necrobobsledder posted:

Was North America Intel's largest market for them by that far though? I thought part of the reason for the really terse, robotic names common among corporations had to do with international acceptance (some Chinese readers having trouble with certain letters / sound combinations, for example)?

Sir Unimaginative posted:

Speak of the robot devil.

They're an Ubuntu shop but I haven't found less lovely laptops anywhere even on paper.

KennyG posted:

Fair enough, but I would point out that few people compare a mac book air to OMGWTFBBQFPS gaming rig.

In comparing within a product segment, it generally works or at least can be helpful to know that an i7 in an ultra-portable is going to be better than an i5 in an ultra-portable.

Yes an i7-4600M is likely going to get crushed by a i5-4570S but the fact that one is a desktop chip and one is a laptop chip should have already made that very apparent.

As mobile is almost never DIY, you can easily compare like products from toshiba, sony, dell, hp etc with i3-4100M, i5-4200M, i5-3750M and i5-4570T and know which one is the fastest and who is trying to hide last gen tech in there. It's a lot easier to look at 1xxx 2xxx 3xxx 4xxx and figure out which architecture I want vs having to remember that Conroe came before Westmere but after Prescot ()

SRQ posted:

market generation line?
2 4 7
2 6 3

The line of the first one is much improved over the second even if it's an earlier generation.
That's my guess.

KillHour posted:

The 2630 launched Q1'12, while the 2470 launched Q2'12.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59138

The 4603 is worse than either of the other two.



Edit: The low end E7's are worse than the high end E5's. I give up.

PCjr sidecar posted:

'worse'?

You can't put more than two 2470s in a single server, but you can put four 4603s, with a total of 16 memory channels, or eight (or more) E7-8850s.

Model numbers are about model lines, with differentiation based on features rather than clock speed. The first number reflects the maximum number of processors in a system. The 1 series usually has higher clock speeds and fewer cores, and looks pretty similar to consumer i7s. As you add sockets in a system, you see more cores (at lower clock rates), enterprise reliability features, more inter-processor bandwidth, more PCIe lanes.

The second number indicates socket type. The 2400 has three memory channels per processor, the 2600 has four. The 2400 was designed to allow OEMs to use existing Westmere/Nehalem motherboard designs. As such, they're slightly cheaper than the 2600 series.

The third and fourth numbers are for clock speed and cores. Generally, the higher the number the higher the overall performance (cores*clock.) There are some rules about what the fourth digit means (0,2,5,7, etc.); if you really care Wikipedia has that information. In addition, you can have a letter after the numbers to indicate a low or high power version.

Are you confused when a BMW 135i is faster than a 528i?

The only real inference you can make when comparing between families is that the larger number is more expensive.

Factory Factory posted:

The Core i3-4130 (3.4 GHz 54W, $130) and -4130T (2.9 GHz 35W, $140) were quietly released today, both with HD4400 graphics, as were a pair of Haswell Pentiums - a 2.9 GHz model for $100 and a 2.6 GHz model for $70, both 54W. I don't see any reviews up yet, though.

Woodsy Owl posted:

Is there any word on when or if a budget chipset solution is being released for the 1150 platform?

Factory Factory posted:

The Core i3-4130 (3.4 GHz 54W, $130) and -4130T (2.9 GHz 35W, $140) were quietly released today, both with HD4400 graphics, as were a pair of Haswell Pentiums - a 2.9 GHz model for $100 and a 2.6 GHz model for $70, both 54W. I don't see any reviews up yet, though.

SirBoobsALot posted:

Perfect timing, I was just going to ask how these things are usually released. I was waiting on the cheaper Haswells for an HTPC I was working on. Do the manufacturers usually release a lot of lower tier parts to go with the new chips now that they are public, or is that more for new chipsets and what is out now is basically it for Haswell?

Alereon posted:

Yes, Celeron and even some Pentium processors will be based on Silvermont cores, with the Atom brand reserved for very low power applications.

Factory Factory posted:

as were a pair of Haswell Pentiums - a 2.9 GHz model for $100 and a 2.6 GHz model for $70, both 54W. I don't see any reviews up yet, though.

evilweasel posted:

There any indication of when Silvermont tablets might show up?

quote:

Toshiba unveiled its first Windows based tablet called the Encore at the IFA today. The 8-inch tablet will be available from November and will cost $330.
Toshiba Encore 2 Toshibas first Windows Tablet announced at IFA

The Encore is an 8-inch tablet that runs Windows 8.1. Toshiba has announced that it has worked closely with Microsoft to ensure that the tablet is optimised for Windows 8.1, which is set to launch in October. The tablet also features dual-microphones and is certified for Skype.

This is Toshiba’s first tablet in the Windows ecosystem. The Encore features an 8-inch screen with a resolution of 1280 x 800, and is powered by Intel’s new quad-core Bay Trail processor. In a benchmark that was released yesterday, it was revealed that the Bay Trail Z3770 processor scored three times what the current-gen Clover Trail Z2760 scored.

IDF — Intel CEO Brian Krzanich dropped a surprise announcement on the attendees of his opening keynote at the Intel Developer Forum today: a new family of processors from Intel, known as Quark. Quark SoCs are intended to be integrated into very small computing devices and the "Internet of things," including wearable devices and possibly smart watches.

Krzanich said Quark SoCs will be very low power and will fit into tiny form factors—about one-fifth the size of an Atom SoC with about one-tenth the power consumption.

What's more, Krzanich added that the Quark family will be "fully synthesizable" with an "open architecture" and "open ecosystem." We don't have too many details about how the the business alliances around Quark will work, but Krzanich indicated that, if companies want to put their own IP into a Quark SoC, "we can support that." He did say Intel plans to keep Quark production in-house for now, rather than allowing production of Quark-based chips at outside foundries.

Quark development is apparently well down the path inside of Intel. Reference designs based on the first SoCs are already "ready to go," and the first product has a name: Quark X1000. We'll be watching for more details on Quark as IDF continues.

Toast Museum posted:

Something something ["subatomic" joke]

Factory Factory posted:

AnandTech's snap judgment was that it's not x86, because Intel referred to it as an open architecture. Not only is x86 not that, but Intel's never described it that way, which suggests against it.

Alereon posted:

My under-informed theory is that it's the subset of x86 that predates the P5 architecture, which is not patent-encumbered and is thus truly "open." I think as long as you don't need >4GB of RAM or SIMD this should be enough.

Edit: Actually, since that EETimes article says there's already a supported software stack from outside vendors there is no chance it is not x86.

Bonus Edit: Oh, and the EETimes even says that first bit at the top of page 2

SRQ posted:

Oh man, a 486 based smart watch.
486 toaster.

Naffer posted:

If you get the 486SX version it's not as good at bagels.

Alereon posted:

Anandtech has more benchmarks of the Intel Atom Z3770, including results under Android. Aside from some issues with thread scheduling its a solid 3X as fast as the previous generation, and the Intel HD Graphics is almost as fast as the Radeon integrated into AMD's low-power APUs. It's incredibly frustrating that AMD had over two years with no competition from Intel in the low-power space and did absolutely gently caress-all with it, and the first product Intel actually tried with knocked it so far out of the park that AMD will never be able to catch up.

SRQ posted:

Apple is trying to get iOS apps to be 64 bit now, could this be related to Intel having better low power offerings?
I don't see how but my brain finds patterns in dumb things, would this be competitive with the A7?

Josh Lyman posted:

I believe Intel's mobile chips are 32 bit, and besides, it's unlikely Apple will switch away from custom silicon. Remember, an iPhone 5 gives you a full day of usage with less than half the capacity of a AA battery.