Database Users

What's inside iphone5?!?

I for one can't wait to hear about what Apples new A6 chip.
Anandtech originally reported that it was a A15 based dual core, which would be a major design win for Apple, since that would be what... 6 months before you seen any Android phone with a A15 SOC out in any substantial numbers!
But now Anandtech is reporting that Apple made their own CPU very closely built on the A15. Sort of a Krait on steroids, if you will.
That choice was apparently the only way they could get close to twice the performance without sacrificing battery life.
The GPU is either the same quad core SG 543 from the new iPad or a version of that chip with three cores. Either way, this means serious GPU muscle for the iPhone 5. I for one sure was blown away by the graphics in the Real Racing 3 game they demonstrated!
It's really exciting, cause it'll push development on all platforms forward. Its getting boring to always see the same 2-3 SOC combinations on Android phones (All the top phones have the same CPU/GPU inside of them these days), and will mean that Android handsets again have their work cut out for them in terms of catching up to Apple. Three of four GPU cores in a phone is crazy powerful!
What does people think powers the iPhone 5/A6? Higher clocked dual core A9? Quad core A9? Apples own custom CPU?

vszulc said:
I for one can't wait to hear about what Apples new A6 chip.
Anandtech originally reported that it was a A15 based dual core, which would be a major design win for Apple, since that would be what... 6 months before you seen any Android phone with a A15 SOC out in any substantial numbers!
But now Anandtech is reporting that Apple made their own CPU very closely built on the A15. Sort of a Krait on steroids, if you will.
That choice was apparently the only way they could get close to twice the performance without sacrificing battery life.
The GPU is either the same quad core SG 543 from the new iPad or a version of that chip with three cores. Either way, this means serious GPU muscle for the iPhone 5. I for one sure was blown away by the graphics in the Real Racing 3 game they demonstrated!
It's really exciting, cause it'll push development on all platforms forward. Its getting boring to always see the same 2-3 SOC combinations on Android phones (All the top phones have the same CPU/GPU inside of them these days), and will mean that Android handsets again have their work cut out for them in terms of catching up to Apple. Three of four GPU cores in a phone is crazy powerful!
What does people think powers the iPhone 5/A6? Higher clocked dual core A9? Quad core A9? Apples own custom CPU?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dualcore a15 1ghz but the real answer isTOTAL CRAP

Please use our sister site for discussing Apple products.
https://www.iphone-developers.com

Intel Mobile Celeron N2910 v Intel Atom Atom Z3740

Hiya,
Im looking at getting a new tablet after getting a little annoyed with my asus t100.
The asus has the bay trail-T Atom Z3740 (t100) the other has a n9210 which is bay trail-M.
Is the bay trail-m more powerfull as i do not believe it has turbo boost. im looking at playing fm14 on the lowest settings so it does not need to be to powerfull as the Atom Z3740 could play it.
The new intel range is confusing me, is it Atom-Celeron-Pentium-Core-Xenon
Rich

Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.

SixSixSevenSeven said:
Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ahhh right the tablet im looking at is this
http://www8.hp.com/uk/en/products/laptops/product-detail.html?oid=6420758#!tab=specs
which says it has a celeron which is a bay trail-m product

SixSixSevenSeven said:
Pentium and celeron are legacy products. Bay trail is encroaching on celeron anyway.
Xeon is not a consumer product line. Its for servers.
The current consumer product line is simply
Atom > Core i3 > Core i5 > Core i7. And even then, most consumers wont benefit from the i7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pentium and Celeron are upgraded every time the i3/5/7 family gets upgraded, so I wouldn't call them legacy.
They are more like lower end versions of the above.
I would say Celeron is somewhere in between an i3 and an atom.
With that said, i doubt the performance is noticeable.

Cool that's what I was looking for thought it would be a middle kinda ground between atom and i3
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app

Both are Bay Trail, but are targeted at different platforms. The T100's Z3740 is designed for tablets,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759
while the Celeron N2910 is for entry notebooks,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752
with higher SDP (4.5W vs 2W), higher clock (1.6GHz vs 1.3GHz), and can run 64-bit Win (all Bay Trail tablets are 32-bit only, until next year).
Even without Turbo, the N2910 is faster since it runs at 20% higher clock. That would be a noticeable difference. But still, we're talking about an Atom here. The downside is higher power use, hence the 2nd batt in the base of your model.
BTW, the US version of your mentioned hybrid is a bit better with a Pentium N3510, which is also a Bay Trail M, but has a base clock of 2GHz.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-Pavilion/E4V88AV
http://ark.intel.com/products/76751
BTW, note that these come with Windows 8, not 8.1.

Thanks for that will have a look at the one you have said.
I know it has 8 but won't it get the free 8.1 update?
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app

Just because you can upgrade to 8.1, doesn't mean you should. HP hasn't certify 8.1 for this model, and Bay Trail already has enough bleeding edge problems with driver support.
More issues: wifi is bgn, ie 2.4GHz only; Miracast won't be possible. 11.6" screen is only 1366x768. Unit is heavy at 3.3lbs (1.71lbs sans base). Battery life is probably poor. No freebie Office like for the smaller 10" devices. On the plus side, you do get 4GB RAM rather than 2GB.
At $600 US, it's expensive. The main reason is Intel's chip pricing. Cel N2910's pricing is $132 retail (HP would've paid less), Z3740 is reportedly $30. The large difference isn't because of performance, but platform positioning. It's likely why Bay Trail T is 32-bit only, because Intel doesn't want it to cannibalize sales of higher-margin parts. It was the same with the netbook.
Even at $30, Bay Trail isn't competitive with ARM SoCs. Intel reportedly will lower Bay Trail parts to $15-20 in 2014.
http://tablet-news.com/2013/10/15/intel-preparing-cheap-bay-trail-chips-for-2014/
To date, there hasn't been many device roll-out for Bay Trail. Pricing is one reason why. Not many people will pay $500-600 for a Bay Trail hybrid, or $300 for a 8" tablet (except for Apple's of course). Asus T100 hits a good price point, but as you found, it has major compromises.
The second reason is that Win 8.1 is a yawner. It may not have the hate that Win 8 engendered, but there is no consumer enthusiasm for it. Going into this shopping season, the hope was that Haswell and Bay Trail, along with 8.1, would kick-start Windows sales. Doesn't look like that will happen. Now you know the real reason why Ballmer is crying his way out the door.

e.mote,
Just because a CPU has higher clock it doesn't mean it is actually better.
An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that. Celeron is faster than Atom, but the difference won't be noticeable in daily usage (inbefore benchmarks: they are pretty useless for daily usage performance)
As for windows 8/8.1, we understand you can't get your head around using it, but you shouldn't present "general consensus facts" which are exactly the opposite in reality.

>An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that.
You need to get yourself educated. The above discussion is about the same Silvermont architecture. There is no Core here. The Celeron/Pentium/whatever are brandings applied. A Bay Trail M running at 1.6 or 2GHz is faster than a Bay Trail T at 1.33, period. It is that simple.
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.

e.mote said:
It's likely why Bay Trail T is 32-bit only
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only.
Its 64 bit. Go check ark.intel.com yourself, or even the thread on this very forum where someone is attempting to boot linux on the T100.
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3740-2M-Cache-up-to-1_86-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/78416/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3740D-2M-Cache-up-to-1_86-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N2910-2M-Cache-1_60-GHz
Celeron drops the variable clock speeds but has a higher RAM cap but at a lower frequency. Celeron maximum graphics core clock is higher, although it doesnt say what the minimum is and is lacking a few extra features.
The celeron will always run at 1.6ghz as opposed to the atom branded chip being 1.33 and then occasionally overclocking itself to 1.86
---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------
e.mote said:
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point

>It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only
Yes, the Silvermont architecture is 64-bit, which is why it can support 64-bit Win in the M line. As abundantly said, that the T line is 32-bit-(OS)-only is because of market positioning, not a technical deficiency.
>Celeron drops the variable clock speeds [etc]...
Yes, thanks for regurgitating my words back to me. I'm sure it's all worthwhile.
>Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point
Does anybody ever provide evidence for anything on views espoused herein? Do you? Do you ever stop putting words in other people's mouth, as these above?
You want evidence that "8.1 has no consumer enthusiasm"? Look around in this very forum. See anyone jumping for joy at 8.1's features and improvements? See people lining up to buy 8.1 boxes? You think MS is turning itself upside down, and Ballmer bawling his guts out on stage because he's happy of the great Windows sales?

just out of curiosity is the baytrail atom chipset as powerful as the core 2 duo or duo core laptop cpu from 2007-2009 time frame.

rkoforever90 said:
just out of curiosity is the baytrail atom chipset as powerful as the core 2 duo or duo core laptop cpu from 2007-2009 time frame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As fast as a low end Penryn chip. For reference my P9700 @2.8ghz scores 2600 on geekbench 3 and the bay trail gets 2900. Note the bench is multicore and 32bit settings. However according to cinebench r11.5 my P9700 has higher single & multi core performance, but only slightly.
Also bay t z3740 gets 3343 in cinebench r10 and my laptop gets 6100, so bay is likely close to low end Penyrn or 1st gen i3.
Sent with Virtue

e.mote said:
>An 1Gz i5 is better than an 1.8 ghz Atom. It is all about the architecture, so you can't compare them like that.
You need to get yourself educated. The above discussion is about the same Silvermont architecture. There is no Core here. The Celeron/Pentium/whatever are brandings applied. A Bay Trail M running at 1.6 or 2GHz is faster than a Bay Trail T at 1.33, period. It is that simple.
>which are exactly the opposite in reality
I'm sure the fanboy's version of reality is indeed different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
e.mote said:
Both are Bay Trail, but are targeted at different platforms. The T100's Z3740 is designed for tablets,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76759 => celeron
while the Celeron N2910 is for entry notebooks,
http://ark.intel.com/products/76752 => atom
Then you proceed to compare their clock speeds
with higher SDP (4.5W vs 2W), higher clock (1.6GHz vs 1.3GHz), and can run 64-bit Win (all Bay Trail tablets are 32-bit only, until next year).
Even without Turbo, the N2910 is faster since it runs at 20% higher clock. That would be a noticeable difference. But still, we're talking about an Atom here. The downside is higher power use, hence the 2nd batt in the base of your model.
BTW, the US version of your mentioned hybrid is a bit better with a Pentium N3510, which is also a Bay Trail M, but has a base clock of 2GHz.
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Laptops/HP-Pavilion/E4V88AV
http://ark.intel.com/products/76751
BTW, note that these come with Windows 8, not 8.1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel Atom is a different architecture than the rest of the intel family processors.Celeron belongs in the same family as the core processors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
Therefore, your CPU clock comparison between intel atom and celeron is null.
You should probably change your avatar image.
PS:this is more of a technical support forum than anything else. People don't usually end up on XDA developers if they do not have a problem. This is how i found about this forum too: I had a problem. There is no point in saying a technical support forum is a good indicator of how good or bad a software is.

mcosmin222 said:
Intel Atom is a different architecture than the rest of the intel family processors.Celeron belongs in the same family as the core processors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
Therefore, your CPU clock comparison between intel atom and celeron is null.
You should probably change your avatar image.
PS:this is more of a technical support forum than anything else. People don't usually end up on XDA developers if they do not have a problem. This is how i found about this forum too: I had a problem. There is no point in saying a technical support forum is a good indicator of how good or bad a software is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Current celeron chips it seems intel have simply taken the silvermont core from bay trail and slapped the celeron branding on so they are one and the same now beyond what I have apparently regurgitated at e.mote yet he never actually said.
e.mote said:
>It isn't likely why the Bay Trail T is 32 bit only because Bay Trail T isn't 32 bit only
Yes, the Silvermont architecture is 64-bit, which is why it can support 64-bit Win in the M line. As abundantly said, that the T line is 32-bit-(OS)-only is because of market positioning, not a technical deficiency.
>Celeron drops the variable clock speeds [etc]...
Yes, thanks for regurgitating my words back to me. I'm sure it's all worthwhile.
>Its not like you ever substantiate or provide any evidence to your claims that "everyone hates modern", "no one can use desktop in 8 or modern on desktops" or whatever other claims you have made at some point. He has a point
Does anybody ever provide evidence for anything on views espoused herein? Do you? Do you ever stop putting words in other people's mouth, as these above?
You want evidence that "8.1 has no consumer enthusiasm"? Look around in this very forum. See anyone jumping for joy at 8.1's features and improvements? See people lining up to buy 8.1 boxes? You think MS is turning itself upside down, and Ballmer bawling his guts out on stage because he's happy of the great Windows sales?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Want to ignore intels own documents showing that BayTrail T is 64 bit? want to ignore people on this very forum booting 64 bit OSes on Bay Trail T? want to continue stating its 32 bit when it isn't? Fine by me, perhaps you profile picture is rather accurate. And before you claim I am putting words in peoples mouth with this post, its a direct unedited quote although you do seem incapable of ever using the quote button.
Windows sales at this point in time are actually showing a similar market share to when windows 7 was released. Desktop/Laptop PC sales have fallen as a whole according to many analysts as tablet sales gain ground with consumers.
This forum cannot be used as evidence. The forum is technical support. In general you find that most of the people who are happy with a product do not come here to give it praises, they just carry on using it as they do. People come here when they have an issue. Of course people arent going to be jumping for joy when they have come here to ask how to do something (which 99% of the time isnt even a windows 8 exclusive issue).

The new atoms are silver mount tho arnt they as they are bay trail chips
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-N2910-Notebook-Processor.101602.0.html
Sent from my C6903 using xda app-developers app

>The new atoms are silver mount tho arnt they as they are bay trail chips
Yes, they are. Please ignore the noise. OK, you can ask for your money back!
BTW thanks to the hoi polloi for setting Mcosmin gal straight on the Cel thing. I would add something, but I don't wanna be accused of piling on the handicapped.
>This forum cannot be used as evidence. The forum is technical support.
Such an emphatic statement! But sadly, wrong. This forum is NOT tech support. Do read the header. It's a general discussion area for Win8. People help out because they want to, not because it's their designated task. People come here to jaw about Win8, as we are doing. Evidence? We love evidence! You have some for us, yes?
>Windows sales at this point in time are actually showing a similar market share to when windows 7 was released.
Oh, really! I'm sure that'd be news to many, especially to MS. Since you're so fond of "evidence," where is it? Please, do tell! Love to see which version of reality you reside in.
Then again, facts aren't something you're used to, so let me help ya out. From the horse's mouth:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/...year-more-than-240-million-licenses-sold.aspx
"As of September [2010], Windows 7 was running on 93% of new consumer PCs and has over 17% global OS market share (according to Net Applications as of October 1st)"
Per Net Applications, at end of Oct 2010, one year after its release, Win7's market share was 18.9%.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/repor...+7&qpcustomb=0&qpsp=2009&qpnp=2&qptimeframe=Y
Meanwhile,
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/...ling-first-time-windows-8-1-takes-1-72-share/
"The latest market share data from Net Applications shows that October 2013 was a slow one for Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 combined...[at] 9.25 percent."
Yes, 18.9% is indeedy VERY SIMILAR to 9.25%. Gotta love the new math they teach in schools nowaday. (Yes we're assuming the little fella did see the inside of a school at some point...OK it's a possibility.)
Hey wanna see something to warm your cockles?
http://www.netmarketshare.com/opera...11&qpcustomb=0&qpsp=165&qpnp=13&qptimeframe=M
Going great guns is Win 8.x! Gosh at this torrid pace it might even get to 10% by next century!
>In general you find that most of the people who are happy with a product do not come here to give it praises, they just carry on using it as they do.
Uh oh, more generalizations with NO EVIDENCE. What would Mcosmin lass say!
Yes yes I know them well...the unsung "silent majority" toiling away in the shadow of your imagination. If only they would RISE UP AND BE COUNTED, the world would be a happier place. I'm sure they will do it tomorrow.
Census count! ARE YE A HAPPY WIN8 USER? If yes, go buy smore Win toys and help Ballmer keep his job!
So, what's next on the fanboy scapegoating list? Should we blame the marketing, or do we go after the biased MSM peeps? Heck I'm kinda partial to the breakdancing Catholic school tots. They got tudes. OK it's the bloggers' fault.

Should Intel Be Worried?

I know, this is one of those silly little topics that gets thrown around every time a newer faster arm chip comes out, but this is the first time that I personally have ever seen an Arm chip as a threat to intel. When I saw the Galaxy s6 scoring around a 4800 multi-core I stopped and thought to myself, "hey, that looks pretty darn close to my fancy i5." Sure enough, the I5 5200u only scores around a 5280 in the Geekbench 64 bit multi-core benchmark. I understand that this is only possible because the Galaxy S6 has 8 cores, but it's still very impressive what Arm and Samsung were able to achieve using a fraction of the power intel has on hand. Of course I don't think that this chip will take over the market, but if Arm's performance continues increase at the same rate while maintaining the same low power draw, then intel might have some real competition in the laptop space within the near future. Heck, maybe Microsoft will bring back RT but with full app support.
I also know that I didn't account for how much power the GPU was drawing, but I feel as if that wouldn't be the only factor after seeing the issues with Core M.

I doubt they're worried. intel CPUs are wicked fast. i have a 3 year old i7 and it's faster than most of AMDs current gen CPUs.
if Intel is able to apply the same method/engineering they use on CPUs to the mobile platform, i bet it will smoke anything out there. kind of like how intel CPUs kill basically anything AMDs can put out.

tcb4 said:
I know, this is one of those silly little topics that gets thrown around every time a newer faster arm chip comes out, but this is the first time that I personally have ever seen an Arm chip as a threat to intel. When I saw the Galaxy s6 scoring around a 4800 multi-core I stopped and thought to myself, "hey, that looks pretty darn close to my fancy i5." Sure enough, the I5 5200u only scores around a 5280 in the Geekbench 64 bit multi-core benchmark. I understand that this is only possible because the Galaxy S6 has 8 cores, but it's still very impressive what Arm and Samsung were able to achieve using a fraction of the power intel has on hand. Of course I don't think that this chip will take over the market, but if Arm's performance continues increase at the same rate while maintaining the same low power draw, then intel might have some real competition in the laptop space within the near future. Heck, maybe Microsoft will bring back RT but with full app support.
I also know that I didn't account for how much power the GPU was drawing, but I feel as if that wouldn't be the only factor after seeing the issues with Core M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is important to remember that ultimately the same constraints and limitations will apply to both Intel and ARM CPUs. After all ARM and x86 are just instruction set architectures. There is no evidence to suggest that somehow ARM is at a significant advantage vs Intel in terms of increasing performance while keeping power low. It has been generally accepted now that ISA's have a negligible impact on IPC and performance per watt. Many of these newer ARM socs like the 810 are having overheating issues themselves. The higher performance Nvidia SOCs that have impressive performance are using 10+ watts TDPs too.
Also it is always a bit tricky to make cross platform and cross ISA CPUs comparisons in benchmarks like GeekBench and for whatever reason Intel cpus tend to do relatively poorly in GeekBench compared to other benchmarks. You can try to compare other real world uses between the i5-5200U and the Exynos 7420 and I can assure you that the tiny Exynos will be absolutely no match to the much larger, wider and more complex Broadwell cores. Don't get me wrong, the Exynos 7420 is very impressive for its size and power consumption, but I don't think we can take that GeekBench comparison seriously.
The fastest low power core right now is without a doubt the Broadwell Core M which is a 4.5 watt part. This is built on Intel's 14nm process which is more advanced than Samsungs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9061/lenovo-yoga-3-pro-review/4
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
"Once again, in web use, the Core M processor is very similar to the outgoing Haswell U based Yoga 2 Pro. Just to put the numbers in a bit more context, I also ran the benchmarks on my Core i7-860 based Desktop (running Chrome, as were the Yogas) and it is pretty clear just how far we have come. The i7-860 is a four core, eight thread 45 nm processor with a 2.8 GHz base clock and 3.46 GHz boost, all in a 95 watt TDP. It was launched in late 2009. Five years later, we have higher performance in a 4.5 watt TDP for many tasks. It really is staggering."
"As a tablet, the Core M powered Yoga 3 Pro will run circles around other tablets when performing CPU tasks. The GPU is a bit behind, but it is ahead of the iPad Air already, so it is not a slouch. The CPU is miles ahead though, even when compared to the Apple A8X which is consistently the best ARM based tablet CPU.
"
---------- Post added at 04:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 AM ----------
tft said:
I doubt they're worried. intel CPUs are wicked fast. i have a 3 year old i7 and it's faster than most of AMDs current gen CPUs.
if Intel is able to apply the same method/engineering they use on CPUs to the mobile platform, i bet it will smoke anything out there. kind of like how intel CPUs kill basically anything AMDs can put out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
All of the little atom CPUs we see in mobile right now are much smaller, narrower and simpler cores than Intel Core chips. Once you see Intel big cores trickle down into mobile, it will get much more interesting.

Intel will catch up...quick too just watch. They've been working on 64-bit for over a year now...and they're already onto 14nm. Qualcomm should be worried, I don't think their ready for this competition. They talked trash about octa cores and 64-bits...now their doing both and seems their product is still in beta status, not ready for the real world. Intel and Samsung are gonna give them problems
Sent from my SM-G920T using XDA Free mobile app

rjayflo said:
Intel will catch up...quick too just watch. They've been working on 64-bit for over a year now...and they're already onto 14nm. Qualcomm should be worried, I don't think their ready for this competition. They talked trash about octa cores and 64-bits...now their doing both and seems their product is still in beta status, not ready for the real world. Intel and Samsung are gonna give them problems
Sent from my SM-G920T using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically Intel and AMD have had 64 bit for well over a decade now with AMD64/EM64T and many Intel mobile processors have had it for years, so the HW has supported it for a while but 64 bit enabled tablets/phones haven't started shipping until very recently.
Indeed Intel has been shipping 14nm products since last year and their 14nm process is more advanced than Samsung's. Note that there is no real science behind naming a process node so terms like "14nm" and "20nm" have turned into purely marketing material. For example, TSMC 16nm isn't actually any smaller than their 20nm process. Presumably Intel 14nm also yields higher and allows for higher performance transistors than the Samsung 14nm.
It is likely that Samsung has the most advanced process outside of Intel however. I do agree that Qualcomm is in a bit of trouble at the moment with players like Intel really growing in the tablet space and Samsung coming out with the very formidable Exynos 7420 SOC in the smartphone space. The SD810 just isn't cutting it and has too many problems. Qualcomm should also be considered that both Samsung and Intel have managed to come out with high end LTE radios, this was something that Qualcomm pretty much had a monopoly on for years. Intel now has the 7360 LTE radio and Samsung has the Shannon 333 LTE.

rjayflo said:
Intel will catch up...quick too just watch. They've been working on 64-bit for over a year now...and they're already onto 14nm. Qualcomm should be worried, I don't think their ready for this competition. They talked trash about octa cores and 64-bits...now their doing both and seems their product is still in beta status, not ready for the real world. Intel and Samsung are gonna give them problems
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree about Qualcomm, i actually mentioned that some time ago.
i think Qualcomm will happen what happened to nokia/blackberry, they got huge and stopped innovating and ended up being left in the dust. perhaps Qualcomm thought they had a monopoly and that samsung and other device makers would continue to buy their chips..
in the end, i think the only thing Qualcomm will have left is a bunch of patents..

I understand that Core M is a powerful part, but I'm not sure I believer their TDP figures. I am, however, more inclined to believe Samsung as they achieving this performance with an soc that is within a phone; in other words, they don't have the surface area to displace large quantities of heat. Nvidia has always skewed performance per watt numbers, and, as a result, they haven't been able to put an soc in a phone for years. Now, the reason I doubt intel's claims is because of battery life tests performed by reviewers and because of the low battery life claims made by manufacturers. For instance, the New Macbook and Yoga Pro 3 aren't showing large improvements in battery life when compared to their 15w counterparts.
I'm not sure how I feel about the iPad comparison though; I feel as if you just compounded the issue by showing us a benchmark that was not only cross platform, but also within different browsers.
Also, I think I understand what you mean about how an ISA will not directly impact performance per watt, but is it not possible that Samsung and Arm could just have a better design? I mean intel and AMD both utilize the same instruction set, but Intel will run circles around AMD in terms of efficiency. I may be way off base here, so feel free to correct me.
I think that Qualcomm is busy working on a new Krait of their own, but right now they're in hot water. They got a little lazy milking 32 bit chips, but once Apple announced their 64 bit chip they panicked and went with an ARM design. We'll have to see if they can bring a 64 bit Krait chip to the table, but right now Samsung's 7420 appears to be the best thing on the market.

tcb4 said:
I understand that Core M is a powerful part, but I'm not sure I believer their TDP figures. I am, however, more inclined to believe Samsung as they achieving this performance with an soc that is within a phone; in other words, they don't have the surface area to displace large quantities of heat. Nvidia has always skewed performance per watt numbers, and, as a result, they haven't been able to put an soc in a phone for years. Now, the reason I doubt intel's claims is because of battery life tests performed by reviewers and because of the low battery life claims made by manufacturers. For instance, the New Macbook and Yoga Pro 3 aren't showing large improvements in battery life when compared to their 15w counterparts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically the Core M will dissipate more than 4.5w for "bursty" workloads but under longer steady workloads it will average to 4.5w. The ARM tablet and phone SOCs more or less do the same thing. In terms of actual battery life test results, yes the battery life of most of these devices hasn't really changed since the last generation Intel U series chips but that isn't a real apples to apples comparison. As SOC power consumption continues to drop, it is becoming a smaller and smaller chunk of total system power consumption. Lenovo did a poor job IMO in originally implementing the first Core M device but Apple will almost certainly do a much better job. The SOC is only one part of the system, it is the responsibility of the OEM to properly package up the device and do proper power management, provide an adequate battery etc. Yes the new Macbook doesn't get significantly longer battery life but it also weighs only 2.0 lbs and has a ridiculously small battery. It also has a much higher resolution and more power hungry screen and yet manages to keep battery life equal with the last generation. Benchmarks have also indicated that the newer 14nm Intel CPUs are much better at sustained performance compared to the older 22nm Haswells. This is something that phone and tablets typically are very poor at.
tcb4 said:
I'm not sure how I feel about the iPad comparison though; I feel as if you just compounded the issue by showing us a benchmark that was not only cross platform, but also within different browsers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A very fair point, browser benchmarks are especially notorious in being very misleading. I think in this case Chrome was used in all cases which helps a little. My point in showing this is that we need to take those GeekBench results with a little grain of salt. Outside of that benchmark, I don't think you'll find the A8X or Exynos 7420 getting anywhere near a higher speced Core M let alone a i5-5200U at any real world use or any other benchmark, browser based or not. Even other synthetic benchmarks like 3dmark Physics, etc don't show the Intel CPUs nearly as low as GeekBench does.
tcb4 said:
Also, I think I understand what you mean about how an ISA will not directly impact performance per watt, but is it not possible that Samsung and Arm could just have a better design? I mean intel and AMD both utilize the same instruction set, but Intel will run circles around AMD in terms of efficiency. I may be way off base here, so feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is correct.
It is certainly possible for Samsung to have a design that is more power efficient than Intel when it comes to making a 2W phone SOC, but that won't be because Samsung uses ARM ISA while Intel uses x86. At this point, ISA is mostly just coincidental and isn't going to greatly impact the characteristics of your CPU. The CPU design and the ISA that the CPU uses are different things. The notion of "better design" is also a little tricky because a design that may be best for a low power SOC may not necessarily be the best for a higher wattage CPU. Intel absolutely rules the CPU landscape from 15w and up. Despite all of the hype around ARM based servers, Intel has continued to dominate servers and has actually continued to increase its lead in that space since Intel's performance per watt is completely unmatched in higher performance applications. Intel's big core design is just better for that application than any ARM based CPU's. It is important to remember that just because you have the best performance per watt 2 watt SOC, doesn't mean you can just scale that design into a beastly 90 watt CPU. If it were that easy, Intel would have probably easily downscaled their big core chips to dominate mobile SOCs.
You frequently find some people trying to reason that at 1.2 Ghz Apple's A8 SOC is very efficient and fast and then they claim that if they could clock that SOC at 3+ Ghz then it should be able to match an Intel Haswell core, but there is no guarantee that the design will allow such high clocks. You have to consider that maybe Apple made design choices to provide great IPC but that IPC came at the cost of limiting clock frequencies.

Best Intel processors for performance

The rivalry between Intel and AMD has intensified in the past few years, with team red playing catch-up and introducing some really competitive products. On the other hand, Intel released its new 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S processor series earlier this year as an update to the Comet Lake lineup. Numbers suggest that Intel hasn’t done enough to really improve over last year’s offerings. In contrast, AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series has definitely caught a lot of attention from gamers and PC building enthusiasts.
Having said that, Intel has been a leader in the CPU space for years and continues to do so. Their processors offer great IPC (instructions per clock) performance and high clock speeds making them great for gaming purposes. Intel also has top-of-the-line HEDT (high-end desktop) processors that offer excellent performance for the asking price for professional workloads.
Here’s a look at the best Intel processors for performance:
Intel Core i9-10980XE​One of Intel's most powerful commercial processors, the Core i9-10980XE spearheads the company’s Extreme lineup. With a total of 18-cores and 36-threads, this beast can deliver excellent performance for consumers looking for a CPU that can keep with the most demanding tasks. It is overclockable, but with 165W TDP, this chip can get really hot, so make sure you have proper cooling.
Clock speeds: 3.0GHz - 4.6GHz
18-Cores, 36 Threads
24.8MB L3 Cache
48 PCIe 3.0 lanes
165W TDP
~$990
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-11900K​Under the new 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S branding, the latest consumer offering includes the Core i9-11900K as its most powerful processor offering. However, compared to last year’s 10900K, Intel has taken out two of the cores, bringing it down to a total of eight cores. This came as a surprise to many, with reviewers suggesting not to buy the new chip. While that is true to an extent, the fact remains that it is a powerful processor. Sure AMD has great chips that can thrash this chip, but what is important here is that this overclockable chip can run at speeds going over 5GHz, and it comes with an integrated GPU
Clock speeds: 3.5GHz - 5.3GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
16MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
95W TDP
~$520
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900K​The 10th-gen Core i9-10900K is still an excellent processor if you are looking for core performance. It’s a very capable chip, especially when it comes to its single-core performance, while the 10-core configuration and the ability to go beyond 5GHz clock speeds are in itself commendable. The processor should easily last for a long time but make sure you pair this chip with a reliable cooler.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-11980HK​Intel recently introduced the new 11th-gen Tiger Lake-H processors for high-end gaming and workstation laptops. The series is headed by the Core i9-11980HK, which is now the most powerful mobile processor from Intel. The eight-core, 16-thread chip comes with a 5GHz maximum boost clock speed on one core and unlocked multipliers. While the chip is slowly reaching markets, early reviews are definitely positive. Expect new laptops with the Core i9-11980HK to reach mainstream laptops later this month.
Clock speeds: 3.3GHz - 5.0GHz
8-Cores, 16 Threads
24MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
45-65W TDP
Go for the Core i9-10900K as it offers the best performance package for the asking price. Agreed that the Core i9-10980XE offers higher cores, it is quite expensive, and it doesn't really justify the performance. Hopefully, Intel will introduce a new Extreme series this year that should trump the shortcomings of the existing Core i9-10980XE. Also, check out the best Intel processors that you should purchase for gaming.

Best Intel processors for gaming

Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600K​The latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900K​As mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400​If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.

kunalneo said:
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600K​The latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900K​As mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400​If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think for the money the i9 10850k is a better option than the 10900 as long as you're not concerned about pci gen 4

I am looking for user of a Core-i7 990x 5-6Ghz 24GB fastest RAM.
GTX470+GTX980ACX2.0 Overcloked
OCZ 240GByte PCI 3.0 SSD 2000MByte/s
Check AMD for my 2 other servers JimDijkstra86NL aKa Jimmy ;-D

I know shes old but she was gold I7-2600k. Still using mine OC'd from day1 with a H70. daily 4.5Ghz 24/7 bought right after Ivy Bridge release for price reasons. Updated my graphic to 1060 6g and running it in only 2 lanes with Sandy and have yet to have issues in games. Well depending on what i set Horizon 5 to it will be crushed. H5 is very demanding GPU wise.

The best menu for CPU means fastest chip, which speed up your device. Now a days there are many best intel processors for gaming.

For intel series I would recommend 12th Gen 12400 for gaming under Budget

Really would like to have 1 that OC'd like Sandy u didn't hardly need to do much of anything to hit 4.5,4.6. Slap good ram in and a good water cooler and rock and roll time

Why are there no i7s on this list? A xx700 has plenty of power. I would argue an i9 is way overkill for most gamers.
"Best" is also a subjective term. Ideally, you want a combination of CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU where each compliments the other. If you're running a 3080 Ti on an i5, you're probably not going to get the maximum performance out of the GPU. This is called "bottlenecking".

ALL Intel CPUs were very good performers once starting with the first i5/i7. I still see people pushing hex-core Westmere-EP Xeons like X5672 to 4 GHz with surprising results for an 11-year-old CPU!

The best processor for gaming would be Intel Core i5 12600K.
The Core i5 12600K is the standout processor for gamers because it not only offers great gaming performance across the board, but it does so at a price point that isn't going to reduce you to tears. It not only beats the similarly priced 5600X in pretty much every game, but it outperforms the $750 Ryzen 9 5950X in plenty of tests too. That it soundly beats the Core i9 11900K is just the icing on the cake. Not bad for a $320 mid-range chip.