LONDON – Intel's Z2580 application processor, which was codenamed as CloverTrail prior to launch, outperformed competitors' processors in a benchmarking exercise, according to Allied Business Intelligence Inc., which trades as ABI Research.
ABI Research concluded that Intel Corp. (Santa Clara, Calif.) has succeeded in reducing significantly the power consumption of its smartphone application processor and it now rivals and is often lower than equivalents based on the ARM architecture licensed from ARM Holdings plc (Cambridge, England).
Since high-end smartphones require this level of performance ABI said it considers Intel is "well positioned for strong growth over the next few years."
The benchmarks were done by comparing the performance of the Lenovo K900 smartphone, powered by Intel's Z2580 application processor and supporting XMM6360 chipset, with a series of Samsung smartphones that are based on ARM-based application processors from Nvidia, Qualcomm and Samsung.
"The benchmarks were impressive but the real surprise was the current consumption recorded during the benchmarks; the new processor not only outperformed the competition in performance but it did so with up to half the current drain," said Jim Mielke, vice president of engineering at ABI research, in a statement.
"Intel did significant work to bring the current drain down on their well-recognized high-performance processors but the competitors did not help themselves. The ARM architecture used by nearly all of Intel's competitors is well known for its low power performance but in bringing the processing power up closer to PC levels, the current drain has taken a significant hit," Mielke added. He continued: "Combining the high-end modems – the XMM6360 is used in both the Lenovo K900 and the Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500 – with their application processors for high- to mid-tier solutions and single-chip EDGE chips for low-cost phones makes Intel a rare full portfolio provider."
Details of the results are included in the table below.
Click on image to enlarge.
Comparison of mobile phone performance. Source: ABI Research
I detected a sense of irritation at the discussion. You complained of a lack of professionalism and then you dissed the distinction between power and energy.
Yes, it could be assumed that the times were equal, I later stated that was the only case were your general statement about performance, power and energy, would be true.
Now you bring up processing speed! That brings with it all the same problems of your abstract 'performance' you brought up originally.
I really don't understand the nature of your comment.
Intel does not make displays, or touch screens, so they don't touch those pieces of a phone ... nor connectors, etc.
Last time I checked, Intel is trying to get involved in everything they can viably be involved in a phone with ... processor, memory, baseband, even an OS initiative with Samsung.
Short of building a phone, how are you expecting them to be involved?
At the end of the day, a phone (just like a computer), is nothing more than user interface, processor, memory and communications ... and something to power it.
Please explain how they have not left their old mentality and what they should be doing different?
In terms of a large battery, that means added cost, added expensive part that can fail, more weight, larger packaging, etc. .... all things consumers do not want.
The article was about comparing the processing power and power drain of two competing processors. Why would it discuss other areas of the phone design? We are engineers, I think we can figure out or research those areas separately.
The reality is that processor power still does come into play w.r.t. battery life. How many people hobble their phones as communications devices by limiting how often they check mail? That has nothing to do with the display, and everything to do with energy drain of RF and processor/baseband.
As people expect more out of phones/tablets, processor power becomes more, not less important.
I did not have to say time is equal, though I probably should have clarified that by performance, I meant processing speed, though I had thought that was understood.
As we were discussing the article and it showed both processing speed and current consumption (power) then we can easily calculate task energy which is what this article was really talking about .... equal performance (processing speed) at often significantly lower power leading to lower task energy.
Intel still treats the phone as a potential home for its processor, with the view that this home is focused on the processor, just like a PC or workstation or server. But a phone is a SYSTEM dedicated to displaying or broadcasting information, so other components besides CPU, GPU, memory are also important. So they haven't really left their old mentality. Which will be a problem for them.
Likely not a leap to expect the current drain was measured at the battery connection likely with very similar battery voltages. It would be difficult at best to isolate. Other power traces in a phone / tablet.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.