Anyone have any good sources for BayTrail benchmarks? I'm specifically looking for ones on the desktop experience and PC gaming performance that compare the CPU/GPU to other desktop/laptop options. All of the benchmarks I've been able to find so far are either synthetic (I don't care about 3DMark scores) or they compare BayTrail to ARM SoCs or the previous generation Atoms. I'd like to see some that stack BayTrail up against maybe a Core i3 and a couple AMD APUs, for example. Maybe in games that BayTrail should do well in too, like Portal 2. Anyone know of some good sources?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Bay Trail Atom (Z3000) Desktop Performance Benchmarks
- Thread starter CEpeep
- Start date
THG reviewed the desktop Celeron version of bay trail a few days ago. Only the 2GHz dual core model was reviewed, but there are other 10W TDP models including a 2.4GHz Celeron and a 2.4GHz quad core Pentium model. The review compares against low end AMD CPUs, older Atom and low end Intel CPUs.
The performance of the Celeron model isn't that great, but power consumption is extremely low. The entire system consumed under 20W average across the suite of stressful benchmarks. The quad core 2.4GHz model shouldn't use that much more power. Unless there is a certain form factor you're looking for, I don't think the quad core desktop bay trail is be very interesting against other options, specifically Haswell Celeron and Pentium models which should be pretty close in price with a low end motherboard, and these should be more expandable.
The performance of the Celeron model isn't that great, but power consumption is extremely low. The entire system consumed under 20W average across the suite of stressful benchmarks. The quad core 2.4GHz model shouldn't use that much more power. Unless there is a certain form factor you're looking for, I don't think the quad core desktop bay trail is be very interesting against other options, specifically Haswell Celeron and Pentium models which should be pretty close in price with a low end motherboard, and these should be more expandable.
Last edited:
Here's the link to the THG review. There are no game benchmarks. However, I am 99.9% sure it can be used to play Pong.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614.html
I think my phrasing might have been wrong. I didn't necessarily mean the desktop version of these CPUs (though benchmarks for those are fine too) I meant benchmarks that measure the performance of BayTrail on desktop applications as opposed to Win8 Modern apps and games. I did see THG's look at the Celeron BayTrail, but the focus is mainly on synthetics, and there's no games. I've seen a couple of peeks at the mobile versions, but they compare the platform against ARM SoCs, which are not benchmarks I find valuable (I don't care how well Bay Trail compares to ARM tablets, I want to know how it stacks up against other x86 mobile chipsets).
Basically, I'd like to know what kinds of PC games I can play on a BayTrail tablet, if it has enough power to run some small VMs for development purposes, how it stacks up in media encoding, and how it performs running desktop productivity applications. None of the benchmarks I've seen thoroughly compare these aspects to other x86 devices. Ideally, I'd like to see an expanded version of THG's preview focused on the mobile version (Atom Z3000 series) with real gaming benchmarks and a more relevant set of competitor CPUs, like a Sandy Bridge i3. Anyone know of such a review?
Basically, I'd like to know what kinds of PC games I can play on a BayTrail tablet, if it has enough power to run some small VMs for development purposes, how it stacks up in media encoding, and how it performs running desktop productivity applications. None of the benchmarks I've seen thoroughly compare these aspects to other x86 devices. Ideally, I'd like to see an expanded version of THG's preview focused on the mobile version (Atom Z3000 series) with real gaming benchmarks and a more relevant set of competitor CPUs, like a Sandy Bridge i3. Anyone know of such a review?
lol Pong. It has 4 "gen 7" execution units, which puts it around 8400gs and GT210 performance. Very low end, but capable of playing older games like HL2. I wouldn't depend on Bay Trail graphics to play anything somewhat new, unless very low res and very low detail is acceptable.
For gaming and wanting to run VMs on a low end system, the G1000 series (based on Haswell) is a better option IMO. Not only does it have graphics which are around 2x faster, but single threaded performance is also much higher.
For gaming and wanting to run VMs on a low end system, the G1000 series (based on Haswell) is a better option IMO. Not only does it have graphics which are around 2x faster, but single threaded performance is also much higher.
Yeah. Looks like the Asus T100 (one of the first Bay Trail tablets) launches tomorrow. Hoping there's some good benchmarks for it out soon. I can always find videos of people using it for things on YouTube, but I'm hoping a review site will put it through its paces sooner rather than later.
AT just reviewed the Asus T100 (Atom Z3740). Still too much of a focus on synthetic benchmarks for me, but at least they're comparing it against AMD's Kabini. Anand says he "doesn't have time" to go into the machine's gaming performance, whatever that's worth.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7428/asus-transformer-book-t100-review/
I'm impressed with the CPU, considering the insanely low TDP, and optimistic about the GPU performance.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7428/asus-transformer-book-t100-review/
I'm impressed with the CPU, considering the insanely low TDP, and optimistic about the GPU performance.
Looks nice. As AT mentioned, the display is sorely in need of calibration.
GLBenchmark and 3DMark are pretty useless benchmarks, so other than for cross platform tests, I don't know why he even bothered. The GPU is so weak anyways, what interesting games would be tested? Anything new is going to be in single digits or low double digits.
One interesting thing, I must have missed it before, is that Bay Trail supports Quick Sync encoding. Intel disables that for many low end desktop and laptop chips based on Sandy/Ivy/Haswell.
GLBenchmark and 3DMark are pretty useless benchmarks, so other than for cross platform tests, I don't know why he even bothered. The GPU is so weak anyways, what interesting games would be tested? Anything new is going to be in single digits or low double digits.
One interesting thing, I must have missed it before, is that Bay Trail supports Quick Sync encoding. Intel disables that for many low end desktop and laptop chips based on Sandy/Ivy/Haswell.
Compared to what? It should be close to the performance of Intel's HD 2000 graphics. Being able to play recent Windows games on 8-10" tablets is an interesting prospect. Low detail/IQ settings aren't as much of an issue with the small screen sizes. If it's possible to get playable frames in games like L4D2, Civilization V and Starcraft 2 on a tablet weighing less than 1lb and costing $300-400, that's an exciting prospect for me as well as many others.
If you want to compare Bay Trail-T to HD 2000 graphics, okay. The Atom Z37x0 CPUs have the GPU clocked at 313-667MHz with 4 execution units of "gen 7" graphics (42 GFlops peak). HD 2000 graphics, by comparison is 6 EU (gen 6), 650MHz-1250MHz (63 GFlops peak). Bay Trail-T graphics are much less powerful than HD 2000.
While gen 7 graphics are better per clock than gen 6, the low GPU clock speeds Bay Trail-T runs at degrades the performance significantly. It's doubtful that the low clock speed graphics in the Z37x0 series can play those games you listed very well, at least in something other than very low resolution and medium detail.
HD 2000 isn't too hot to start with http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...y-Bridge-Processor-Review/Intel-HD-Graphics-3 . Even dropping resolution down to 1280x720, only maybe Civ V would make it to 30fps on HD 2000. Bay Trail-T graphics are only 2/3 as fast as HD 2000. It's not exactly unexpected given the limitations of Bay Trail-T low GPU clock speed, small number of EU and low power budget. It's great for the tablet category against other very low power GPUs.
While gen 7 graphics are better per clock than gen 6, the low GPU clock speeds Bay Trail-T runs at degrades the performance significantly. It's doubtful that the low clock speed graphics in the Z37x0 series can play those games you listed very well, at least in something other than very low resolution and medium detail.
HD 2000 isn't too hot to start with http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...y-Bridge-Processor-Review/Intel-HD-Graphics-3 . Even dropping resolution down to 1280x720, only maybe Civ V would make it to 30fps on HD 2000. Bay Trail-T graphics are only 2/3 as fast as HD 2000. It's not exactly unexpected given the limitations of Bay Trail-T low GPU clock speed, small number of EU and low power budget. It's great for the tablet category against other very low power GPUs.
And this is exactly why I'm interested in seeing some benchmarks. Otherwise, all we can do is postulate by comparing what we know about the architecture to other similar products. Either way, we're talking about riding the edge of what the platform may be capable of. We're enthusiasts; that's what we do. Hopefully a reviewer will be interested in pushing Bay Trail to its very limits soon and will give us a rundown of what's possible and what isn't.
It doesn't matter if you're an enthusiast, or whatever that means when talking about 3.5W processors. 
Wishing for something doesn't make it true. Bay Trail graphics are competitive against year old SGX models used on ARM tablets. It's in a very different category than desktop class graphics.
The GPU is very low end, even in the higher power desktop versions (J models). The 4EU @ 792MHz speed on the top model (10W Pentium J2850) is still 25% weaker than HD 2000 graphics (iow, 30fps may be possible in the best circumstances on Bay Trail in Left 4 Dead 1 @ 1024x768 low quality graphics). Sometimes a sow's ear is just a sow's ear when it's a product for a sow's ear market.
The issue here is that you are interested in gaming, and Bay Trail graphics are very weak. There are other options in the same price range which are much better at gaming, but you're fixated on Bay Trail for some reason.
Wishing for something doesn't make it true. Bay Trail graphics are competitive against year old SGX models used on ARM tablets. It's in a very different category than desktop class graphics.The GPU is very low end, even in the higher power desktop versions (J models). The 4EU @ 792MHz speed on the top model (10W Pentium J2850) is still 25% weaker than HD 2000 graphics (iow, 30fps may be possible in the best circumstances on Bay Trail in Left 4 Dead 1 @ 1024x768 low quality graphics). Sometimes a sow's ear is just a sow's ear when it's a product for a sow's ear market.
The issue here is that you are interested in gaming, and Bay Trail graphics are very weak. There are other options in the same price range which are much better at gaming, but you're fixated on Bay Trail for some reason.
What are some better options in <10" tablets? Price range isn't even a concern. If I could get an i3 in an 8" tablet, I'd have already preordered it. This appears to be the most powerful x86 chipset ever used in this device segment. Should I be holding out for Kabini-based tablets in early 2014 or something? That chipset uses almost 3x as much power for not much more performance. It'll be another 12-18 months before Intel has another revision of Atom on the market.
Tech Report just did a review of the Asus T100 with the Atom Z3740:
http://techreport.com/review/25537/asus-transformer-book-t100-convertible-notebook-reviewed
http://techreport.com/review/25537/asus-transformer-book-t100-convertible-notebook-reviewed
^ cool review. I'm glad he didn't do the brain dead AT/THG thing of only running brand new games on (in high resolution with 4xAA/16xAF, etc) it and declaring it "useless for gaming." The gaming performance is pretty much what I suspected above: details and resolution will have to be turned down for years old games, but it seems to work OK if those compromises are acceptable. Less demanding games can run OK or semi-acceptably well at full LCD resolution.
The battery life of the T100 gives me a lot of hope for other Bay Trail models. 10 hours of web browsing and 12 hours of 720p movie watching is nothing to sneeze at for a 1.2lb device, even on ARM-based tablets.
The battery life of the T100 gives me a lot of hope for other Bay Trail models. 10 hours of web browsing and 12 hours of 720p movie watching is nothing to sneeze at for a 1.2lb device, even on ARM-based tablets.
Yup, I was impressed as well. I think on 8"-10" screens, the level of detail and resolution he's running those games at is more than acceptable anyway. Very impressed with battery life and performance for things the processor handles natively, like video playback and AES encryption. 4 physical cores really helps the platform do a great job with modern software and apps, even if the single-thread performance doesn't quite stack up to more full-featured platforms. You're getting a lot of the best aspects of an x86 PC in a $300-400 tablet.
Picked myself up a T100 in the week and have been really impressed with it. The combination of the Baytrail Atom and 64GB of decent eMMC makes for a really nice machine to use.
Done quite a bit of testing with it too, posted some gaming and performance videos up on YouTube of it including playing around with Quicksync.
https://www.youtube.com/user/BrueComputing
Done quite a bit of testing with it too, posted some gaming and performance videos up on YouTube of it including playing around with Quicksync.
https://www.youtube.com/user/BrueComputing
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,347
I'd definitely be interested in one of those, but they are out of stock everywhere.