The 14nm tri-gate for process from Intel has currently been seen in both Core M (Broadwell-Y) and Broadwell-U, with some discussions at Mobile World Congress regarding Atom x5 and Atom x7 both featuring 14nm cores at their heart. For the mini-PC and laptop space, Core M fits nicely with a 4.5W TDP and the Core architecture, however Intel’s Atom line also occupies a similar segment but at a lower price point. The upgrade from Bay Trail is Cherry Trail, from 22nm Silvermont cores to 14nm Airmont cores. Technically it would seem that Cherry Trail is a catch-all name with the SoCs intended for mini-PCs will also ride under the name ‘Braswell’, using up to four Atom cores and Generation 8 graphics within a 4-6W TDP.

CPU World recently published details of four Braswell SKUs. For Braswell, similar to Bay Trail, Intel designs its Atom SoCs in terms of dual core modules, where each core is separate apart from a shared L2 cache. The SoC then puts one or two of these modules on die (for two or four cores) without an overriding L3 cache. The Braswell SoCs will support DDR3-1600 memory, with SIMD instructions up to SSE4 with support for VT-x and Burst Performance Technology offering higher clocks for extremely short periods when required.

The four SoCs are presented as follows:

Intel Braswell SKUs
SKU Cores /
TDP Price
Celeron N3000 2 / 2 1040 2080 1 MB 4W $107
Celeron N3050 2 / 2 1600 2160 1 MB 6W $107
Celeron N3150 4 / 4 1600 2080 2 MB 6W $107
Pentium N3700 4 / 4 1600 2400 2 MB 6W $161

This is similar to elements of both the Bay Trail-M (Mobile) the Bay Trail-D (Desktop) product line, which would perhaps mean that we will see both inside mini-PCs as well as some laptop designs, such as Chromebooks. In the current Braswell list there are two dual core models and two quad core models, although in the Bay Trail-D line there are six in total with four Celeron and two Pentium. The Celeron N3000 from the Braswell line is an interesting element to consider, especially when we compare it against the similar TDP of the Core M 5Y10.

  Celeron N3000 Core M 5Y10
Architecture Airmont Broadwell
Cost $107 $281
Cores / Threads 2 / 2 2 / 4
Base Frequency (MHz) 1040 800
Turbo / Burst (MHz) 2080 2000
L2 Cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L3 Cache - 4 MB
TDP 4 W 4.5 W
GPU 'Gen 8' HD 5300
Execution Units Unknown ? 24
GPU Frequency / MHz 320-600 ? 100-800
DRAM DDR3-1600 DDR3/L-1600

Ultimately Intel’s differentiation lies with the architecture and price, meaning Core costs more, and historically this also correlates with performance. That being said, Core M is susceptible to both cTDP-Up and cTDP-Down depeding on how the OEM wants to use it. Braswell may be in a similar position, although we do not have confirmation of this as of yet.

It will be interesting to see what applications for Braswell will be released first. I would imagine everything we currently see in Bay Trail-D form should get an upgrade. We have already seen shots of ECS’ roadmap for the LIVA which states a Q2 2015 launch for example.

Source: CPU World

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Essence_of_War - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Something is wrong with the Core-M column, in the L2 cache it currently reads "0.5 W" and under L3 cache it reads "4 MB". The ARK claims 4 MB total cache (with no L2/L3 given), so I think maybe there was a typo or two that offset a column or something?
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    The L2 size is 256 kB, as it always has been since the first Nehalems. The L3 is inclusive, so it mirrors everything present in the smaller caches. Hence 4 MB L3 result in 4 MB total cache size.
  • Essence_of_War - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    That was my suspicion on the L2, thanks for confirming! Either way, I don't think the L2 is "0.5 W" though :)
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    I believe it is 256KB per core, making it 0.5MB.
  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Psh, you've never had half a watt of L2 cache before?
  • ssj4Gogeta - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Oh, I have, along with 8 nanosecond of TDP and half a gig of latency. Intel is the best!
  • ToTTenTranz - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    I had no idea Intel charged so much for the BayTrail-M and D parts. It's 4 to 10x (!!) more than the BayTrail-T parts from the same cookies.
  • hammer256 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Yeah, wow. 100 bucks for an atom chip. Weren't Intel subsidizing their mobile department? I wonder if that's why the prices were so low before...
  • djvita - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Gotta pay the salaries of 10k employees
  • Krysto - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - link

    That's why they are now trying to be as misleading as possible to the market. They want the market to believe that these chips are "almost" as powerful as Core chips, which is why they "deserve" the $100 price tag.

    They don't. They have the same performance of a $25 ARM chip.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now