5 ms·
Interesting: Intel inside ("Intel® 64-bit Atom™ Processor Z3580, 2.3 GHz")
by mahouse 12y ago
Interesting: Intel inside ("Intel® 64-bit Atom™ Processor Z3580, 2.3 GHz")
- amitbhawani 12y agoInteresting especially Nokia adopting Android now.
- Already__Taken 12y agoI'm not so sure. It's clear to me MS want Windows phone to look like a premium product all of its own merit and not just anything with a Nokia badge on it. Even the cheaper phones are targeted to be more top end for developing markets. Nokia must be a massive thing to have acquired solely to crank out windows phones. Do MS still go hunting for patent money from android manufactures? So they can potentially undercut everyone in the android game now right?
- dijit 12y agoif they do then that sucks, Nokia has a LOT of industry patents, including a few on bluetooth.
- secretdark 12y agoWell, I think it's tough to tell whether it's Nokia adopting Android or the company that's licensing the Nokia name (a Chinese hardware manufacturer) that's adopting Android. I don't doubt they had sign-off on the Android aspect (and, hopefully, actual device quality) prior to lending their name to it, but it seems like, given their plan to license off the Nokia brand, their "adoption" of anything is kind of moot.
- nabla9 12y agoN1 is their product. They just use contract manufacturers just like Apple does. They are also hiring new people for tablet development. Nokia only sold their phone manufacturing and design to Microsoft. Nokia is Nokia Networks, Mobile Broadband- and Global Services, Nokia HERE ja Nokia Technologies (previously Nokia Research). They also own the patents (just licensed to Microsoft)
- dagw 12y agoNokia has however been shopping its brand around to third parties looking to slap the Nokia label onto their own designs.
- experimental- 12y ago> They just use contract manufacturers just like Apple does. They do more than that; they have outsourced also the business execution (i.e. including selling, warranties, etc.) of the device to Foxconn. They just share in the revenue by licencing the use of their brand and design (and software).
- chroma 12y agoTalk about overkill. That's a quad-core x86-64 CPU clocking up to 2.33Ghz. I realize Atom microarchitectures aren't wide as Haswell and ilk, but that's still some serious horsepower. It's also interesting that Intel doesn't mention the TDP on their site.[1] I wonder if it eats more power than a comparable ARM CPU. 1. http://ark.intel.com/products/81195/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3580-2M-Cache-up-to-2_33-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/81195/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z35...
- hyp0 12y agoAtom is less powerful than Celeron, Intel's low-budget/low-power family. Plus, it will be throttled, to reduce power consumption/heat, like all mobile CPU... but... it certainly does seem like a desktop-class CPU. It would be interesting to find the median power of a desktop CPU for each year; and the power delivered by a mobile CPU that's sustainable (i.e. without throttling/overheating - 2.33GHz is the "burst frequency"). Then, for example, you could say it's a "2003 desktop class". As a super-flawed estimate, the first time a PC CPU was available at or above 2.3GHz was in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology (Opteron, AMD) But this Atom may be a bit better, because that was high-end, not median; not 64-bit; not using fast memory or other advances; and single core not quad. How much they offset the crippled architecture of Atom and throttling, I don't know. It also has 2MB cache; my median PC in 2006 had only 512KB cache... I'd guess it's around 2006-8 desktop class.
- stuaxo 12y agoIt's tricky as RAM was a lot slower, most of those were single core with hyper threading wheras these are quad core. Definitely interested in the same thing.
- higherpurpose 12y agoWhat do you mean by overkill? That chip is less powerful than an Apple A8 or Nvidia Denver, and probably even the Snapdragon 805 inside the Nexus 6 and latest Motorola phones and Note 4.