thefearfulsilence, 10 Mar 2012Can't really see the problem here. The most likely outcome is that the extra competition will... moreWell said. It's a small chip which you don't actually see or feel when you use the phone, so whoever makes the best one, should win. I can understand fanboy-ism regarding phone OS or manufacturing, but when it comes to internal components, I don't get it.
Intel's x86 single core cpu is on par with latest and greates out there.
What do you think happens when Intel comes out with dual-core x86... dual core x64... oh wait - quad-core x64...?
And all that topped with quad-core nvidia gpu?
I'll tell you what happens - you will have a device size of today's smart-phone running a full "desktop" version of MS Windows 8 and than everything else can go to gabage can...
brynn, 10 Mar 2012Very odd outcome as N-vidia in 2005 were showcasing this and that for mobile devices promising... moreDude, you can. all you gota do is set affinity(also priority if u want) for that video converter process, and for other processes.
I am surprise about all the comments I read here...seems to me that most of you guys dont even know about CPU architecture. The real advantage Intel has over ARM is the fact that Intel designs its own CPU core and optimized it with the rest of the physical layers inside the SoC. Medfield is not just about the CPU x86 inside, it is the whole SoC optimization that gives the advantage over the existing ARM solutions. Dont forget ARM just designs the CPU core, the integration part is done by companies like nVidia, Samsung or Qualcom, but none of these companies has real life experience dealing with real CPU. All existing ARM versions from Qualcom, Samsung, TI or nVidia dont even get close in complexity and optimization when compare to any desktop CPU from Intel. Thats were Intel has the real advantage, and thats why ARM will not be able to compete now that Intel is on the smartphone market.
All other chipsets uses 45 nm production technique.
This intel uses 32 nm production technique.
I think these scores very bad. If we compare this cpu with 28 nm Krait based smarthphones. The chip can't be competitive.
Medfield pass some phones, that is right. But those phones tecnologies are based on last years processors.
its easy compare it with this you had Intel with quad core i7 chip and there is AMD with 8core which one will you go with when you know that that the 8core one get beaten to ashes by i5 chip
the same here dual core beaten to ashes with single core by Intel....
case closed hurrah..... :p
My Galaxy SII scored 93901 on Browser Mark Gingerbread 2.3.6 so that phone is darn good for a single core phone. Hope Intel bring out some awesome products.
welcome Intel in the mobile phone market, so we r going to get even better & faster device in near future........
[deleted post]Intel leave Nvidia alone
Give the Tegra 3 a chance here for Nvidia to insert some code in the some benchmarks to show it's not really as crap as people are saying.
Got Nvidia Hype machine
If there is a tablet with intel's medfield dualcore running windows 8 then i'll be buying it....
Can't really see the problem here. The most likely outcome is that the extra competition will see much improved standards for end users (ie you and me) so I cant find a reason for fanboys to get upset about intel entering the arena. Bring it on I say.
Samsung exynos chipset will kill intel.
Intel will never be competion to samsung.
:):):):)... (big grin on his face)... and this is on outdated tech'; Wait until they get their 22nm factory up and running.
This chip will probably be used on tablets running Windows 8
yup...intel owned the computer industry before so this could be really promising
Imo this is a simple bored looking phone doesn't matter how high tech it is, design is very important
[deleted post]Very odd outcome as N-vidia in 2005 were showcasing this and that for mobile devices promising
fluid gaming and video,,i think it ended up in Sony Ericssons W900i and that was it..Now come forward to 2012 and because they farted around getting Tegra 2 out other companys overtook them as is always the case if you stand still....People say its not all about GHz but my Core i7 is often at full blast doing menial chores and thast the setback in my system.
I am still unsure as to quad-core in smartfones because if they do use all four cores at once (or hell theres not point in quad -core)its going to flatten the battery..Now folk will come back and say about this companion core saving battery but the idea "according to all you show offs" is that quad-core is there to be used,so i am not impressed.
In my laptop all 8 cores show up dancing around on the graphs but playing mp3, browsing net,and converting video at same time or even closing apps shoves the cores upwards for a while ..What i mean is instead of concentrating on converting video all proccesses are shoved across all the cores i cant bring up something to concentrate on video alone..
To sum up i would rather have dual core running @ 4.8GHz than quadcores running at 2.0GHz with turbo up to 2.9GHz.