> lack of [...] 3G/4G wireless

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/chrome-os-devices/XE303C12-H01US-specs

Indeed, but then it's $330 and with a plan with a phone company I don't have access to where I live.

I'll just keep looking, better deals are bound to happen a bit further down the road...

> it's [...] with a plan with a phone company I don't have
> access to where I live.

Yes, obviously, as that's the US release, which is the initial one. Releases for other parts of the world will follow I guess.
I just wanted to give the correct information that there is a version with hardware for 3G connectivity included, rather than imply that this version was currently suited for where you live.

Since all I want is wifi (for the casino I work in and at home) I couldn't care less about the 3G or 4G features.
Gotta have one.
And then a hosted version of AROS.

Quote:

The previous chips could do it so I'm guessing it's a software problem.

Quote:

Possible, or it's an issue of premature/rushed HW...

Update:

> I doubt the A6 will clock higher than 1.2 GHz in the iPhone.
> Maybe later in the next iPad, as the tablet form factor
> allows for a bit more power consumption.

As we know, the A6 chip in the new iPhone clocks at 1.3 GHz. The A6X chip in the new iPad announced yesterday is said to run at 1.5 GHz and thus faster than A6, as expected:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/deducing-details-about-apples-a6x-processor/

Quote:

Rushing a 32nm SoC would be a very bad idea given the exorbitant cost of even taping it out.

@minator

As far as I know, some problems is only/can only be spotted *after* you have it in real silicon, and AFAIK it's not very uncommon that you have to taping out a few revisions before reaching a level that can be judged good enough for end-users. For example: Freescale did at least 3 tapeouts of the i.MX515, and Genesi used the TO2 in early board designs/targeted at early developers. Only the TO3 was used in the final, end-user products:

Quote:

This is what I meant with "being rushed"; maybe the chip hasn't reached its final tapeout revision yet, but Samsung/Google is eager to push a first version of their Cortex-A15 smarttop to the market? Some things can be worked around in drivers, other things can't and will need an updated chip. I guess we'll see.

You can find out for yourself now with an Arndaleboard.

$250, same chip as the Chromebook.

minator,
Quote:

And only another $250 for the LCD screen, $160 for the SSD, $120 for the connectivity and sound boards, $60 for the camera, and $60 for the accesory package (including cables, pwr supply, and micro SD card).

$900 anyone?

I'll take the Chromebook.

Jim,
Quote:

The basic board includes Sound and I/O cards (the $120 is for different versions). I don't think you really need any of the rest as they are pretty much standard parts.

Quote:

I might get one myself, might try some OpenCL on it.

[ Edited by minator 26.10.2012 - 23:30 ]

Quote:

OTOH if you were say developing something, I don't know, say, an OS. the Arndale board might be a better bet.

There's certainly a lot of information on that site, including fairly comprehensive information on the processor.

minator,
Quote:


Yes, say as a basis for a Ubuntu system, the board probably would be the better choice.

Some benchmarks:

http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/

Granted Javascript benchmarks aren't very good as a CPU test but they are very nice scores. Quite a bit better than I expected.

Yep, pretty good.
But I think we were all expecting that.
And they choose to compare it to some pretty lame processors.

>> Quite a bit better than I expected.

> I think we were all expecting that.

Well, minator said he was not, in the posting you just replied to ;-) And I'm siding with him here in that the results of the Cortex-A15 vs. Krait and Swift are better than expected (by me).

> they choose to compare it to some pretty lame processors.

They compared it to what is relevant for this site to compare, i.e. the top-end chips used in mobile Android and iOS devices.

>They compared it to what is relevant for this site to compare, i.e. the top-end chips used in mobile Android and iOS devices.

Personally, since the first device I've seen with an A15 is the Chromebook, I would have prefered comparisons with other netbook and low end laptop CPUs.
We were fairly certain that the A15 woulld outperform Apple's offering and I've always thought the predictions for Krait were over blown.

> since the first device I've seen with an A15 is the Chromebook, I would have
> prefered comparisons with other netbook and low end laptop CPUs.

I'm sure those will come (if they're not out there somewhere already), but on other sites than androidauthority.com.

> We were fairly certain that the A15 woulld outperform Apple's offering

Yes, after it became known that the Swift core in the iPhone achieved its surprisingly high Geekbench score at 1.3 GHz instead of the 1.0 GHz that was reported before, the expectations regarding Swift's per-clock performance decreased under those of Cortex-A15.
What minator and me didn't expect though was *how much* the Cortex-A15 would outperform Swift (and Krait).

> I've always thought the predictions for Krait were over blown.

The predictions for Krait were that it would be roughly one third faster per clock than Cortex-A9, and I think that's what it has delivered for real.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

You are better informed then me, I wasn't aware that the anticipated performance was that low.
If they sucessfully clock the A15 higher then 1.7 GHz or manage to double the cores without a significant speed decrease, then this core is likely to dominate for quite awhile.

> You are better informed then me, I wasn't aware that the anticipated
> performance was that low.

Yeah, I've been mentioning the anticipated Krait performance for the last 1.5 years here on MorphZone :-)

> If they sucessfully clock the A15 higher then 1.7 GHz or manage to double the cores
> without a significant speed decrease, then this core is likely to dominate for quite awhile.

Yes, absolutely. I doubt Apple will go above 1.5 GHz dual-Swift anytime soon, but 1.7 GHz quad-Krait is already there in the APQ8064 (and soon to come MPQ8064).

I was expecting it to be maybe a bit faster than Krait but nothing spectacular.

OTOH to be fair this is comparing the chromebook to phones. I expect in phones the clock will be lower.


Here are some other benchmarks:

http://liliputing.com/2012/10/benchmarking-the-249-samsung-chromebook.html

http://gigaom.com/mobile/intel-v-arm-the-chromebook-performance-battle/

It doesn't do nearly as well in these but read the reviews.

> Here are some other benchmarks:
> http://liliputing.com/2012/10/benchmarking-the-249-samsung-chromebook.html
> http://gigaom.com/mobile/intel-v-arm-the-chromebook-performance-battle/

This should be the comparisons Jim said he wanted to see. Fine.

Good stuff guys.
Thanks. Pretty much what I expected.
Good performance for ARM, but lower then even basic X86.
And I already own two Intel Atom based netbooks.

At this point, I must admit, I don't find ChromeOS that attractive as it is basically just the Chrome browser (which isn't a personal favorite of mins anyway).
And what do I do w/o wifi access?
I don't like the idea of having to pay for 3G or 4G access.

I'll take another look at the arndaleboard. But something tells me I might as well wait to see what A-eon has in store.

> what do I do w/o wifi access?

Why do you think you couldn't use it?

> something tells me I might as well wait to see what A-eon has in store.

Something in a whole other price category than the ArndaleBoard, that's for sure ;-)