Gigabyte introduces S10A tablet with AMD Temash CPU

Gigabyte is introducing its first tablet featuring an AMD processor. The upcoming Gigabyte S10A is a Windows 8 tablet powered by an AMD A4-1200 “Temash” processor.

That’s a low-power chip designed for tablets and other mobile devices. It’s a 1 GHz dual-core processor with AMD Radeon HD 8180 graphics and a TDP of 3.9 watts.

Gigabyte S10A

Gigabyte launched a similar tablet called the S1082 last year. But that model was powered by a 1.1 GHz Intel Celeron 847 dual-core chip instead of an AMD processor.

AMD’s Temash chips are designed to compete with Intel’s Atom and low-end Celeron processors by offering moderate performance, decent graphics, and low power consumption.

The new Gigabyte S10A supports up to 500GB of hard disk space, offers up to 14 hours of battery life, and comes with Microsoft Office Home 2013 pre-loaded.

There are also optional keyboard and multimedia docking stations for the tablet.

  • digi_owl

    Looks actually interesting.

  • Matt

    The 3.9 W TDP Temash needs fans or are those vents just vents? Also how does it compare to the Celeron 847?

    • CyberGusa

      Image is of the previous tablet model… dual core Temash doesn’t need fans but it’s also less powerful than the Celeron 847… Though, also more powerful than present ARM or ATOM SoCs… So it’s a in-between performance product.

      One problem though is AMD hasn’t developed to the point of competing with ARM SoC power efficiency like Intel has with their ATOM SoCs. So don’t expect battery life to be that great…

      It’ll be better than the previous Hondo Z-60 APU though, but won’t support mobile features like Always Connected Standby, etc.

      • kirilmatt

        Its less powerful?? Its more powerful! IPC is the same as sandy bridge i3, celeron IPC is much lower then i3, clock is only 100mhz difference! The temash a4 destroys Intel atom clovertrail. Its the best x86 CPU right now for tablets until baytrail offers competition.

      • CyberGusa

        No, the more powerful is for the quad core Temash that can also go into a higher performance mode of 1.4GHz,

        The dual core stays are 1GHz and its TDP is less than half of the quad core version and the GPU is clocked way slower too!

        So no, don’t confuse the peak performance of the quad core with what this low end dual core can offer!

      • kirilmatt

        Actually you are correct, my bad, that being said the dual core a4 is still a good 15-20% faster then the z-60. While the celeron may be negligibly faster on compute performance, the a4 will destroy it in iGPU performance as well as power consumption(3.6W TDP vs 17W).

      • CyberGusa

        Doubtful, the A4-1200 GPU is lower clocked at 225MHz… the Quad core Temash is 300 to 400 MHz for comparison.

      • kirilmatt

        And the celeron is based on HD 2000 but celeron iGPU is always much slower then the core series. the quad core is comparable to HD 4000, even assuming the quad core is 400mhz and there is perfect scaling then we can assume that the a4 will have about half of HD 4000 performance. I can’t find raw number for the HD 2000 vs 3000, however the HD 3000 has double the amount of cores. So I’ll assume a doubling of performance. HD 3000 to 4000 is a 60% jump. That’s a 160% jump over full powered HD 2000(not celeron crippled iGPU) to HD 4000. The iGPU in the a4 should be >60% performance, most probably more then double considering celeron iGPU is crippled as well.

      • CyberGusa

        The HD GMA is lower powered but not by a huge amount!

        Besides, it takes the quad core Temash GPU just to get between the Intel HD3000 and HD4000 range.

        With nearly half the clock for the dual core it’s very doubtful it’s providing anywhere near that level of graphical performance!

        Really, this is AMD’s low end and the dual core is Temash’s lowest end offering!

      • kirilmatt

        Best case scenario temash is 60% faster then HD 2000, undisputable. Temash is supposed to compete with atom and it destroys atoms iGPU

      • CyberGusa

        Sorry but it is disputable, the HD GMA is still clocked faster with 350 – 1100 MHz range and still manages to edges out the Radeon HD 6320.

        Besides, the Temash GPU clocked down to 225MHz is a lot slower than the quad core running at 300 to 400MHz! So performance is a lot less than the quad core offers!

        Also, the GPU is still a power hog for AMD… The main difference between the A4-1200 and the A4-1250 is the GPU clock is 300MHz for the A4-1250 but that’s enough to increase the TDP to 8W!

      • kirilmatt

        Ask anyone, a crippled HD 2000 can’t compete with temash, and anyways, you’re talking about a 17W ULV chip vs a 3.6W tablet chip! The variant you talk about also has a 1.4ghz clockspeed. “Power hog” is relative, it doesnt consume that much power, but relatively, yes.

      • CyberGusa

        Ask who exactly? The only reviews so far have been on the quad core A6-1450!

        And the dual core A4-1200 might as well be crippled with nearly half the max clock speed for the GPU!

        And no, the variant I speak of, A4-1250, stays at 1GHz too for the CPU!

        Only the quad supports going to 1.4GHz!

        Please, don’t confuse enthusiasm for AMD with how the APU will actually perform! The A4-1200 is the lowest end APU and not to be compared directly with the higher end A6-1450 quad core APU!

      • kirilmatt

        What you have to realize is that your average sandy bridge core processor has HD 3000, the celeron has HD 2000. The a4 isn’t crippled, its a low powered version. The celeron is crippled, it is slower then the core series at same TDP

      • CyberGusa

        What you have to realize is they were referring to the HD GMA and the Celeron GMA isn’t that much below the HD2000 anyway!

        Besides, which the A4-1200 uses the even lower 8180 and they referred to the upper 8210!

        The AMD Fusion/Brazos were only meant to be better than ATOM GMA, thing is Celeron GMA is better than ATOM GMA too!

        Temash and Kabini improve upon AMD Fusion/Brazos but only the quad gets you to the 2x point!

        So even if the HD 8180 is still better, it won’t be by much!

      • kirilmatt

        The figure i gave you in above messages is you haven’t disputed. I’ll repeat, if the quad core is ~HD4000 and the HD 2000->3000 is 100% increase and 3000->4000 is 60% increase, assuming the A4 is 2x slower then the quad core A6(which isnt even correct), then the a4 is at least 60% faster then the celeron, where the celeron is crippled it will be higher

      • CyberGusa

        I didn’t have to dispute it because that’s obviously wrong! Most of these iGPUs aren’t multiple times better than each other!

        Llano, HD4000, and Trinity all just barely rate a entry level discrete graphic card and all the models were discussing are all below them!

        So you’re arguing for who’s top of the bottom performance!

        And like it or not the A4-1200 is closer to Hondo performance!

        CPU is just 20% improvement with Jaguar and the GPU doesn’t push its advantage at that slow clock speed!

      • kirilmatt

        You can’t compare clockspeed against other architectures! Otherwisea radeon 7970 is slpower then intel hd 4000! You cant dispite the HD 3000 is 100% faster then 2000 and 4000 is 60% faster then 3000. Since the a6 GPU is the same about as the HD 4000 then the a6 is 160% faster then a standard HD 2000. Then the a4 is 60% faster then a HD 2000. The hd in the celeron is half as fpast as that. Do the math

      • CyberGusa

        No, you can compare clock speeds as long as you account for architectural differences!

        Like I can directly compare that a dual core 1.5GHz ATOM can edge out the CPU performance of a 1GHz dual core Bobcat CPU because the performance difference is less than what results in a over 500MHz clock difference!

        AMD did not massively increase the performance of the Temash and Kabini GPUs from the previous AMD Fusion/Brazos GPUs.

        While I already pointed out that the Celeron HD GMA isn’t that much below the original Sandy Bridge, they mainly removed features and reduced max clock speeds and it’s not down to half as you keep on trying to emphasize

        You’re problem is thinking Intel’s higher end GMAs are as lousy as their really low end ones, like the ones they’ve used with the ATOM up till now for example.

        While you’re over estimating how much AMD improved with Temash!

        It’s the quad core that gives in the double performance numbers from Hondo, so the dual core gives much less of a improvement!

        Never mind the Hondo basically compared to the Ontario C-50 and that used the lowest end GPU for AMD and was nearly half the performance of their slightly higher end E-Series Brazos line GPUs!

        The fact the quad can get slightly better numbers than the HD3000 is good for such a low end product but the dual core A4-1200 is much less powerful than the A6-1450!

        A4-1200 has no Turbo mode and stays at its low clock of 1GHz for the CPUs and 225MHz for the GPU!

        There are sacrifices to be made to reach lower TDP and the A4-1200 needed to be reduced to just 3.9W TDP in order to be usable in fan-less tablets.

        The quad core starts at 8W and goes to at least 14W at its max performance mode for comparison!

        So like it or not, don’t expect so much from the A4-1200… If you want performance then go for the quad core Temash or a Kabini but the lower end dual core is mainly for better battery life and being able to be used in more mobile designs.

      • kirilmatt

        Actually just chdecked out the figures, normal HD 2000 has a clock speedof 800mhz with boost to 1400mhz. In the celeron the speed of the iGPU is 300mhz with boost to 800mhz. In this case we can assume the A4 is a good 1.5x faster

      • CyberGusa

        You’re comparing a 225MHz Max GPU to one that starts at 300 and can go to 1100, not 800, MHz.

        So no, we can’t assume anything of the kind as even with 800MHz we’re talking about over twice the clock speed and the architectural improvement isn’t that massive for AMD!

      • CyberGusa

        http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-A-Series-A4-1200-Notebook-Processor.92892.0.html

        Quote:

        “On average, the HD 8210 is slightly below the Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge); however, the performance is often limited by the CPU. Recent Games (as of 2013) are therefore hardly playable. Only a few older and less demanding games will run fluently.”