life with more than 3 weeks of connected standby and more than 10 hours of local HD video playback."Wouldn't that depend on the size of the battery it's connected to?[/citation]
True, but they might be talking about one of the phones using this chip that might have a comparable battery to the previous Medfield phones.
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]I'm confused--wasn't this intel atom shown to have very poor HD video playback power consumption? Or perhaps that was the previous iteration?Well, I am not a fan of the "Atom" line in general as how it was used to retard the development of mobile devices (Atom netbooks FTL), but if it's being advanced, that's good for everyone.[/citation]
I'm quite sure that we haven't actually seen this Atom before given that it's the first talk about dual-core Medfield CPUs in weeks (maybe months) and your experiences with the Netbook Atom's shouldn't be held against these Atoms just because they have the same branding. That's like holding Pentium 4 against modern Pentiums, just plain wrong.
[citation][nom]luciferano[/nom]I'm quite sure that we haven't actually seen this Atom before given that it's the first talk about dual-core Medfield CPUs in weeks (maybe months) and your experiences with the Netbook Atom's shouldn't be held against these Atoms just because they have the same branding. That's like holding Pentium 4 against modern Pentiums, just plain wrong.[/citation]
Yeah, hence my statement "but if it's being advanced, that's good for everyone." Doesn't mean I should feel warm and fuzzy about the Atom branding given previous experience though.
Despite the negativity this product is receiving, I'm happy to hear about that they are improving their Atom line of processors.
I'm always for advances in technology, even if they aren't instantly or directly relevant to me. These advances in technology could later be used to improve products that I do care about. For example, I didn't care much about the Pentium M, but it was the advances made with the Pentium M that in part helped fuel the Core2 technology.
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]I would still rather have a new C-50 replacement APU from AMD. Intel knows their video still sucks, so they are embedding SGX chips now. This is pretty sad.[/citation]
What is sad is that you seem to think that the C-60 competes with Medfield. These are entirely different platforms. Intel is using the GPUs that are already fairly well-supported by current smart phone and tablet operating systems.