A leaked Intel lineup reveals that the company's upcoming Bay Trail processors will also fall under not only the traditional Atom branding, but the Pentium and Celeron brands as well. The new lineup includes Bay Trail-D, Bay Trail-I, and Bay Trail M processors (note that Valleyview is the CPU codename, Bay Trail is the platform codename, with the CPU based on Intel's 22nm Silvermont architecture). The Bay Trail SoCs, which are based on the company's new 22nm Silvermont micro-architecture, include five processors in the Atom family, two in the Pentium family, and five processors that are part of the Celeron family.
All five of the Atom branded processors are Bay Trail-I chips. The leaked Atom lineup includes the following SKUs.
- Atom E3810 (Bay Trail-I): Single core at 1.46 GHz with 400 MHz GPU and 5W TDP
- Atom E3821 (Bay Trail-I): Dual core at 1.33 GHz with 533 MHz GPU and 6W TDP
- Atom E3822 (Bay Trail-I): Dual core at 1.46 GHz with 667 MHz GPU and 7W TDP
- Atom E3823 (Bay Trail-I): Dual core at 1.75 GHz with 792 MHz GPU and 8W TDP
- Atom E3840 (Bay Trail-I): Quad core at 1.91 GHz with 792 MHz GPU and 10W TDP
Further, there will be one Bay Trail-M and one Bay Trail-D Silvermont-based CPU under the Pentium brand. Specifications on those two chips are below.
- Pentium N3510 (Bay Trail-M): Quad core at 2 GHz with 750 MHz GPU and 7.5W TDP (4.5W SDP)
- Pentium J2850 (Bay Trail-D): Quad core at 2.41 GHz with 792 MHz GPU and 10W TDP
Finally, the new Bay Trail-M and Bay Trail-D SoCs under the Celeron brand includes two quad cores and three dual core CPUs.
According to this PDF, the N2805, N2810, and N2910 Celeron CPUs will have an MSRP of $132, though it seems as though the N2805 should be cheaper than that since it has much lower specifications than the other two. The new Celeron-branded chips have the following specifications.
- Celeron J1750 (Bay Trail-D): Dual core at 2.41 GHz with 792 MHz GPU and 10W TDP
- Celeron J1850 (Bay Trail-D): Quad core at 2 GHz with 792 MHz GPU and 10W TDP
- Celeron N2805 (Bay Trail-M): Dual core at 1.46 GHz with 667 MHz GPU and 4.5W TDP (sub-2.5W SDP)
- Celeron N2810 (Bay Trail-M): Dual core at 2 GHz with 756 MHz GPU and 7.5W TDP (4.5W SDP)
- Celeron N2910 (Bay Trail-M): Quad core at 1.6 GHz with 756 MHz GPU and 7.5W TDP (4.5W SDP)
Stay tuned to PC Perspective for more information on Bay Trail and Intel's first OoOE Atom micro-architecture as it develops.
- Intel Silvermont Architecture Updates Atom for Phones and Tablets @ PC Perspective
- Intel Launches Low-Power, High-Performance Silvermont Microarchitecture @ Intel Newsroom
- Intel's Bay Trail (-T) can ARM Wrestle. Leaked Benchmarks @ PC Perspective
Look at TDP, AMD’s Temash can compete well against Bay Trail.
You mean against Bay Trail T
You mean against Bay Trail T (for tablet) ? Then maybe 😉
But these are embedded, mobile and low-power desktop CPUs. TDP wise Intel still reigns supreme: AMD’s quad cores are 15W and 25W chips.
Uh, no. Temesh goes down to
Uh, no. Temesh goes down to 4W TDP. Its competes with these.
Yes, against tablet/embedded
Yes, against tablet/embedded chips branded as Atom
Do not mix Temash with Kabini, Temash is for tablets/convertibles while Kabini is aimed for laptop/desktop.
Temash models are
A4-1200 Dual Core:
– CPU clock 1Ghz
– GPU clock 225Mhz 128 Radeon Core GCN
– Cinebench 11.5 Multi Core; 0.52 Single Core; 0.26
– GPU performance comparable to Intel HD 2000
– maximum RAM support; 1066mhz DDR3L
– TDP; 3.9 Watts
– A4-1250 similar, 300mhz GPU clock, 1333 DDR3, TDP;8 watts
A6-1450 Quad Core:
– CPU clock 1Ghz/1.4Ghz dockedmode
– GPU clock 300/400Mhz docked mode 128 Radeon Cores GCN
– Cinebench 11.5 Multi Core; 1.0/1.4 Docked
– Cinebench 11.5 Single Core; 0.25/0.35 Dynamic-Docked
– GPU performance comparable to Intel HD 3000
– Maximum RAM support; 1066Mhz DDR3L
– TDP; 8 Watts / 12 Watts Docked-Performance mode
AMD’s graphics will be better
AMD’s graphics will be better than Intel’s!
In raw FPS, AMD will
In raw FPS, AMD will benchmark higher, but the performance per watt of Intel’s chips is getting better and better, and in mobile devices, that’s really what matters. If you go look at the framerating review between Haswell, Richland, and Trinity, Haswell kills AMD’s APUs in that regard.
Boils down to:
More CPU Performance
Decent IGP Performance
Great Battery Life
Less CPU Performance
Great IGP Performance
Less Battery Life
Personally, I’d choose the Intel solution anytime, but then again, I’m not a hardcore gamer either — but these chips aren’t necessarily marketed to that demographic. When you compare 29 fps to 22 fps, which is generally how this stuff falls at decent settings/resolutions, it’s kind of a wash.
I’ll take the AMD, and with
I’ll take the AMD, and with the cost savings, I could Buy an extra battery and some extra games! And if your laptop has Intel HD graphics, you better hope the Laptop’s OEM has not customizied the Intel HD graphics drivers, beacuse Laptop OEMs are not very good at updating their customizied Intel HD graphics drivers, and Intel can only update the Intel generic HD graphics drivers, at the Intel HD graphics driver update website, or through Windows update! Better make sure the Intel based laptop has Intel generic HD graphics drivers, before you buy!!!
Actually the market chooses
Actually the market chooses ARM over both of these.
And I wish someone would take
And I wish someone would take one of those ARM server chips and pair it with a Nvidia GPU graphics IP license, and create an ARM/Nvidia based APU style processor with at least 16 ARM 64 bit cores, for a laptop! Yes with at least 16 GB of fast DDR3 memory, and also using the new PCI external OCuLink that PCI-SIG just announced!
“Yes with at least 16 GB of
“Yes with at least 16 GB of fast DDR3 memory”
This alone would kill battery life.
Why yes it would, but it
Why yes it would, but it would make a great laptop, with Intel outside, and running Linux, it would also be TIFKAM free! 16 ARM 64 cores and Nvidia graphics!
This just in at El
This just in at El Reg!
Analyst: Tests showing Intel smartphones beating ARM were rigged
Bad benchmark gave bad results