Leaked specs detail Intel’s 14-nm Braswell SoCs

Intel's Cherry Trail chips, as seen in Microsoft's Surface 3, represent one half of its two-pronged strategy for 14-nm SoCs. Those Atom-branded chips are meant for tablets like the Surface. The other half—code-named Braswell—hasn't been officially announced yet, but details of have leaked over at CPU World. Here are the specs:

Model Cores/threads Frequency Cache Graphics Memory TDP Price
Celeron N3000 2 / 2 1.04 / 2.08 GHz 1 MB Gen 8-LP DDR3-1600 4W $107
Celeron N3050 2 / 2 1.6 / 2.16 GHz 1 MB Gen 8-LP DDR3-1600 6W $107
Celeron N3150 4 / 4 1.6 / 2.08 GHz 2 MB Gen 8-LP DDR3-1600 6W $107
Pentium N3700 4 / 4 1.6 / 2.4 GHz 2 MB Gen 8-LP DDR3-1600 6W $161

Where will these new SoCs end up? Intel says Braswell chips are for "entry level 2-in-1 devices, laptops, desktops, and All-in-One PCs." Given that description, it seems likely we'll see Braswell in products similar to those based on the last-generation Bay Trail-M and Bay Trail-D chips, like these fanless systems from ASRock and Asus. Intel also released a NUC based on Bay Trail. We'll keep our eyes and ears open for more official news on Braswell as it comes.

Comments closed
    • Buzzard44
    • 8 years ago

    Knew the latter, but didn’t know it was used by PXE booting. Interesting tidbit, jbi!

    • Wirko
    • 8 years ago

    Next up is Orwell but it’s going to have a more friendly name for the public.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    Sitwell

    Lucille: He’s an alpaca!
    Michael: He has alopecia.

    • Takeshi7
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve never seen the it throttle from 1.8GHz. Even under full load.

    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    ERMAHGERD, 0.5%?

    Such wow, amazeballs.

    • vargis14
    • 8 years ago

    Thanks SC, I did not know that. But it is kinda difficult to figure out on the Ark Intel site listing the chips specs/prices.
    Or I just looked at the specs and prices:)

    • smilingcrow
    • 8 years ago

    You are comparing the prices of the phone/tablet chips against those aimed at small desktops, basic laptops etc. which were also expensive for the Bay Trail generation.
    Keep in mind that the list price of that class of chip is clearly not at all indicative of what the OEMs pay judging by the prices of devices that actually use them.
    Intel are clearly over inflating the list price for commercial reasons.

    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    You win the internet for today. OEM’s are super retarded, and think people like thin laptops because they keep selling.

    [b<]THEY KEEP SELLING BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU DUMMIES ARE OFFERING AND THERE'S NO CHOICE, IDIOTS.[/b<] (Same exact principle as Windows8 sales, based on how many new W8 laptops I'm asked to downgrade for a month because it's 'horrible, why would Microsoft even [i<]do[/i<] this?')

    • nico1982
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<] The 1.60GHz quad-core chip managed single-core and multi-core scores of [b<]990[/b<] and 3451, respectively. [...] Believe it or not, the single-core performance is actually worse, with the Bay Trail part coming out on top with a score of [b<]995[/b<].[/quote<] Yeah, this is worth mentioning 😛

    • auxy
    • 8 years ago

    Keep in mind it’s also running at a significantly higher clock speed; more than 1Ghz higher than the base clock of the Z3735F. I doubt your Z3735F device will stay at 1.8Ghz (or even 1.6Ghz) on all cores for the entirety of an ALU benchmark.

    • just brew it!
    • 8 years ago

    Well, I gotta say, you definitely hyphenatewell…

    • just brew it!
    • 8 years ago

    It is also used by diskless clients (PXE network boot).

    The ‘T’ in ‘TFTP’ stands for ‘trivial’. So yeah, there aren’t any performance optimizations to speak of.

    • k3m
    • 8 years ago

    kkkkk… This is so funny

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 8 years ago

    Bra Swell when yuh boy get Swol #SWOLNATION

    • Pwnstar
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve had people call me Pawn Stars.

    • NovusBogus
    • 8 years ago

    Definitely! OEMs have made it pretty clear that instead of a battery that lasts for days they’ll use the power savings to make ever more fragile toys that have to stay glued to a wall socket.

    • guardianl
    • 8 years ago

    Just a shrink. [url=http://www.maximumpc.com/early_cherry_trail_benchmarks_disappoint222<]Early benchmarks confirm that Braswell is basically no faster at the same clock speed (at least for the CPU)[/url<]

    • NovusBogus
    • 8 years ago

    To the dedicated tech enthusiast, they’re one and the same. 🙂

    • vargis14
    • 8 years ago

    Is this a new chip altogether or just a shrink of a 22nm Intel quad Atom type Processor like the Z3735F 2M Cache that has a SDP of 2.2 watts, and turbos to 1.83 GHz from 1.33 GHz that supports only ddr3 1333mhz and a tray price of a measly 17 bucks ?

    Or are we getting a totally new chip that is on a 14nm process and uses 6 watts, supports ddr1600 and its top end SKU costs over 10 times the Z3735f costs.
    It sorta looks that way and if so it would be very exciting.
    I am looking forward to seeing some performance #’s from that top end Pentium N3700 and the Celeron N3150

    Please put me in my place if my thinking is all wrong. Thank you.

    I did a little research and Baytrail used a cut down ivy bridge gpu and was limited to 1066 or 1333mhz ram, these new chips will have 1600mhz memory and cut down haswell or broadwell graphics so we should see a considerable jump in GPU performance. Also with the larger devices maybe they will run at their Turbo speeds a lot longer then Baytrail could.

    It is just the price that is blowing my mind $160 for the top SOC and baytrails top SOC was released at $20 I think.

    • Buzzard44
    • 8 years ago

    I was about to say, “Ugh, who uses tftp? Oh so slow.” But then I realized the only reason I knew how slow tftp was is because I’m one of those Cisco people…

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 8 years ago

    Now compare the efficiency so we can make useful conclusions.

    • fade2blac
    • 8 years ago

    I get the feeling they want us to believe we don’t want better performance or all day battery life, but rather just a smaller and lighter version of something we already own.

    This is why I am confuzzled about the whole 14nm product lineup (from socketed Broadwell all the way down). Every product segment seems to be shoehorned into a fraction of the previous gen TDP with no real generational performance bump (sometimes even a regression). I get that the architecture was driven to achieve power efficiency, but all the gains seem to have been spent on lowering TDP. Maybe it simply doesn’t scale well enough to offer higher levels of performance without missing some predetermined golden ratio?

    Ok, so a reduced TDP should mean longer battery life, right? Sure, but then the product design trend seems to be things like smaller batteries and more power hungry displays which negate potential gains to overall device battery life. Integrated GPUs can’t really handle more pixels and I think most people would much rather “endure” the weight/size of those discarded Watt-Hours of battery capacity in exchange for the longevity.

    My old Core2Duo E8400 (3.0 GHz ) with a 65W TDP is apparently still more powerful than almost anything below an i3 in the current mobile/SoC lineup. I think the closest analog to a Core2Duo E8400 is a Broadwell 3805U Pentium with a 15W TDP. Comparing the initial PassMark scores shows even this is just a bit off the pace. A quarter of the power for equal CPU performance along with a basic GPU is nice and all…but I think they may have missed the sweet spot.

    • Leader952
    • 8 years ago

    A later 2008 model of the Core2 Quad (in the Xeon L5420, 2.5 Ghz, 12MB L2 cache) had TDP of 50 watts for all four cores.

    [url<]http://ark.intel.com/products/33929/Intel-Xeon-Processor-L5420-12M-Cache-2_50-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB[/url<] That works out to be 12.5 watts per core or 240% better than the 30 watts you quote. The Xeon L5420 was on the 45nm node whereas Bay trail is on 22nm. The TDP of the L5420 would be even better if it were on the same 22nm process node.

    • TwoEars
    • 8 years ago

    You sure it’s pwnstar and not pornstar?

    • Tumbleweed
    • 8 years ago

    That’s not bad at all. I wonder what a moderm process version of the QX6700 would be like.

    • Pwnstar
    • 8 years ago

    Bra-swell?

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    ohhhhwell.

    • thingy2098
    • 8 years ago

    The Bay Trail atoms aren’t powerhouses, but the situation isn’t quite that dire.

    Take a typical multi-core benchmark like Geekbench:
    [url<]http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarks[/url<] The Z3735f (Bay Trail Quad Core, 1.33ghz base, 1.83ghz boost) scores 2452 The QX6700 (Core 2 Quad - Kentsfield, 2.66ghz base, no boost) scores 4660 So we have ~60% of the base performance of the original Intel Core 2 Quad but with a 2.2W SDP (sub-4W TDP) versus the 130W(!) TDP of the QX6700. In addition, the Bay Trail Atom SoC has a lot more integrated onto the chip that the QX6700 doesn't. For your ~2W of power, you also get full DX11 compliant integrated graphics, a memory controller along with the rest of your north/south bridge functions, among other things, all of which are not included in the power envelope of the QX6700. ... we've come along way in 9 years.

    • WhatMeWorry
    • 8 years ago

    Allswell that Endswell.

  1. I think only of these with three network ports and a few sata ports would make an awesome pfsense/NAS box. IDK if that is possible though, using the same box for a NAS and a router.

    • Takeshi7
    • 8 years ago

    I think it’s more impressive that the single Core 2 core TDP is ~30 watts, but the Bay trail gets about the same performance in ~4 watts. It’s not a bad chip at all.

    Edit: I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted. seriously do the math. The TDP per core of a QX6700 is 32.5 watts.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 8 years ago

    Farewell.

    • Tumbleweed
    • 8 years ago

    Ouch.

    • Takeshi7
    • 8 years ago

    I have a Core 2 QX6700 and a Bay Trail quad core Atom Z3735F. All 4 bay trail cores combined have about the same integer performance as a single Core 2 core. I’d expect something similar here.

    • rika13
    • 8 years ago

    That Celeron would be just awesome in a NUC. That would make an awesome small server, like a TFTP server for Cisco people or an image/KMS server for Windows deployment.

    • TwoEars
    • 8 years ago

    Haswell, Saltwell, Broadwell, Braswell… Here are some for future consideration:

    Sellwell, Performwell, Computewell, Verywell.

    • Tumbleweed
    • 8 years ago

    I’d really like to see some benchmarks comparing that N3700 to an equivalently-clocked Core2Quad.

    • odizzido
    • 8 years ago

    But will we see a single laptop with the size and weight of a tablet?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!