I'm not sure anyone needs a quad-core tablet.

One of the few uses i can think of is something involving medicine.

 

Tablets are going to be taken over by Android and iOS, I think and there's still a market for a physical keyboard.

 

Let's see you achieve 80wpm on a tablet/slate. Lulz.

 

Will they be able to run Crysis? If not I really don't care, it's a tablet, nothing more.

I understand some people need Star Trek-like extremely powerful tablets but the common man will barely be able to use it, unless they think they're for gaming. I would like to see ARM dual core tablets, with a decent GPU, or a Zacate CPU (no matter how hard Intel try they just can't make a decent GPU, even for on-board) and either Android or Windows.

I haven't touched a tablet yet but I wouldn't mind seeing a modified version of Win 7 appear, optimised for touch screens. I don't like Google but I do like what they've done with Android.

 

That makes sense, considering all the hype over the built in GPU. I'm thinking Intel will probably develop a dual or single core version for tablets, and probably phase out Atoms in the netbook market.

 

This may be a noobish question but wouldn't a quad core use up a lot of power? Which means less life/heavier tablet?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cee Will netbooks be thing of past soon?

Yes and no. The ultra-portable form factor will always have a niche of users that don't want/can't use a tablet. But the term "netbook" will eventually die off, IMHO...that product space does not need its own classification.

But tablets aren't even the biggest threat to netbooks...the Atrix concept is. If I can carry my phone around all day, but then when I need a screen+keyboard to do "netbook type work" I can just plug that phone into a portable laptop-shaped docking station...then what purpose does a netbook serve at all? If Atrix works and takes off, that's the end for netbooks for sure.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GriZzlEnLS This may be a noobish question but wouldn't a quad core use up a lot of power? Which means less life/heavier tablet?

From the few reviews I've read, Sandy Bridge is excellent at managing power. If you're not using a core, it shuts down. And it's cool tool, I think Anand had it running at ~4.5GHz on stock cooling.

Still, I have no idea how this would compare to an ARM processor when drawing from a battery.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon From the few reviews I've read, Sandy Bridge is excellent at managing power. If you're not using a core, it shuts down. And it's cool tool, I think Anand had it running at ~4.5GHz on stock cooling. Still, I have no idea how this would compare to an ARM processor when drawing from a battery.

It doesn't compare to ARM's power usage but ARM doesn't compare to a Sandy Bridge core in terms of performance.

I would love a ULV SB core in a tablet because I could finally get rid of my laptop.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GriZzlEnLS This may be a noobish question but wouldn't a quad core use up a lot of power? Which means less life/heavier tablet?

At peak, a quad-core would use more power... but at idle, it should use about the same as a single-core. That being said, a quad-core can get work done faster and revert to idle state faster.

If really has to do how well the OS and hardware are designed for power management.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BizzareRide I would love a ULV SB core in a tablet because I could finally get rid of my laptop.

A dual-core CULV SB with a stripped-down chipset would be nice.... even better would be if Intel packaged it as a SoC.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kand Let's see you achieve 80wpm on a tablet/slate. Lulz.

Sig rig is a tablet PC with a 6 cell. Gets 5 hours of use out of it.

They can easily make this PC lighter, and furthermore longer lasting. Simply disable 3 cores (if quad) and lower the GPU clock speed dramatically. A single sandybridge core and low clocked intel GPU is far enough for HD playback and simple searching the internet/note taking/programing (internet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo At peak, a quad-core would use more power... but at idle, it should use about the same as a single-core. That being said, a quad-core can get work done faster and revert to idle state faster.

If and only if voltage remains the same between the two states. And if the said program in question uses more than 1 core. If you are opening word, excel, surfing the internet, checking e-mail, and simple things like that, you still draw more power out of the quad than a single core. The constant switching of threads between cores just loads up the power consumption.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kand Let's see you achieve 80wpm on a tablet/slate. Lulz.

You know, i bet you that would be one of those benchmarking "yeah i did it" goals for the tablet market. Someone that can develop a tablet that can detect the real-time typing speed of a person could probably boast that they have a tablet that rivals the touch of a keyboard.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domino If and only if voltage remains the same between the two states. And if the said program in question uses more than 1 core. If you are opening word, excel, surfing the internet, checking e-mail, and simple things like that, you still draw more power out of the quad than a single core. The constant switching of threads between cores just loads up the power consumption.

It's much more complicated than just voltage though.... It basically boils down to "Can certain components be powered off, voltage lowered, and/or downclock?".

If you are running a single-thread application, the additional cores power draw should be near zero if OS, app, and hardware are well-designed. Yes, there is slightly more but most people would rather have the additional processing power than not. Really, a dual-core today would be sufficent for 99.99% of people though.

As for the thread mananagement.... that's an OS and hardware design issue. Any memory miss or transfer is very power expensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigalisk You know, i bet you that would be one of those benchmarking "yeah i did it" goals for the tablet market. Someone that can develop a tablet that can detect the real-time typing speed of a person could probably boast that they have a tablet that rivals the touch of a keyboard.

Touchscreen do "detect the real-time typing speed of a person". The issues are haptic feedback and space/layout constrants.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyboyd I'm not sure anyone needs a quad-core tablet. One of the few uses i can think of is something involving medicine.

It's natural progression. If the performance of a certain class of products can be vastly increased then why deny it based on the opinion that no one "needs" one that powerful?

In that same sense why overclock your PC?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo It's much more complicated than just voltage though.... It basically boils down to "Can certain components be powered off, voltage lowered, and/or downclock?".

I noticed on this rig here if I force the CPU state to not exceed 50% I gained about 30 minutes of battery with no to little performance loss (only on start up). Clock speeds and voltages remain the same, but 2 cores (1 with HT) does not get used. Dropping the voltage to compensate for single core with HT will increase that battery even more.

By my understanding, if the programs in question actually use multi-threaded operations then a single core will draw more power then with multi-core enabled like you basically said. But if say you are using word, or firefox, or simple note taking in a powerpoint, having the rig remain at the same voltage and cycle between cores will still draw more power then a lower volt single core state. The other cores do still get used if the program is designed for single core use. 5 seconds of 1V should draw less power then 2 seconds at 1.2V. Especially in idle.

But I agree, there are other methods. I'm just throwing that out there.

At any one time the OS is using hundreds of threads at once. If all are designed for single core use the OS will cycle between cores to throw the threads around. That is what I noticed with the performance tab open anyways.

 

Sandy Bridge is not the next big thing to me. Ivy Bridge is but Bulldozer is truly the next big thing, emphasis on big.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon Yes and no. The ultra-portable form factor will always have a niche of users that don't want/can't use a tablet. But the term "netbook" will eventually die off, IMHO...that product space does not need its own classification. But tablets aren't even the biggest threat to netbooks...the Atrix concept is. If I can carry my phone around all day, but then when I need a screen+keyboard to do "netbook type work" I can just plug that phone into a portable laptop-shaped docking station...then what purpose does a netbook serve at all? If Atrix works and takes off, that's the end for netbooks for sure.

Sry Motorola, but "work" and a 4" screen are mutually exclusive to me.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domino I noticed on this rig here if I force the CPU state to not exceed 50% I gained about 30 minutes of battery with no to little performance loss (only on start up). Clock speeds and voltages remain the same, but 2 cores (1 with HT) does not get used. Dropping the voltage to compensate for single core with HT will increase that battery even more. By my understanding, if the programs in question actually use multi-threaded operations then a single core will draw more power then with multi-core enabled like you basically said. But if say you are using word, or firefox, or simple note taking in a powerpoint, having the rig remain at the same voltage and cycle between cores will still draw more power then a lower volt single core state. The other cores do still get used if the program is designed for single core use. 5 seconds of 1V should draw less power then 2 seconds at 1.2V. Especially in idle. But I agree, there are other methods. I'm just throwing that out there. At any one time the OS is using hundreds of threads at once. If all are designed for single core use the OS will cycle between cores to throw the threads around. That is what I noticed with the performance tab open anyways.

You are correct in your case.... but thread management and power consumption are big targets of ARM (and licensees), Intel, and AMD now. They are refining their processes to do it better.

Intel's Turbo Boost would help in the example you described. If you have a single-thread that taxes the system, the CPU could idle the other 3 cores and overclock/overvolt the single core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HybridCore Sandy Bridge is not the next big thing to me. Ivy Bridge is but Bulldozer is truly the next big thing, emphasis on big.

Sandy Bridge is a Tock. Ivy Bridge is a Tick. By the definition of Intel, Sandy Bridge is a microarchitecture change while Ivy Bridge is just a refinement and die shrink. Ivy Bridge will not be a big thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skripka Sry Motorola, but "work" and a 4" screen are mutually exclusive to me.

It's a 11.6" screen/keyboard docking station...

In the future, I believe smartphones will plug into and drive "good enough" laptops.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo Sandy Bridge is a Tock. Ivy Bridge is a Tick. By the definition of Intel, Sandy Bridge is a microarchitecture change while Ivy Bridge is just a refinement and die shrink. Ivy Bridge will not be a big thing.

Ivy Bridge will be a smaller version of a big thing.

If Sandy Bridge will be good for tablets, I can imagine Ivy will be much better...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by k4m1k4z3 Ivy Bridge will be a smaller version of a big thing. If Sandy Bridge will be good for tablets, I can imagine Ivy will be much better...

But Fusion and ARM might already be good enough.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo You are correct in your case.... but thread management and power consumption are big targets of ARM (and licensees), Intel, and AMD now. They are refining their processes to do it better. Intel's Turbo Boost would help in the example you described. If you have a single-thread that taxes the system, the CPU could idle the other 3 cores and overclock/overvolt the single core.

It's going to be very interesting what they end up doing for power consumption imo while maintaining performance.

I wonder if that would help. There are still background threads? I'm not exactly sure how they work. But right now it says I'm running 800 threads at once, even in idle state?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domino It's going to be very interesting what they end up doing for power consumption imo while maintaining performance. I wonder if that would help. There are still background threads? I'm not exactly sure how they work. But right now it says I'm running 800 threads at once, even in idle state?

How many of those threads are active and generate much of a load?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domino Sig rig is a tablet PC with a 6 cell. Gets 5 hours of use out of it. They can easily make this PC lighter, and furthermore longer lasting. Simply disable 3 cores (if quad) and lower the GPU clock speed dramatically. A single sandybridge core and low clocked intel GPU is far enough for HD playback and simple searching the internet/note taking/programing (internet).

Words per minute? I see you failed something there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon Yes and no. The ultra-portable form factor will always have a niche of users that don't want/can't use a tablet. But the term "netbook" will eventually die off, IMHO...that product space does not need its own classification. But tablets aren't even the biggest threat to netbooks...the Atrix concept is. If I can carry my phone around all day, but then when I need a screen+keyboard to do "netbook type work" I can just plug that phone into a portable laptop-shaped docking station...then what purpose does a netbook serve at all? If Atrix works and takes off, that's the end for netbooks for sure.

This is something I'd agree with. Now if only they had the phone saddled up infront instead of the back. What's to prevent someone from just snatching that phone off from where it's situated?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kand This is something I'd agree with. Now if only they had the phone saddled up infront instead of the back. What's to prevent someone from just snatching that phone off from where it's situated?

Where would it fit though?

It would block the screen or keyboard if it when anywhere in front.
Reception may be blocked if docked under the keyboard in the base. Also, it would add thickness to the base.

Does the current dock design have a lock on it?

 

a lot of people would still opt for a netbook than a tablet. you can't type reports on a tablet.