Originally posted by RidelynnTablets don't have to compete with PCs, especially in horsepower.
I finally foun a line of text where I can call someone wrong on.
Horsepower?
FLOPS, MIPS, IPC, clock speed, benchmarks - pick a metric relating to general processing performance. Horsepower.
And if you really want to get technical, there is a direct conversion of watts to horsepower as a unit of power (1hp = 745.7W), and you can calculate, based on the Performance per Watt (an important metric in today's standards) to actually derive a relevant horsepower statistic for a piece of silicon, rather than just a straight conversion of power consumption or TDP.
However, I am using it in a general sense to convey the amount of processing power available.
CPU power is so far from holding back tablets and smartphones this is laughable. Do you realize even the majority of the most advanced games on iOS still run on the iPhone 3GS and the first iPad will run them even better. They will be scaled back a bit, but the point is nothing will test the current A6 until well after it has already been replaced.
Remember, developers can't instantly produce boundry breaking software moments after a new device is released.
CPU power is so far from holding back tablets and smartphones this is laughable. Do you realize even the majority of the most advanced games on iOS still run on the iPhone 3GS and the first iPad will run them even better. They will be scaled back a bit, but the point is nothing will test the current A6 until well after it has already been replaced.
Remember, developers can't instantly produce boundry breaking software moments after a new device is released.
And the most advanced games for NES still run well on my very old NES. The "most advanced games on iOS" aren't anything remotely resembling advanced, as neither the hardware support nor the software support is there. In constrast, the "most advanced games for tablets" will likely be getting a lot more advanced soon. Would you argue that there was no need for the SNES or Sega Genesis (or any subsequent consoles) on the basis that NES games ran fine on an NES?
Unlike iOS, Windows 8 has a lot of advanced games that will run. For example, nearly all of the games listed on this site, though many will be unplayable unless you plug in a keyboard, mouse, and/or gamepad. And it's not just games, either; do you think Apple's war on Flash is because Flash would run just great on various iDevices if only Apple would enable it? Slower software makes a need for faster hardware far more obvious.
None of these games can run on Windows 8 RT which is destined for tablets :P The tablets that will actually run Windows which is not windows 8 RT will cost much more money than what is reasonable to spend on a tablet, the prices will probably be at least around the ultra book price range(900-1100US+).
Windows 8 RT is great for tablets for people that need a decent office app, and satisfied with running metro or .NET micro edition apps only(the latter needs a "hack" to actually run).
Also since you cannot run any unsigned applications on Windows 8 RT, and the fact that it will be impossible to change the OS due to the mandatory UEFI secure boot option i doubt any one that owns an android based tablet will want to switch to it other than to get a better office suite.
I am most certainly not an avid follower of IOS platforms but this seems a little behind the times?
I am assuming this is to compete versus the Apple foundation of IOS devices?They already have the TABLET and there is already proven software in amny ways superior to what large developers are producing.
Itablet Citadel ONE guy made this whole map.Yes there will be limitations but i am ok with zoning into another map to make a complete world,i don't need seamless worlds,i just want GOOD well done worlds.
No question ,at least to me that Epic Games houses the best minds in gaming,however this tech proves how it is already here and done better than some of our best MMORPG's.
I myself am not a fan of eco-system that is apple, there are things I like about IOS but mostly the eco system and fan boys drive me nutz!
None of these games can run on Windows 8 RT which is destined for tablets :P The tablets that will actually run Windows which is not windows 8 RT will cost much more money than what is reasonable to spend on a tablet, the prices will probably be at least around the ultra book price range(900-1100US+).
Windows 8 RT is great for tablets for people that need a decent office app, and satisfied with running metro or .NET micro edition apps only(the latter needs a "hack" to actually run).
Also since you cannot run any unsigned applications on Windows 8 RT, and the fact that it will be impossible to change the OS due to the mandatory UEFI secure boot option i doubt any one that owns an android based tablet will want to switch to it other than to get a better office suite.
Sure doesn't look like ultrabook prices to me. Do you think Windows 8 will be $400+ more expensive than Windows 7? For that matter, you'd be able to buy that tablet and then install Windows 8 on it if so inclined.
Certainly, if you want ultrabook hardware, then you'll pay ultrabook prices. But that includes $225+ for the CPU alone, as opposed to the $40 that AMD charges.
But returning to the original premise of this thread, neither that APU nor ULV Ivy Bridge are really what you want in a tablet. Intel's Haswell will be the go-to chip if you want an ultrabook experience in a tablet form factor, while AMD's Temash will be the thing to get if you want something more budget-friendly, or perhaps if you want video drivers that actually work. Unlike any x86 chips on the market now, those will be architectures designed from the start with tablets in mind.
We will get baby steps in that direction before the real solution comes, though. AMD launched their Z-60 APU (basically the same thing as linked above, except with USB 3.0 and a 4.5 W TDP) yesterday, and Intel is reportedly going to ship very low quantities of a 10 W bin of Ivy Bridge.
A tablet that does what I would use it for doesn't need to run Windows. For me that negates any value in a tablet ready Win8.
The only thing that could pull me towards using a tablet for more than basic web and apps would be a tablet + gamepad with console quality GPU and a $250-ish price point.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Originally posted by DOGMA1138None of these games can run on Windows 8 RT which is destined for tablets :P The tablets that will actually run Windows which is not windows 8 RT will cost much more money than what is reasonable to spend on a tablet, the prices will probably be at least around the ultra book price range(900-1100US+).Windows 8 RT is great for tablets for people that need a decent office app, and satisfied with running metro or .NET micro edition apps only(the latter needs a "hack" to actually run).Also since you cannot run any unsigned applications on Windows 8 RT, and the fact that it will be impossible to change the OS due to the mandatory UEFI secure boot option i doubt any one that owns an android based tablet will want to switch to it other than to get a better office suite.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152278Sure doesn't look like ultrabook prices to me. Do you think Windows 8 will be $400+ more expensive than Windows 7? For that matter, you'd be able to buy that tablet and then install Windows 8 on it if so inclined.Certainly, if you want ultrabook hardware, then you'll pay ultrabook prices. But that includes $225+ for the CPU alone, as opposed to the $40 that AMD charges.But returning to the original premise of this thread, neither that APU nor ULV Ivy Bridge are really what you want in a tablet. Intel's Haswell will be the go-to chip if you want an ultrabook experience in a tablet form factor, while AMD's Temash will be the thing to get if you want something more budget-friendly, or perhaps if you want video drivers that actually work. Unlike any x86 chips on the market now, those will be architectures designed from the start with tablets in mind.We will get baby steps in that direction before the real solution comes, though. AMD launched their Z-60 APU (basically the same thing as linked above, except with USB 3.0 and a 4.5 W TDP) yesterday, and Intel is reportedly going to ship very low quantities of a 10 W bin of Ivy Bridge.
Hahaha ROFL thats a tablet? sorry when you're talking about 3.3lbs, that's not a tablet, that's heavier than my Ultrabook
Microsoft Surface, and Surface Pro will be good examples, the Samsung Slates although the current ones are still a bit heavy(still under 2 lbs) are good example too... Nothing stopping you from buying a "Tablet" today with 5-6hours battery life(while working/surfing w/ WLAN) and with much better performance than that MSI poj, heck the Samsung Series 7 slate will give you a Core I5(ULV ofc), a bigger screen, and under 2lbs all in one package. The problem is the price...
And again with the name calling.. :P
I don't want tablets to be heavy, i don't want tablets to have fans in them, i don't want tablets to be bigger than 7-8", i want cheap devices(300-400" or under), that i can turn them off, forget about them and they will still work....
AMD's does not have a real SOC, Intel does, and honestly even then i would still go for an ARM SOC any time of the day.
Running windows on a Tablet is the lazy way out, i do not use a Tablet the same way i use a PC, i should get applications that allow me to take advantages of the usage form, form factor, mobility, and user interface instead of selling me the same old junk saying that i can always connect a keyboard to it.
The app on a tablet needs to give you the same functionality as it does on PC while providing you with a complete new interaction experience, and allow the user to actually take advantage of using a tablet and not to minimize the "disadvantages" of using one.
Any thing else is just lazy and both from a developer and consumer point of views is completely unacceptable.
I have a Nook "tablet" and it is useful, but the limitation of what I can do isn't really in the speed of the processor. The limitations are all centered around the touch screen interface. Simple touch operations are better than trying to click with a mouse, but anything more complex becomes time consuming. I am a touch typist and I can type somewhere between 70 and a 100 words per minute, depending on what I'm doing. I would be amazed if I could type 20 words per minute on a tablet. Even if spreadsheets or software development environments were available on a tablet, it would be pointless for me to even try using them because it would be so slow and painful to use the touch screen interface to do those kinds of things.
This is all from an Android perspective. I have no idea how Windows performs in a tablet environment. It could be painfully slow and might require a much more powerful processor than what is currently available. This would not surprise me. I think the tablets are still going to suffer from the interface they must use though.
If you have not. . you need to try the swype keyboard. Now that I am used to it I have at least doubled (if not more) my "typing" speed on my phone.
I don't want tablets to be heavy, i don't want tablets to have fans in them, i don't want tablets to be bigger than 7-8", i want cheap devices(300-400" or under), that i can turn them off, forget about them and they will still work....
AMD's does not have a real SOC, Intel does, and honestly even then i would still go for an ARM SOC any time of the day.
Well yes, that's the whole point of the thread. The hardware isn't ready.
Hondo isn't an SoC because it's a laptop chip crammed into a tablet. And that's a problem, for a lot of reasons. And it's a problem that Temash will fix, except that it isn't ready.
And, of course, Ivy Bridge isn't an SoC, either. Haswell will have an SoC variant, but that's not ready yet, either.
Clover Trail Atom is an SoC, but with graphics performance that is absolutely dreadful. You can argue that you don't need that much graphics performance, but you do at least need a little. Silvermont Atom will massively overhaul the whole Atom architecture, but that's not ready, either.
Plenty of ARM vendors offer an SoC, of course. But Windows 8 needs x86, not ARM. Windows RT is the ARM version, and that has problems of its own, such as a complete lack of software support.
-----
For the benefit of others who may be confused, SoC = "system on a chip", meaning one chip with the CPU, GPU, memory controller, SATA ports, USB ports, and everything, rather than spreading those functions across multiple chips inside the device.
You can do a lot more in a device if you can have a bunch of separate logic chips to handle different functions. That gives you a lot more versatility, as you can make independent choices of the CPU, GPU, SATA controller, USB controller, and so forth that you want. It also has production advantages, as the various chips can each be made on process nodes well-suited to them, and if one chip is defective, you don't have to throw out all of them as you would if you combined them all into one huge chip. So there's no real point in having an SoC for a desktop, when it's easy to scatter a bunch of chips across a 12" x 9" motherboard.
But an SoC is very desirable for tablets or cell phones, as having everything in a single chip means you don't need a bunch of space for separate chips. It means you don't have to cool a bunch of separate chips. It means you don't have to burn a bunch of power letting separate chips communiate with each other. Burning several watts to allow various chips to communicate with each other doesn't matter much in a desktop, but it's a big problem in a tablet when you want the entire device to have a total system power consumption of only several watts.
The graphic performance of the Atom SoC's is on par with other tablets, i have no issues playing andorid games, flash, and Full HD videos on it at all.
I don't need more than that, i'm not going to play Crysis on my tablet, and tablet games are looking good enough for what they provide.
Take a look at the PSVita, or even the 3Ds they are bearly selling hardware or games even tho they support much better graphics than most mobile phones.
For the type of games that people can play on the go thats sufficient, and as poor as the Atom SOC(Power VR 5XX) GPU is it is still much better than what AMD/Intel used to have for what you would need on a tablet, a 6250 is just a horrible GPU it can bearly play high bit rate HD films, no flash acc, and it's raw performance are not that far from a Power VR, i don't care if it supports SM3, 4, or 56 since it just can't backup it's on paper specs with real world performance.
Ah, Cedar Trail/Clover Trail uses PowerVR graphics instead of Intel graphics. I hadn't caught that. Reviews found that it performs very poorly in general applications (the Radeon HD 6250 that you malign gives several times the performance), but presumably it has fixed function blocks to handle things like video decoding. I don't know if it will be able to handle the standard Windows desktop, which is something earlier versions of Atom graphics choked on. That presumably can't be done in fixed-function blocks like video decoding can.
All "GPU"'s which Intel put out for the Atom platform were PowerVR SGX based, the newer ones are quite similar to what you get in a PSVita, or an Ipad(3nd/3rd gen) these days.. The GMA500/600 which is what most people had in their Netbook could run windows XP well, and run Linux even with desktop effects with more than reasonable performance. PowerVR 545 at 400/650Mhz which is what Intel clocks it to these days, will give you pretty much the same fill rate(2-3.5Gpixels/s) that a 6XXX will which is the only really important factor for desktop rendering.
Originally posted by QuizzicalIntel used to use their own GMA graphics in Atom. For example:http://www.anandtech.com/show/2889If they've stopped doing that, then that's probably a good thing. Do you know who writes the drivers for PowerVR graphics on Windows?
It's not their "own" they have licensed the PowerVR series tech from Imagination ages ago...
Intel GMA 500, 600, and the new 36XX and some others are all PowerVR SGX54X of some sort.
The only ones that do not use the PowerVR are Pineview, and for no obvious reason since it was used prior to Pineview, and with other lines during its lifetime. I guess they had to dump some old silicon...
Again this is not a PowerVR "chip" since those do not really exist, Imagination is like ARM they are not making ASIC's(beyond reference designs and tech demonstrators). Intel Xscale processors are(well were, they've sold their part to Marvel) ARM based, but except for royalty fees there is no real connection to ARM either.
The drivers as always are written by Intel, the "PowerVR" ones specifically AFAIK in the Yakum IDC in Israel, since they handle most of the mobile and embedded platforms R&D these days.
Comments
FLOPS, MIPS, IPC, clock speed, benchmarks - pick a metric relating to general processing performance. Horsepower.
And if you really want to get technical, there is a direct conversion of watts to horsepower as a unit of power (1hp = 745.7W), and you can calculate, based on the Performance per Watt (an important metric in today's standards) to actually derive a relevant horsepower statistic for a piece of silicon, rather than just a straight conversion of power consumption or TDP.
However, I am using it in a general sense to convey the amount of processing power available.
CPU power is so far from holding back tablets and smartphones this is laughable. Do you realize even the majority of the most advanced games on iOS still run on the iPhone 3GS and the first iPad will run them even better. They will be scaled back a bit, but the point is nothing will test the current A6 until well after it has already been replaced.
Remember, developers can't instantly produce boundry breaking software moments after a new device is released.
And the most advanced games for NES still run well on my very old NES. The "most advanced games on iOS" aren't anything remotely resembling advanced, as neither the hardware support nor the software support is there. In constrast, the "most advanced games for tablets" will likely be getting a lot more advanced soon. Would you argue that there was no need for the SNES or Sega Genesis (or any subsequent consoles) on the basis that NES games ran fine on an NES?
Unlike iOS, Windows 8 has a lot of advanced games that will run. For example, nearly all of the games listed on this site, though many will be unplayable unless you plug in a keyboard, mouse, and/or gamepad. And it's not just games, either; do you think Apple's war on Flash is because Flash would run just great on various iDevices if only Apple would enable it? Slower software makes a need for faster hardware far more obvious.
None of these games can run on Windows 8 RT which is destined for tablets :P The tablets that will actually run Windows which is not windows 8 RT will cost much more money than what is reasonable to spend on a tablet, the prices will probably be at least around the ultra book price range(900-1100US+).
Windows 8 RT is great for tablets for people that need a decent office app, and satisfied with running metro or .NET micro edition apps only(the latter needs a "hack" to actually run).
Also since you cannot run any unsigned applications on Windows 8 RT, and the fact that it will be impossible to change the OS due to the mandatory UEFI secure boot option i doubt any one that owns an android based tablet will want to switch to it other than to get a better office suite.
I myself am not a fan of eco-system that is apple, there are things I like about IOS but mostly the eco system and fan boys drive me nutz!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152278
Sure doesn't look like ultrabook prices to me. Do you think Windows 8 will be $400+ more expensive than Windows 7? For that matter, you'd be able to buy that tablet and then install Windows 8 on it if so inclined.
Certainly, if you want ultrabook hardware, then you'll pay ultrabook prices. But that includes $225+ for the CPU alone, as opposed to the $40 that AMD charges.
But returning to the original premise of this thread, neither that APU nor ULV Ivy Bridge are really what you want in a tablet. Intel's Haswell will be the go-to chip if you want an ultrabook experience in a tablet form factor, while AMD's Temash will be the thing to get if you want something more budget-friendly, or perhaps if you want video drivers that actually work. Unlike any x86 chips on the market now, those will be architectures designed from the start with tablets in mind.
We will get baby steps in that direction before the real solution comes, though. AMD launched their Z-60 APU (basically the same thing as linked above, except with USB 3.0 and a 4.5 W TDP) yesterday, and Intel is reportedly going to ship very low quantities of a 10 W bin of Ivy Bridge.
A tablet that does what I would use it for doesn't need to run Windows. For me that negates any value in a tablet ready Win8.
The only thing that could pull me towards using a tablet for more than basic web and apps would be a tablet + gamepad with console quality GPU and a $250-ish price point.
Microsoft Surface, and Surface Pro will be good examples, the Samsung Slates although the current ones are still a bit heavy(still under 2 lbs) are good example too... Nothing stopping you from buying a "Tablet" today with 5-6hours battery life(while working/surfing w/ WLAN) and with much better performance than that MSI poj, heck the Samsung Series 7 slate will give you a Core I5(ULV ofc), a bigger screen, and under 2lbs all in one package. The problem is the price...
And again with the name calling.. :P
I don't want tablets to be heavy, i don't want tablets to have fans in them, i don't want tablets to be bigger than 7-8", i want cheap devices(300-400" or under), that i can turn them off, forget about them and they will still work....
AMD's does not have a real SOC, Intel does, and honestly even then i would still go for an ARM SOC any time of the day.
Running windows on a Tablet is the lazy way out, i do not use a Tablet the same way i use a PC, i should get applications that allow me to take advantages of the usage form, form factor, mobility, and user interface instead of selling me the same old junk saying that i can always connect a keyboard to it.
The app on a tablet needs to give you the same functionality as it does on PC while providing you with a complete new interaction experience, and allow the user to actually take advantage of using a tablet and not to minimize the "disadvantages" of using one.
Any thing else is just lazy and both from a developer and consumer point of views is completely unacceptable.
If you have not. . you need to try the swype keyboard. Now that I am used to it I have at least doubled (if not more) my "typing" speed on my phone.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Well yes, that's the whole point of the thread. The hardware isn't ready.
Hondo isn't an SoC because it's a laptop chip crammed into a tablet. And that's a problem, for a lot of reasons. And it's a problem that Temash will fix, except that it isn't ready.
And, of course, Ivy Bridge isn't an SoC, either. Haswell will have an SoC variant, but that's not ready yet, either.
Clover Trail Atom is an SoC, but with graphics performance that is absolutely dreadful. You can argue that you don't need that much graphics performance, but you do at least need a little. Silvermont Atom will massively overhaul the whole Atom architecture, but that's not ready, either.
Plenty of ARM vendors offer an SoC, of course. But Windows 8 needs x86, not ARM. Windows RT is the ARM version, and that has problems of its own, such as a complete lack of software support.
-----
For the benefit of others who may be confused, SoC = "system on a chip", meaning one chip with the CPU, GPU, memory controller, SATA ports, USB ports, and everything, rather than spreading those functions across multiple chips inside the device.
You can do a lot more in a device if you can have a bunch of separate logic chips to handle different functions. That gives you a lot more versatility, as you can make independent choices of the CPU, GPU, SATA controller, USB controller, and so forth that you want. It also has production advantages, as the various chips can each be made on process nodes well-suited to them, and if one chip is defective, you don't have to throw out all of them as you would if you combined them all into one huge chip. So there's no real point in having an SoC for a desktop, when it's easy to scatter a bunch of chips across a 12" x 9" motherboard.
But an SoC is very desirable for tablets or cell phones, as having everything in a single chip means you don't need a bunch of space for separate chips. It means you don't have to cool a bunch of separate chips. It means you don't have to burn a bunch of power letting separate chips communiate with each other. Burning several watts to allow various chips to communicate with each other doesn't matter much in a desktop, but it's a big problem in a tablet when you want the entire device to have a total system power consumption of only several watts.
The graphic performance of the Atom SoC's is on par with other tablets, i have no issues playing andorid games, flash, and Full HD videos on it at all.
I don't need more than that, i'm not going to play Crysis on my tablet, and tablet games are looking good enough for what they provide.
Take a look at the PSVita, or even the 3Ds they are bearly selling hardware or games even tho they support much better graphics than most mobile phones.
For the type of games that people can play on the go thats sufficient, and as poor as the Atom SOC(Power VR 5XX) GPU is it is still much better than what AMD/Intel used to have for what you would need on a tablet, a 6250 is just a horrible GPU it can bearly play high bit rate HD films, no flash acc, and it's raw performance are not that far from a Power VR, i don't care if it supports SM3, 4, or 56 since it just can't backup it's on paper specs with real world performance.
Intel used to use their own GMA graphics in Atom. For example:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2889
If they've stopped doing that, then that's probably a good thing. Do you know who writes the drivers for PowerVR graphics on Windows?
It's not their "own" they have licensed the PowerVR series tech from Imagination ages ago...Intel GMA 500, 600, and the new 36XX and some others are all PowerVR SGX54X of some sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units
The only ones that do not use the PowerVR are Pineview, and for no obvious reason since it was used prior to Pineview, and with other lines during its lifetime. I guess they had to dump some old silicon...
Again this is not a PowerVR "chip" since those do not really exist, Imagination is like ARM they are not making ASIC's(beyond reference designs and tech demonstrators). Intel Xscale processors are(well were, they've sold their part to Marvel) ARM based, but except for royalty fees there is no real connection to ARM either.
The drivers as always are written by Intel, the "PowerVR" ones specifically AFAIK in the Yakum IDC in Israel, since they handle most of the mobile and embedded platforms R&D these days.