Matose benchmarks Intel Z3770 monster tablet SOC

Well, as you all know, IDF is going on as we speak and everybody is looking forward for infor regarding Baytrail and Broadwell. Our colleague Matose is in San Francisco and he benchmarked a Baytrail-T tablet for our readers. The results are...well...huge is quite an understatement... The new Intel Tablet SoC looks like a mighty beast indeed!!!

IDF 2013 - Baytrail-T Z3770 benchmarked | next.lab501.ro

36269 in AnTuTu looks reaaaally promising...

i like cinebench score too. it is great for a 2.5w processor.

For the first time, Atom is really competitive product. It takes time ...

130$ ... I got 4 Snapdragon 800 for the same price. :rolleyes:

I'd hit that if it was 10W and 4 times the power... Need more for my 1440p videos running on CPU

More reviews:
http://techreport.com/review/25329/i...l-soc-revealed
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Process...vermont-Arrive
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4792...tition-for-arm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7314/i...m-z3770-tested

Prices:
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/fa...tablet-preview
Acer W3-810

Codename: Cheetah
Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 8-inch, 1280 x 800
Battery: 8 hours
Weight: 1.2 pounds
Thickness: .45 inches
Price: $349

ASUS Transformer Book Trio T100TA

Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 10.1-inch, 1366 x 768
Battery: 12 hours
Weight: 2.2 pounds
Thickness: .9 inches
Price: $329

Dell Venue

Codename: Bellair
Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 8-inch, 1280 x 800 IPS
Battery: 10+ hours
Weight: .88 pounds
Thickness: .35 inches
Price: $299

Dell (unnamed)

Codename: Midland
Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 10.8-inch, 1920 x 1080
Battery: 9 hours, replaceable battery
Weight: 1.65 pounds
Thickness: .4 inches
Price: $399

Lenovo Miix 8

Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 8-inch, 1280 x 800 IPS
Battery: 8hours
Weight: .77 pounds
Thickness: .31 inches
Price: $249

Lenovo Miix 2

Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail"
Screen: 10.1-inch, 1366 x 768
Battery: 8 hours
Weight: 1.3 pounds
Thickness: .4 inches
Price: $449

Toshiba Encore

Codename: Malta
Platform: Intel Atom "Bay Trail," up to 1.8 GHz
Screen: 8-inch, 1280 x 800 IPS
Battery: 6-7 hours
Weight: 1 pound
Thickness: unknown
Price: $329

Just notice the comparison with Jaguar cores - almost same perf at half power. AMD is getting a beating across the whole CPU segment - their GPU is holding them in the game (the consoles that is). ATi was a smart acquisition
On a sidenote, I am really excited to see what Merrifield can do - maybe Snapdragon 600 level of perf ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

130$ ... I got 4 Snapdragon 800 for the same price. :rolleyes:

---

Recommended customer price: $37

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Recommended customer price: $37

---

Great! So Intel sells the SoC in the red. Z3770 target price should be 120/130$ (As the old Z560, 144$). The end of an Era. Where AMD failed, ARM succeeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Great! So Intel sells the SoC in the red. Z3770 target price should be 120/130$ (As the old Z560, 144$). The end of an Era. Where AMD failed, ARM succeeds.

---

Intel didn't price to kill AMD, but they are sure going for it with ARM. ARM will be hard to kill, as they are fabless and only sell designs, so to win on price Intel really has to make building ARM chips look unattractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Great! So Intel sells the SoC in the red. Z3770 target price should be 120/130$ (As the old Z560, 144$). The end of an Era. Where AMD failed, ARM succeeds.

---

Do you really think it even costs them $37 to make one of those? At a "recommended customer price" of $37, Intel probably sells them for $25-30. While it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to manufacture them was less far less than $20

.....they should have tested against temash 4 core soc, instead of the 15w kabini. once again review sites fail to show proper apples to apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

.....they should have tested against temash 4 core soc, instead of the 15w kabini. once again review sites fail to show proper apples to apples.

---

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4792...ovray-and-x264

Same beating here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Do you really think it even costs them $37 to make one of those? At a "recommended customer price" of $37, Intel probably sells them for $25-30. While it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to manufacture them was less far less than $20

---

2008: Z560 (Silverthorne) Die Size about 26 mm2 @ 144$
2012: Z2480 (Medfield) Die Size about 65 mm2 @ about 80$
2013: Z3770 (Bay Trail-T) Die Size about 105 mm2 @ 37$

22nm process is more expansive than the 32nm one.

I couldn't be happier about this; I think it's time to take the plunge and get a windows 8 tablet (so glad to be done with my HP laptop)

I wonder when we are getiing mobos with bay trail processors for serious NAS building? ;)

Next stop: a x86 phone :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

2008: Z560 (Silverthorne) Die Size about 26 mm2 @ 144$
2012: Z2480 (Medfield) Die Size about 65 mm2 @ about 80$
2013: Z3770 (Bay Trail-T) Die Size about 105 mm2 @ 37$

22nm process is more expansive than the 32nm one.

---

You didn't answer his question, those are recommended customer prices, not manufacturing prices.

Customer price lower AND bigger die size = less profit. I want to say only that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Customer price lower AND bigger die size = less profit. I want to say only that. :)

---

Bigger wafer, faster throughput, higher yield = more profit ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

Bigger wafer, faster throughput, higher yield = more profit ;)

---

32nm has higher yeld than 22nm. 22nm is more expansive than 32nm. From my chinese sources, nothing official. ;)

P.S. The wafers are the same, 300mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Customer price lower AND bigger die size = less profit. I want to say only that. :)

---

Less profit is not the same thing as selling a product at a loss. Semiconductors are shockingly cheap to manufacture. If you search around the internet, that Z560 only cost about $6-8 per chip for intel to manufacture, package and ship. Probably even less as it reached end-of-line.

Sure this new chip has a far bigger die, but manufacturing, process and yield improvements drive costs down. You can bet Intel is still making a solid profit on each one sold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

32nm has higher yeld than 22nm. 22nm is more expansive than 32nm. From my chinese sources, nothing official. ;)

P.S. The wafers are the same, 300mm.

---

Too bad Intel doesn't have a 22nm fab in China. The only fab in China Intel has is a 65nm plant. Intel's 22nm plants are in Oregon and Israel. So as far as I'm concerned, your "Chinese sources" are worthless.

There is no doubt the profit on these parts is a lot lower than Haswell or previous Atom chips, in the market the are trying to enter there is no room for higher prices (if they want to be successful of course). I've always liked how cheap the ARM stuff is.

For Intel sells their own CPUs at these price is like to sell these in the red, as Jerry Rogers (CEO of Cyrix) said in the distant 1998. :)


The best semiconductors analysts live/work in China/Japan. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

32nm has higher yeld than 22nm. 22nm is more expansive than 32nm. From my chinese sources, nothing official. ;)

P.S. The wafers are the same, 300mm.

---

Intel use the same dies for the quad and dual cores, the yield would have to be disastrous for them to dip below 90% usable chips from each wafer. As I imagine the dual cores will big the bigger shipping SKU, they'll be lasering good cores to meet demand.

I know that the Intel 22nm yield is not great. Good, but non great like the 32nm. I don't know the exact percentange, but it's the rumor. However, the price of the Z3770 is very low. I hope that Intel gains market shares.

Intel is NOT selling at a loss, they've had to idle fab capacity due to weak demand before: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6378/i...e-fab-capacity so it's not like they're building a brand new fab just for these chips.

Check out any BOM for a high end smartphone and you'll see that their quadcore 28nm ARM SoCs sell for $30-40 max. The margins on those chips are lower if made by TSMC since they have to make a profit too, and yet Qualcomm is still able to make billions every year selling at those prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

.....they should have tested against temash 4 core soc, instead of the 15w kabini. once again review sites fail to show proper apples to apples.

---

Just an fyi. There aren't many Temash systems out there and AMD didn't sample any Temash devices to reviewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

Intel is NOT selling at a loss, they've had to idle fab capacity due to weak demand before: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6378/i...e-fab-capacity so it's not like they're building a brand new fab just for these chips.

Check out any BOM for a high end smartphone and you'll see that their quadcore 28nm ARM SoCs sell for $30-40 max. The margins on those chips are lower if made by TSMC since they have to make a profit too, and yet Qualcomm is still able to make billions every year selling at those prices.

---

The masks, the lithographic processes, etc. are cheaper for the 28/32nm planar node than for 22nm FinFET ones. Intel makes a special effort with these low prices, without a doubt.

And some Silvermont arch details if anyone is interested...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

The masks, the lithographic processes, etc. are cheaper for the 28/32nm planar node than for 22nm FinFET ones. Intel makes a special effort with these low prices, without a doubt.

---

Yes but that doesn't matter because Intel has their own fabs. If they had to order the chips through TSMC/Samsung like Qualcomm or Apple then the margins on a $37 chip will be lower because the fabs need profit too. For sure a 22nm SoC selling for $37 won't be as profitable as a $150 22nm desktop chip but there is no way Intel is losing any money per SoC because Qualcomm & Apple are still making billions selling chips made from other fabs that cost them more than Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

Yes but that doesn't matter because Intel has their own fabs. If they had to order the chips through TSMC/Samsung like Qualcomm or Apple then the margins on a $37 chip will be lower because the fabs need profit too. For sure a 22nm SoC selling for $37 won't be as profitable as a $150 22nm desktop chip but there is no way Intel is losing any money per SoC because Qualcomm & Apple are still making billions selling chips made from other fabs that cost them more than Intel.

---

The problem is exactly that: Intel has its own FABs. Intel have to pay the new lithography machine, the R&D of the new processes, etc. These are very expansive. So, when Intel sells its own chips, have to gain enough money for these achievements. Qualcomm, AMD, Broadcom, Mediatek, Rockchip, and the other companies are all fabless, so they CAN sell with low margin without risk. The only things that they have to pay are the design chip and the mask, mainly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

The problem is exactly that: Intel has its own FABs. Intel have to pay the new lithography machine, the R&D of the new processes, etc. These are very expansive. So, when Intel sells its own chips, have to gain enough money for these achievements. Qualcomm, AMD, Broadcom, Mediatek, Rockchip, and the other companies are all fabless, so they CAN sell with low margin without risk. The only things that they have to pay are the design chip and the mask, mainly. :)

---

All of those costs are built in to the price a foundry charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao~

Just notice the comparison with Jaguar cores - almost same perf at half power. AMD is getting a beating across the whole CPU segment - their GPU is holding them in the game (the consoles that is). ATi was a smart acquisition
On a sidenote, I am really excited to see what Merrifield can do - maybe Snapdragon 600 level of perf ?

---

AMD uses TDP as the power consumption numbers.
Intel uses SDP as the power consumption numbers.

Not a direct comparison.

yes review handled this intel says 2w review says they measured 2.5w. still cant compare this measured value with amds tdp but it is enough to say better then amd

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

All of those costs are built in to the price a foundry charges.

---

Not exactly. If Z foundry has a bad XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc. Or, if Z foundry has an expansive XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc.

If Intel has a bad/expansive XX nm process, so ... it's a thorny problem for its own products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Not exactly. If Z foundry has a bad XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc. Or, if Z foundry has an expansive XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc.

If Intel has a bad/expansive XX nm process, so ... it's a thorny problem for its own products.

---

Hmm interesting that you say that since it was Glofo's process issue that delayed Amd's Trinity, also Nvidia has had issues with foundry delays and yield issues. Once you commit yourself to someone's process it is not a simple matter of just moving it over to someone else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Not exactly. If Z foundry has a bad XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc. Or, if Z foundry has an expansive XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc.

If Intel has a bad/expansive XX nm process, so ... it's a thorny problem for its own products.

---

You design a chip around one persons process, if you pick a fab and their process is bad, you don't really go anywhere else. One fab's XXnm isn't always the same as another fabs XXnm.

Intel are making 12 core Ivybridge Xeons on this process, there is no way the yields are bad enough for these chips to have a problem.

Sure, so Y company chooses the FAB 2 o 3 years earlier. If the node is bad ... sh1t happens. :)
For this reason, Qualcomm uses TSMC, GloFo and UMC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Sure, so Y company chooses the FAB 2 o 3 years earlier. If the node is bad ... sh1t happens. :)
For this reason, Qualcomm uses TSMC, GloFo and UMC.

---

I think it's more to do with none of those companies would prioritise Qualcomm over Apple, AMD or Nvidia. Qualcomm are nice, but they are middle men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

I think it's more to do with none of those companies would prioritise Qualcomm over Apple, AMD or Nvidia. Qualcomm are nice, but they are middle men.

---

Apple is a top customer for the foundries like TSMC and GloFo. NVIDIA is not a top customer today, as some years ago (the 20nm only low voltage node of TSMC is a proof of that). Today the only top customers are the SoC producers, like Qualcomm, MediaTek, Apple, etc.

Can we get back on topic? Let's talk about performance here and take the money talk to a Wall Street Journal forum....please.

Just wanted to say, I tested this SoC as well and it'll be a great offering for Windows 8 tablets, but Android still needs a lot of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qurious63ss

Can we get back on topic? Let's talk about performance here and take the money talk to a Wall Street Journal forum....please.

---

If we were only to talk about performance, there would be a few benchmarks and no one would have much to talk about. You could easily just move along.... please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Not exactly. If Z foundry has a bad XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc. Or, if Z foundry has an expansive XX nm process, Y company goes to GloFo, UMC, Samsung, TSMC, etc.

If Intel has a bad/expansive XX nm process, so ... it's a thorny problem for its own products.

---

Non-sequitur. You specifically spoke of litho tool cost, R&D cost, mask cost. That will all be factored into what the foundry charges. A foundry may adjust prices to reflect competition, but all those costs are still factored in. This is economics 101.

Intel has yet to have a bad process, so no point in speaking about what-ifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

If we were only to talk about performance, there would be a few benchmarks and no one would have much to talk about. You could easily just move along.... please.

---

What are you talking about, there are several reviews out and plenty to talk about performance wise. Just because Fottemburg derailed the thread six post into it and you decide to follow doesn't make it ok. Besides, read some of Fottemburg posts in other threads and tell me he doesn't have an agenda to make intel look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Intel is short of money?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Bad times incoming for Intel?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Without 14nm, ARM will be the winner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Intel in trouble?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

14nm postpone to early 2015?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

If Intel miss a CPU today, could be in trouble.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russian

Just wanted to say, I tested this SoC as well and it'll be a great offering for Windows 8 tablets, but Android still needs a lot of work.

---

Can you elaborate on this? How much of a difference do you think it is percentage wise? Also, is there something specific that needs work or is it just overall?

Thanks.

qurious63ss, you have reported only the latter end of my posts. ;)
I don't have an agenda to make intel look bad, because I only speak about the foundries. If I want to do this, I should speak about the CPUs and SoCs. :)
Foundry-themes are not so popular, eheh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

2008: Z560 (Silverthorne) Die Size about 26 mm2 @ 144$
2012: Z2480 (Medfield) Die Size about 65 mm2 @ about 80$
2013: Z3770 (Bay Trail-T) Die Size about 105 mm2 @ 37$

---

Looks like someone's never heard about the term "manufacturing costs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Intel makes a special effort with these low prices, without a doubt.

---

Mark up may be lower. Competition is good for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Looks like someone's never heard about the term "manufacturing costs".

---

Today the manufacturing costs are growing up.

Some links, since you are skeptics:

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/conten...t-forever.html
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263318
http://www.eejournal.com/archives/ar...19-transistor/

22nm is very expansive, although Intel doesn't say it.

Funny all your articels basically only concern fabs that sell there service or those who want to purchase there service e.g. software costs, thats a none issue for intel.

Also all of the articles pretty much talk about post 14nm being to expensive, not 22/20.

Anyway, back to topic:

Anyone knows when we can see first designs on the market?

Sure ...

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/conten...sung-14nm.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Sure ...

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/conten...sung-14nm.html

---

Semi wiki?? Daniel Nenni?? Seriously why not just post a link back to your post, it would carry the same weight. I'd wait for someone who knows what they are talking about, like say David Kanter, to provide real analysis with things called numbers before making conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qurious63ss

Semi wiki?? Daniel Nenni?? Seriously why not just post a link back to your post, it would carry the same weight. I'd wait for someone who knows what they are talking about, like say David Kanter, to provide real analysis with things called numbers before making conclusions.

---

David Kanter who? The same person that said the SoC A7 of iPhone 5S was made at 20nm by TSMC? -> https://twitter.com/TheKanter/status/313373455267536896

Daniel Nenni said, two months earlier, that A7 was made by Samsung at 28nm -> http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/conten...le-rumors.html

I know that Kanter is a very good semiconductor analyst, but we have to discern if a news is real or not. About Intel 14nm process, Nenni is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

David Kanter who? The same person that said the SoC A7 of iPhone 5S was made at 20nm by TSMC? -> https://twitter.com/TheKanter/status/313373455267536896

---

I think you missed the first word here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fottemberg

Sure ...

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/conten...sung-14nm.html

---

oh man.. all that fud.

Especial funny his taunting that samsungs 28nm process is better then intels 22nm process because they win in one software benchmark. Hilarious. :rofl:

If you have a better mm2/revenue ratio, you win in the foundry world.