Intel's 32nm Medfield Atom Android Tablet Pictured

Status
Not open for further replies.

nottheking

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2006
1,456
0
19,310
16
I'm still a little wary about Atom... Much of the power increase would simply come from a higher clock rate; clock-for-clock, Atom doesn't tend to score as big a gain over ARM as other current x86 architectures, such as Nehalem/Sandy Bridge, AMD's Stars, or even Bulldozer.

That, and many ARM CPUs are claiming sub-watt TDPs... While the CPU tends to be secondary to the screen and wireless in terms of power consumption, it could still make an impact, so I have to wonder a bit about the battery life. Little word on precisely the core used for Medfield, (since the name appears to apply to the whole SoC, and not just the CPU) but I'll hope, for Intel's sake, that it's the MID counterpart to Cedar Trail; they'd managed to scrape the 1W TDP line there.
 

classzero

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2011
434
0
18,780
0
eww, I have no interest in an Atom. I almost purchased a netbook until i say the Atom chip and it's performance (still would if it had some power).
 

saturnus

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
212
0
18,680
0
What I'm most worried about is that Medfield reportedly has a max resolution of 800x480. That's not even enough to compete with current generation top smartphone and far from current top range tablets. By most accounts top range phones and tablets go true 1080p next year which will leave Medfield for the ultra-low range market. A segment Intel certainly don't want to and doesn't have the capability to compete in.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
Not sure what the $50 reference means. Is this a 'developer' discount or is this a possible retail price ?
I mean, $50 retail would be an absolute killer product actually.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
Folks, you have to stop thinking about HDTV and playing Crisis with every product out there.
Companies do have other target groups in mind too !
Some people just want an 'electronic to do list', carry a shopping list with them, or a client database etc.
 

saturnus

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
212
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]saturnus[/nom]What I'm most worried about is that Medfield reportedly has a max resolution of 800x480. That's not even enough to compete with current generation top smartphone and far from current top range tablets. By most accounts top range phones and tablets go true 1080p next year which will leave Medfield for the ultra-low range market. A segment Intel certainly don't want to and doesn't have the capability to compete in.[/citation]

Sorry. 1280x800 max resolution. Still far from next years top range tablets and phones.
 

Lord Captivus

Distinguished
Sep 13, 2011
139
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Folks, you have to stop thinking about HDTV and playing Crisis with every product out there.[/citation]
Blasphemy!!!
.
.
.
I agree 100%...
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0
As long as it's got an Intel Atom based processor, I think I'll stay away. I've got my fingers crossed that AMD will be releasing a RISC based APU processor in the next year.
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0

Yes, but if it's still painfully slow doing those tasks it's still not worth it.
 
Not much to see here and I think I speak for most we just are not interested in Atom at all.

I'm sure Intel will have a major update to Atom when it shrinks it to a 22nm process but until then this really is just a tweak on the old lousy Atom chip. We all know if Intel gets serious they will lay the smack down on ARM but its obvious this is not the chip to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts