Intel's lone ranger and Principal Engineer, Francois Piednoël, published one of the first semi-official Baytrail benchmarks on his Twitter feed earlier today. The score is for the unannounced Atom Z3770, a quad-core Silvermont based (4C/4T) Baytrail implementation running at a nominal frequency of 1.47GHz (with I assume a > 2GHz max turbo). Francois was careful to only run the multithreaded Cinebench 11.5 test, tossing out a score of 1.47. 

To put this score in perspective we need to dig into some of our own reviews. AMD's A4-5000, a quad-core Kabini based SoC running at 1.5GHz, manages a score of 1.5 in the same test. This is also roughly 86% of the performance of a dual-core Sandy Bridge based Pentium processor running at 2.2GHz. Compared to a dual-core Atom Z2760 (Clovertrail) the Atom Z3770 delivers nearly 3x the performance. Finally, this Baytrail SKU delivers similar performance to a mid-2GHz mobile Penryn based Core 2 Duo. Let that sink in for a moment - this tablet SoC delivers better multithreaded FP performance than a 2010 Macbook Air. The quad-core Silvermont vs. dual-core Penryn comparisons are a little unfair as there tends to be no replacement for extra cores in these thread heavy benchmarks. If Intel is able to equal a Core 2 Duo's single threaded performance however...

Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded

Single threaded performance typically scales down quite linearly in Cinebench, but that's assuming that single core turbo frequencies aren't insane. Regardless it's probably safe to assume a single threaded Cinebench 11.5 score somewhere north of a 1.5GHz Jaguar. We are also only looking at FP performance here, which is less important for most consumer uses than integer based workloads.

It's interesting to note that the test system (likely a tablet) seems to be running a 32-bit version of Windows. As there are no connected standby enabled versions of 64-bit Windows, that's likely why we're seeing the 32-bit version used here. 

Obviously the big unknown here is power consumption. As Baytrail is destined for tablets, I'd expect lower average power than pretty much all of our comparison targets in the graph above. The big question I have is whether or not this is finally performance that is good enough. Although Clovertrail could run legacy Windows applications, it wasn't fast enough to actually run heavy legacy apps well. Paired with a decent IO subsystem (something I'm doubtful most OEMs will deploy), I feel like Baytrail could be on the cusp of delivering performance that's good enough. Part of the problem here is that we're only looking at multithreaded performance, which obviously looks pretty reasonable on a quad-core part. How well Intel is able to deliver good single threaded performance will really determine whether or not Baytrail makes for a great platform. 

With IDF 2013 next week I'm guessing we'll see a lot more of Baytrail's performance soon enough.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • raghu78 - Thursday, September 5, 2013 - link

    The information we need is at what actual clocks was the Baytrail chip running. We know very well that Intel's Turbo is very aggressive. Even when all 4 threads are running the CPU will use the full SOC TDP and because the GPU is not under heavy load all 4 cores could be boosting to 2 Ghz. But when you run a workload like 3DMark or a game the CPU cores and GPU cores will get fully utilized and so the max achievable CPU turbo could be much lower.

    Anyway this Baytrail chip should be faster than A6-1450 for CPU performance. but the fact is the A6-1450 GPU should easily be faster. we also need to see the TDP and average power consumption of this Baytrail chip. AMD needs to come out with a slightly better binned SKU than A6-1450 with better turbo clocks. single core turbo can easily go upto 2 Ghz and quad core turbo should atleast hit 1.2 Ghz.
  • jljaynes - Thursday, September 5, 2013 - link

    Rag - a6-1450 in Acer v5-122 uses about 4w in cinebench 11.5 and scores 1.02 - google notebookcheck a6-1450. Based on all the leaks I have seen, Bay Trail probably runs at 1.46 GHz with a turbo freq of 2.4 GHz. Look @ geekbench browser, this leak, or the antutu leaks from earlier - all are @ 1.46 GHz (except one of the earliest AnTuTu benchmarks @ 1.1 GHz)
  • Valis - Sunday, September 8, 2013 - link

    Here's a question, is the z3000-series because of their 2-4 GB RAM limit only x86, or are they x64/ia64 also?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now