Intel has been boasting about its mobile processor performance to handset manufactures recently, but it looks like the company wasn’t just blowing smoke when its CEO stated that its technology was superior to Qualcomm’s processors. The first benchmarks of Intel’s upcoming BayTrail processor have appeared online, and the results are quite astonishing.
The results have appeared in the always popular AnTuTu benchmark under a device named “byt_t_ffrd10″, a Bay Trail-T reference device I suppose, and looks to be around 30 percent faster than Qualcomm’s top of the line Snapdragon 800. The score: a mighty 43416.
The result is impressive enough on its own, but there’s something even more shocking that you should probably note. The quad-core Baytrail chip is apparently only clocked at 1.1GHz, compared with the Snapdragon 800 which runs at more than double the clock speed, typically around 2.3GHz. For the sake of an easier comparison, I’ve updated our benchmark chart with these scores, although please remember that the Snapdragon 800 and BayTrail results aren’t from finalized devices.
This BayTrail result clearly beats everything on the market right now, dominating the current top of the line Exynos 5 Octa and Snapdragon 600 processors, and none of the Snapdragon 800 benchmarks are even close to touching Intel’s new SoC - it truly is a monster, if these results are accurate.
However, it is worth noting that we’re not sure exactly what sort of device this result was recorded with, and therefore we don’t know what the power consumption was like or if this quad-core chip will ever be used in a smartphone. So, it remains to be seen whether BayTail can perform this well in a real handset or tablet, where there are greater limitations on power requirements.
On the other hand, the final version of BayTrail is expected to clock in at a more regular 2.1Ghz, which could potentially double the AnTuTu benchmark result. The Silvermont cores used in the BayTrail SoC are also expected to be much more power efficient, Intel says five times as efficient, than the existing Saltwell cores used in its CloverTrail chips.
Either way, this result seriously suggests that Intel may finally be onto a winner with its latest mobile processor, now all we need are a few devices to make use of all this power. What do you make of the score, are you keen to get your hands on a BayTrail powered handset or tablet?
Oh lord… If this is true and has reasonable power demand Intel is about to dominate.
Give us low power FFS!
So all of big manufacturers introduced their flagship chips this year. Only Apple is remaining with their A7 and it could make mess in the ladder once more before end of the year.
I guess the CPU part of the forthcoming Apple A7 SoC won’t be a beast, maybe even staying in dual-core configuration. Such a processor wouldn’t do miracles in CPU oriented benchmarks. In fact, the reason why these chips perform so well in iOS devices is the fact that the OS himself uses the GPU to perform hardware acceleration of the UI elements. And as usual, Apple will put a monster GPU in it (also allowing for top-class gaming abilities). This is a totally different hardware approach, for a different software use.
“On the other hand, the final version of BayTrail is expected to clock in at a more regular 2.1Ghz, which could potentially double the AnTuTu benchmark result.” you seriously think that doubling the Ghz could give a score of 86832?? Even Ativ Q got “only” little over 50000 with Intel I5! I think it doesn’t work like that :D
Anyways awesome! Is Intel as open as Qualcomm?
there’s no way it would double the score. that would leave it in competition with the primary Haswell laptop lines… in fact the i7-4770k, the cream-of-the-crop high end cpu from intel, probably only scores around 120k.
That’s what I was saying :)
How do you know that?
You’ve tested it with bluestacks?
no but there is the result for the 4500u, and benchmarks that have linear scales can be used to project missing scores. you are right though, I could have been off — especially with antutu since that isn’t a cpu benchmark, but a whole-system benchmark. but it is still likely somewhere between 110-150k.
@mastermuffin:disqus as far as I know, Ativ Q runs Android in a Virtual Machine, so the performance could be severely limited. But, maybe this 1.1GHz frequency doesn’t take into account turbo boost. Intel is known for using dynamic overclock to get better performance for short time frames. Maybe this boost is totally invisible to the system and thus the reported frequency is just the “normal” one. That’s just my interpretation.
that’s great but: 1. that’s very close to the 4500U, which is nearly the highest performing low watt Haswell CPU that intel has. The Y variant probably scores at or below 40k. So there’s no room for an Atom line and a main x86 line going forward.
2. the Tegra 4′s first benchmarks, in a dev board and not final production, were 42k, basically the same as this.
3. nobody cares about x86 hardware when it is not well-optimized for flash, etc, and software that is not ready for modern mobile UIs.
4. the upcoming A7 from MediaTek is also scoring surprisingly comparatively to the snapdragon 800. obviously the a15 designs outside of tegra 4 have so far left something to be desired when compared to the full potential of the line. I expect A12s by the end of the year pressing 30k, and mid next year pressing 40k, the same time we start seeing arm v8s.
Interesting in so much that Intel is trying to get its chips into samsung devices… Imagine this in a note 3….. Probably to late in the day for this to happen though, even assuming it meets the requirements to go into a phone.
I am not so much impressed to be very honest. Firstly we dont whats the power consumption like?
Secondly do you know at what resolution was the test done? Eg: If i run movies at sd resolution then definately i will get more scores then running full hd movies.. isnt it?
And lastly its an unfair comparison based only on GHz as you have not specified the manufacturing technology of both. If i am not mistaken Q 800 pro processor runs on 45nm compared to 22nm of Bay Trail so the reason in increased in performance is OBVIOUS and lastly Snapdragon has embeded chips which works to its advantage…
It’s 28 nm for the snapdragon 800 and not 45 nm.
If this is true then Intel’s position compared to ARM is very reminiscent of what AMD64 did to Intel’s Netburst in PC hardware ten years ago. ARM had better get themselves a “Conroe” fast.
lol, yeah Netburst was pretty bad move, Intel thought as many operations per cycle would be the solution for everything.
the title couldn’t be more misleading… in an actual device, the best intel benchmark is 54k — for the Haswell part in the Samsung Ativ Q. The next best is 24k, some 10k+ lower than ARM devices. The benchmark itself is not for cpus. It is for whole devices.
And this benchmark result doesn’t even specify what *chip* was tested, let alone the rest of the system. and clearly it is a prototype, with performance characteristics very different from regular chips. this might be some intel server cpu with a humongous amount of cash, requiring powerful heat dissipation, that would never clock higher because of the cache.
I’m no expert but ponder this for a mo…
Intel chips have hyperthreading and temporary clockspeed boosts. so if this is a quad core chip running at an average 1.1 ghz, and can momentarily boost up to say, 2.0 ghz…that’ll be 8 threads at 2.0ghz posting 43+k scores. half that and you barely get Snappy 600 scores.
we won’t know for sure until a real device with the same scores and official specs come out. until then, Snappy 600, 800 and Exynos Octa are the beasts in town. Intel needs to prove itself in the real world first. low power consumption, app compatibility and temperature stability etc etc etc are all important and Intel needs to show that the BayTrail chips can hack it in all areas.
I hope that Intel do do well and create these monster mobile chips. that’ll force the other competitors to up their game and the mobile consumer will be in for one hell of a fun time.
Intel have confirmed that the silvermont cores do not have hyper-threading.
I like the results, however, by the time we actually see this in a phone, there will be processors already up to par if not better… So it looks amazing as of right now, but being that it might not release till Spring or Summer of next year, doesn’t mean much.
Awesome….bout time Intel kicks bottom in the mobile sector.
empire strikes back!
What’s gonna happen if/when Intel can get power consumption at or below ARM’s power consumption?
Now that Win8 tablets have made a stand, an Atom chip of this power at a moderate price could wipe out the need for other tablets and laptops at all.