Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-14nm-cherry-trail-soc-spotted-on-geekbench.5597/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel 14nm Cherry Trail SoC spotted on Geekbench

A

astilo

New member
Last month we heard that Intel started to ship Cherry Trail SoCs to customers.

View attachment 13387

Let's have a look at the CPU performance, since geekbench is probably the best benchmark to test this part of the SoC.
By comparing the new Cherry Trail 14nm chip vs an old 22nm Bay Trail chip, the results are a bit disappointing (I want to be good):
View attachment 13388
Just a handful of points in the multicore, because of the base frequency difference I bet.
Intel Corporation CHERRYVIEW C0 PLATFORM vs Dell Inc. Venue 11 Pro 5130 - Geekbench Browser

And now, the inglorious comparisons:
Vs the Snapdragon 810 @ 20nm
View attachment 13389
Intel Corporation CHERRYVIEW C0 PLATFORM vs unknown MSM8994 for arm64 - Geekbench Browser

Vs the Exynos 7420 @ 14nm
View attachment 13390
Intel Corporation CHERRYVIEW C0 PLATFORM vs SC7 Full Android on avl7420 - Geekbench Browser

2nd generation finfet, superior density, 3.5 years leadership. Sure, on paper.
But of course with Goldmont the story will be different, again and again.
 
Li Yisuo said:
32bit win8.1? Is it fair? Win10?? Or maybe same OS? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely fair since Bay Trail is running on the same OS (meaning no improvement).
Moreover, so far that's the only benchmark spotted. Win10? Lol :)
I will do a 64bit comparison as soon as it will be available. I do not expect any big change to be honest.
 
I sort-of half expected this result given how much Core M sucked. Intel seems to have chosen the path of being a leading PC chip vendor who dabbles rather ineffectively and half-heartedly in tablets and mobile chips. The Atom could undermine their PC business and the path they have taken prevents this from happening. So it makes sense. But it is disappointing.
 
Wow, this is not good at all. The coming Apple A9x will absolutely run laps around Cherry Trail. Could there be more Contra Revenue coming to Intel?

This really begs the question is it the process or the design? Clearly Intel is masters of both so what in the SoC is the problem here?
 
Last edited:
Daniel Nenni said:
Clearly Intel is masters of both so what in the SoC is the problem here?
Click to expand...
They simply scaled down from 22nm to 14nm the CPU of the SoC (that it is not unusual if we think about the tick-tock cadence): so Airmont is pretty much the same core as Silvermont. The problem is that to gain traction and since Bay Trail was already behind the competition, I would have expected definitely something better. I wonder if it is at least cheaper than building it at 22nm.

Daniel, do not even incomodate the A9X, below is a comparison with the A8X:
View attachment 13399
Intel Corporation CHERRYVIEW C0 PLATFORM vs iPad Air 2 - Geekbench Browser
 
Last edited:
Oh man, I´m still laughing.

I'm not often happy with Intel's management decisions, and perhaps bizarrely see the lack of performance of Cherry Trail as not only inevitable but also highly desirable considering all things it implies.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. They lost 4B$, maybe this time they can cap up at just 3B$.

Besides, what Intel does sell into this segment with Cherry Trail promises to be considerably more profitable than Bay Trail, by virtue of the lower cost.
Click to expand...
This would be the only interesting news, but unfortunately it is no news, only a guess. Sure, the CPU, given the crappy performance, should be smaller (22nm vs 14nm) but the Intel plan was clearly to squeeze in more GPU units to improve the graphic side of the SoC.
So, here is instead my guess: the chip will still probably have the same or a similar size, but unfortunately the wafer cost at 14nm is much higher than 22nm. Even assuming equal yield, the chip cannot cost less.
 
I agree with the SeekingAlpha author that Intel's chances on the high end are nill, without an integrated modem. The author implies Intel can compete on the low end instead "a faster growing market". I see some evidence of this with 7 inch tablets like the HP Stream--$79 for a Baytrail tablet with no cellular modem. If they can slap a cellular modem in that sort of platform, and make it cost $99, then yeah maybe they can compete in the low end. Perhaps 2015 will be the year of the Wintel phablet.

The question I have is whether Airmont will have an integrated cellular modem, on the die, and how soon Airmont will be available. Will it be like Skylake, hard on the heels of Broadwell, or take a year or two to arrive? Maybe a longer wait would be better, if it means an integrated on-die cellular modem.
 
benb said:
I agree with the SeekingAlpha author that Intel's chances on the high end are nill, without an integrated modem. The author implies Intel can compete on the low end instead "a faster growing market". I see some evidence of this with 7 inch tablets like the HP Stream--$79 for a Baytrail tablet with no cellular modem. If they can slap a cellular modem in that sort of platform, and make it cost $99, then yeah maybe they can compete in the low end. Perhaps 2015 will be the year of the Wintel phablet.

The question I have is whether Airmont will have an integrated cellular modem, on the die, and how soon Airmont will be available. Will it be like Skylake, hard on the heels of Broadwell, or take a year or two to arrive? Maybe a longer wait would be better, if it means an integrated on-die cellular modem.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, no integrated modem with Cherry Trail (we must wait for the SoFia options). The Bay Trail competitive low price was only due to the Intel "contra revenue" police (simply sold at loss).
 
Apple hired the Broadcom modem team so I hope the A9 will have an integrated modem. Maybe the A10 but I know it is coming! QCOM's rein of modem terror is almost over, absolutely.
 
Here's some blog commentary on the Cherry Trail benchmark results:

VR-Zone
ExtremeTech

Cherry Trail is 5-8% faster than BayTrail on slightly faster clock speeds (1.60GHZ instead of 1.36GHZ). This suggests it was a shrink only, no design changes. The graphics and power consumption are still open questions. The new chip has more graphics EUs and the shrink should reduce power consumption, so these elements, that don't show up in the benchmark, may end up being the real selling points.

On the topic of the modem, it occurs to me, couldn't Intel put the cellular modem in the chip package, as a first step to a full integrated SoC? They've done things like this before with cores and chipsets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top