Intel's Medfield Not Achieving Huge Shipment Volumes

Status
Not open for further replies.

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
It was 'struggling' even more before it was released (and before it was designed for that matter). It's just starting to be included in designs. Its current sales are meaningless.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17
I would still argue that smartphones need a better OS platform, not a beefier hyperthreaded intel processor.

And wasn't it determined that these CPUs are highly inefficient when it comes to video playback? Like, significantly worse than any other hardware platform (to the point where the device can only sustain like max 2 hours of video playback?
 

Tomtompiper

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
382
0
18,780
0
This phone is a subsidised failure, Intel own an ARM licence, they should use it, you know it makes sense, the ARM version of this handset wins in every way except Sunspider, and that runs on old hardware, not the latest gen hardware.
 
G

Guest

Guest
tomtom, benchmarks are benchmarks. When you say "every way", you mean the benchmarks that were run. If you look at the low level benchmarks that are underneath the OS level, you'll see that Medfield actually wins quite a few "benchmarks" (see SiSoft benchmarks). What this platform is missing is better optimization for Android and a dual core variant.
 
[citation][nom]tomtompiper[/nom]This phone is a subsidised failure, Intel own an ARM licence, they should use it, you know it makes sense, the ARM version of this handset wins in every way except Sunspider, and that runs on old hardware, not the latest gen hardware.[/citation]

They probably are using it. How else would Intel have an ARM instructions set compatibility layer on their Medfield CPUs? Besides, Intel is doing this with x86 to prove that they can. Medfield was a proof-of-concept and its successors will be far better. That it came close to Krait, one of the best ARM designs, in performance per core is most certainly not a failure for a first-generation design.
 

rebel1280

Distinguished
May 7, 2011
391
0
18,780
0
ARM - were better than you (tooke decades to get to the point they are today)
Intel - Eh...barely (took a little over a year of design to implementation)

Intel, nothing but good points to you. Another competitor in the market is always good. ARM is pushing Intel to design more efficient CPU's and Intel is pushing ARM to design faster CPU's. No need for hate from a single consumer anywhere. Things are looking up, i was starting to get super bored on the desktop side CPU war (massacre?), glad too finally see some action from someone..anyone really lol.
 

santiagoanders

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2009
41
0
18,530
0
I applaud intel. Stupid Qualcomm doesn't even release the specs of their chips to the public. Makes writing software to revive a dead bootloader nigh impossible.
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
617
0
18,980
0
Here iPhones are everywhere, Lumias and GS3 sell like cupcakes and even highly priced Symbian phones such as the 808 get plenty of love. Medfields don't sell simply because they're neither distributed nor advertised.

In other words, someone at Intel knows nothing about marketing.
 

threehosts

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2012
75
0
18,630
0
Perhaps they should focus more on the Clover Trail or even Bay Trail and ensure a good volume production of these circuits by next spring. Somehow it feels like Medfield should have happened last year and Clover Trail be in mass production by this year even though the benchies do look good and all...
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,396
65
19,890
14
Well Intel need very big lead in production technology until they can compete ARM prosessors in power usage, that is very important in mobile platforms. The haswell architecture seem to be very promisin, in effiensy front, so the 14nm upgrade to mobile version of haswel architecture may be the tool that can make Intel mobile CPU:s very atractive.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Intel sales into smart phones, tablets, TV, smart signage are still low experimental volumes, although volume ramp is expected by this analyst to be much greater than many anticipate into Haswell derivative generation.

For 2012 through 2013 end, Intel manufactured approximately 24,882,339 Atom’s of all grades with review sources stating Pennfield/Medfield SOC phone operating power 18 mW to 1W. And for Tablet 2W idle to 4W active. Centerton Server SOC TDP 6.1 to 8.5w is aimed for 5w Duals at next generation Avoton, where industry sources suggest public power disclosure is an Intel disinformation overstated by 20%.

In addition for the Android/Chrome OS market, Intel has manufactured approximately 7,387,206 Celeron 7xx/8xx Series, average weighed price speed split on supply schedule $102 to $109, TDP 17w for systems that don’t need batteries because they have a power supply.

This analyst believes for open integration market, sans vertically integrated consumer electronics producers who fabricate their own ARM designs, Intel will be unstoppable in TV on the ability to supply good enough processor performance on the monopoly advantage of their price for dice area less than whole production cost.

Finally Intel is in the process of dumping a combination 16,714,451 Sandy Bride Celeron Value Desktop and Value Mobile TDP 35w and 17W respectively for prices substantially less than Intel variable and fixed cost which is a continuing antitrust violation; $50 and $86 respectively.

At these prices for CPU/GPU combos including provided at no cost in a bundled sales package, for COM in tethered systems Intel is systematically disabling ARM in its established industrial and commercial niches and surrounding ARM in its mobile stronghold.

Ivy Bridge dumping begins Q1 2013 with Celeron and Pentium brands continuing to displace competitive processors on Intel monopoly advantages. And where there is an actual cash sale, displaces channel financial ability to purchase anything else.

Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS