schmidtbag:

From Intel's first attempt? No, not at all. At least, they weren't any good at what they were supposed to be. As for Lakefield, there's not enough info for anyone to make judgment.

Last time I checked, they were trash. Around half of IPC in comparison to desktop. Less than 1/2 of clock. Then chips like x5-z8500/8550 were sold as full quad core chips, but in reality they were HT based. It was clearly visible from benchmarking with unlocked tdp and static clock. Total performance of that so called quad-core was 2,6 times of just using 1 core. (And that's with dual channel memory. I wonder about single channeled x5-z8300/8350.) But here they promise new core. If that is actual full quad core and not something with a lot of shared parts... And they improve IPC by at least 25%... It may end up being good tablet chip. Games will get that one main core, and other game's threads usually need like 1/2 to 1/4 of main thread's throughput. But if that Atom is as upgraded as was x5-8500 upgrade from z3580 (mere die shrink), it will be trash.

schmidtbag:

Huh? The 2nd attempt was atrocious. They were horribly power hungry (even when idle) and their performance-per-watt suffered when trying to make battery life better. Intel can shove themselves anywhere they want and make decent sales so long as the product is "decent" or better. The reason this platform failed is because it was an inferior competitor to what ARM had to offer.

Medfield were actually more power efficient than at the time ARM competitors. You probably comparing to later ARM successors. Yet since Medfield didn't gain the traction they didn't release Valleyview for Android. They were only used with cheap Windows notebooks.

coth:

Medfield were actually more power efficient than at the time ARM competitors. You probably comparing to later ARM successors. Yet since Medfield didn't gain the traction they didn't release Valleyview for Android. They were only used with cheap Windows notebooks.

Yes, under load, they had better performance per watt. But that's the only thing they had going for them. The overall wattage was higher (that's a problem for mobile devices) and their idle wattage was also much higher (which is a BIG problem). When it comes to devices like phones, being efficient at heavy computations isn't a high priority, and Intel never realized this. It's not hard to port Android to x86. Keep in mind, it's a VM largely based on Java, so there's no software excuse as to why Medfield couldn't have been used in phones. The problem is it was just a terrible platform for phones. It was decent for tablets, but even then, most ARM ones were "good enough" while being cheaper. EDIT: Another thing to put into consideration is how you analyze efficiency. Take combustion engines for example - a 1.8L I4 engine is going to sip fuel compared to a 4.0L V8. But, the smaller engine is actually less efficient; you are getting less mechanical motion out of the fuel than you would in the bigger engine. However, the 1.8L engine is still the more economical choice. It costs less to run it, despite being more wasteful. ARM vs Intel is the same thing. Intel has a more efficient design but it needs more energy to perform.

It sounds promising. While there are decent portable options with the MS Surface and similar fare from other manufacturers, they really need an ultra-cheap option with good battery life to compete with all the android tablets out there. I have 2 of the RCA Cambio Windows 10 tablets with Atom chips that I really enjoy for Windows on the go. Their specs are very modest for the $100 dollar price tag, but they are surprisingly snappy and usable for the price if you keep your expectations in check. Web browsing, email, and normal business apps work well on them. The only real downside I find with them is the 3-4 hour battery life.

schmidtbag:

Huh? The 2nd attempt was atrocious. They were horribly power hungry (even when idle) and their performance-per-watt suffered when trying to make battery life better. Intel can shove themselves anywhere they want and make decent sales so long as the product is "decent" or better. The reason this platform failed is because it was an inferior competitor to what ARM had to offer. Fair enough, but that was a little besides the point anyway. I was more addressing the comment specific to D3M1G0D's point about people who feel the iGPU is wasted die space.

I had a Motorola with Atom 1C/2T (and it was superior (and less expensive) in any point to the same model shipped with Snapdragon 2C in USA, and 1 batery charge by week with internet, mail, picture manager each day, game... the only issue where that it was running Android x86 that some app maker were not supporting in this time (wich is no more the case now). With unofficial update i make it last until Oreo then i go to not smartphone for personal use.