Intel Corp (INTC)

[This Causes an Error]

DavidA2,

Okay, so a couple of things...

1. The Digitimes article is likely not accurate. Why? Well, take a look at this: http://vr-zone.com/articles/no-evidence-that-intel-has-pushed-oem-chips-into-retail/44743.html

While desktop Haswell isn't exactly a huge leap, I would be very careful in believing ANYTHING from Digitimes.

2.

Notebooks are not really better and the few Convertible Haswell Ultrabooks are at $1500.

The majority of Haswell designs haven't even rolled out yet...only a few have trickled out. How can you reach this conclusion just yet?

3.

The state of mobile benchmarking sucks, but what sucks more is that they, Intel potentially cheated on the benchmark and got caught. And Clover Trail+ seems no better than Medfield last year compared to competition.

What do you expect...it's a dual core based on an old core design. Bay Trail will go toe-to-toe with Snapdragon 800/Tegra 4, although I will say that the AnTuTu fiasco was...well, that wasn't right. The rest of the benchmarks showed CT+ solidly trailing the latest designs, so I'm not sure what Intel was trying to achieve here? OEMs are going to run a wide variety of benchmarks that reflect the intended use cases, and winning just one benchmark while losing all of the others isn't going to do much.

The real bummer is that on the corrected edition, CT+ still scores very well compared to quad A9's/dual A15/dual Krait, so I'm not sure why Intel even felt the need to cheat. If a dual Saltwell is faster in the non-BS version than a dual Krait or dual A15, then that's a pretty decent achievement and bodes well for Silvermont (2x the cores + significantly faster per core + higher clock speeds).