Intel's new Z3000 Bay Trail chips for tablets have 2x CPU and 3x GPU performance

By on September 11, 2013, 4:45 PM

Intel's Clover Trail chips for low-power devices have had a decent showing on devices carrying them, but there's no question that the line's performance is questionable when it comes to things like graphic intensive applications. The good news is that its Bay Trail successor is finally here.

The multi-core, low-power chips are built on Intel's 22nm tri-gate technology and its new "Silvermont" micro-architecture that was announced back in May. The company is launching three new families of Bay Trail chips,  the most notable being the Z3000 processors designed for tablet devices.

The Z3000 processors will come in both dual and quad core configurations, and according to Intel will clock in with double the CPU and as much as triple the GPU power compared to previous gen Intel Atom processors.

The Intel Atom Z3000 will run seamlessly with both Windows 8.1 and Android, on devices with 7 to 11.6 inches and with those in the $199 range. Despite the performance increases, smaller footprint and lower power usage, Intel claims the Z3000 "delivers leading performance with all-day battery life." The company also mentions that it will bring 64-bit support to the Z3000 chips in early 2014, though it doesn't sound like that upgrade will make it into the lower end consumer devices, only enterprise-class and security applications.

At this point it is a little unclear when exactly we will start seeing devices with these SoCs. Intel says the chips will be in devices that will be made available to consumers "in the fourth quarter of this year from leading OEMs including," Dell, Asus, Lenovo, Acer and Toshiba.

The other two families will build upon Intel's Pentium and Celeron devices.

Intel says the new Bay Trail M, which is for lower end notebooks with touch capabilities and "a number of innovative 2 in 1 devices," will bring the cost of those types of devices down to a lower price point. Lastly the Bay Trail D line is for desktops including fan-less devices, vertical displays and will offer "up to 10 times better graphics than similar products from Intel just three years ago."




User Comments: 10

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | VitalyT VitalyT said:

0 x 2 = ?

0 x 3 = ?

Guest said:

0 x 2 = ?

0 x 3 = ?

Well aren't we just a little ray of sunshine...

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Well aren't we just a little ray of sunshine...

Three times better than this crap:

Intel should keep it. I had a netbook with one of those back then, it was unusably slow. Never again.

EEatGDL said:

Well aren't we just a little ray of sunshine...

Three times better than this crap:

Intel should keep it. I had a netbook with one of those back then, it was unusably slow. Never again.

I think that netbook was totally different from Clover Trail; most ARMs would totally suck in Super PI due to the lack of FPU.

wastedkill said:

So where are these benchmarks? As all I read was "We have a new trail chip mah mah misleading title with no evidence of dis x2,x3 performance maw maw maw" Next time don't just spew junk give evidence I was hoping to see something besides the "This stuff gives 10x better performance than the junk we had 3years ago but who cares about what happened 3 years ago right as we haven't done a single thing since then until today!"

1 person liked this | ikesmasher said:

Dear god an atom at 1.6 performs worse than a celeron M at 900MHZ? what kind of atrocity is this?

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

So where are these benchmarks? As all I read was "We have a new trail chip mah mah misleading title with no evidence of dis x2,x3 performance maw maw maw"

You mean like these?...

and one of the slides from IDF 2013 taking place at the moment comparing Silvermont with the previous Atom Z2xxx series (Saltwell)

...as well as the comparison between the same Saltwell SoC and Silvermont in an Android bench...

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

Intel needs to lose the Atom name. People associate the Atom with netbooks and slow PCs.

tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

They have dual core 1.5GHz runs at 1.4.9GHz 64-bit Atom already still slow. I won't bother to get 4th Atom CPU, just make i3 to use less battery power instead. Intel huge CPU company still wants to push Atom all over us.

wastedkill said:

You mean like these?...

Ha no wonder they didn't include them or proof in the article.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.