Dell unveiled an Android tablet with a super-slim design, a high-resolution screen, an Intel Atom Moorefield CPU, and a 3D camera last month… but at the time the company wouldn’t say much about the price or launch date.

Now we have a pretty good idea: the Dell Venue 8 7000 Series should ship in late November for $499.

dell venue 8 7000 series_02

The news comes courtesy of a page on the Dell website where folks who have a voucher for a free Venue 8 7000 can request one. The page says the voucher is worth $499, is valid through the end of November, and that the tablet will ship at the end of November.

The Dell Venue 8 7000 Series tablet features an 8.4 inch, 2560 x 1600 pixel OLED display, a 6mm (0.24 inch) case, and an Intel Atom Z3500 series processor.

It also features Intel’s RealSense 3D camera. This isn’t just for shooting 3D video, but also for enabling gesture-based controls. You can interact with apps by waving your hands, fingers, and face in front of the camera as if you were using an Xbox Kinect or similar motion controller.

It also features Intel’s RealSense Snapshot camera, which enables 3D image capture and editing with effects including parallax viewing and adjusting image depth and focus in post-processing.

Dell’s tablet will be one of the first Android-powered devices to ship with a RealSense camera, and the tablet’s slim design and high-res design have turned some heads. Now that it appears the tablet will be priced the same as an entry-level iPad Air 2, it’ll be interesting to see which way those heads turn.

via TabTec

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

28 replies on “Dell Venue 8 7000 tablet with WQXGA screen, 3D camera to sell for $499”

  1. Brad, the source for this article got everything wrong about Intel RealSense. The Dell tablet does not have the Intel RealSense 3D Camera and therefore no 3D gesture support. The tablet has the Intel RealSense Snapshot R100 camera which supports some cool photo processing usages.

  2. Well it looked nice but for $500 that is more than my Thinkpad 10 which I use as my main pc costs and the dell doesn’t even have a wacom digitizer…

    1. If you attended Intel’s IDF back in September, Dell promised everyone free tablets and gave them vouchers.

        1. Too bad I wasn’t there to get a voucher; instead I was at IFA in Berlin for the Intel Core M launch.

  3. That must be Singapore Dollars, surely ?? 🙂
    For 500 Yankee Dollars you can buy a Nexus 9 with 32GB

  4. Too expensive, at best tablets are an occasional use device so that price is out of the question for me.

  5. The industry needs to get its shit together, every time I see “qHD” I think “Why are they releasing a product with a 960×540 display?”

    Every tech writer does it, and its not the official term, the official term is WQXGA.

    Sure there is QHD 2K, but that’s a different resolution entirely.

    1. Sorry about that. I meant WQHD… but as you point out, even that was wrong. I thought I had these things memorized… apparently I did not.

      The headline’s been updated (not that most people probably know what WXGA means, but it takes up less space in a headline than 2560 x 1600).

  6. Wow…I was waiting for this…I cant believe is $499..ridiculous..I need a tablet but the options for something attainable are there and this is not one of them!

  7. Dell should have used the Core-M. qHD is a waste on an Atom SOC. I understand their price-points, but Intel’s greed will cause both companies to suffer.

    1. I don’t believe the Core M can go into something this small… Besides, the Core M would more than double the price and isn’t designed for devices that can double as phones like this one can… Moorefield in the Smart Phone range Intel ATOM SoC…

      Besides, this is running Android and thus will be fine with qHD… The GPU is also more powerful than the present Bay Trail ATOM GMA… since Intel is still using Imagination PowerVR in their phone range SoCs… and is suppose to top even Snapdragon 801 GPU performance…

      1. You are unaware of the incredible profit margin that Intel has on its die. Core M could be as cheap as $15 including packaging and test. They need to sell at once price for tablets, another for clamshells… only the mentally ill will buy a $500 atom tablet. If not Core-M, then broadwell-Y.

        1. Incorrect, I’m fully aware but it changes nothing I stated!

          First, your estimate is simply insane because they would never sell the Core M for just $15… even the ATOM SoCs cost more than $15 to make! They’re subsidizing the ATOMs as it is!

          Even ARM SoCs can cost more than $15 and one of the main reasons they’re not is because they usually sell in enough quantities to keep unit costs very low and they are much simpler and easier to make chips…

          Second, it doesn’t change the simple fact the Core M is a much larger chip… One of the many reasons you can’t just simply stuff it into a small 8.4″ tablet!

          Third, while Intel does charge a large premium for their Core products it changes nothing stating this because the prices are set and are what device makers have to pay to get these parts and make these devices…

          Fourth, the cost of the processor or even SoC is still small compared to the total cost of the device! The $499 they’re charging isn’t just because of the SoC but everything that goes into making the device and the profit margin for the company that made it as well!

          We aren’t getting these devices directly from the hardware parts makers! So you’re ignoring cost of labor, designing, assembling, OEM profit margins, etc…

          Fifth, check the prices of Core M laptops… They’re still very high… Besides, tablets are harder to make and naturally cost more for similar spec hardware!

          Tablets need to be more durable because they’re handled more, they need to be more compact because they need to be as thin and light as possible and need to stuff everything behind the screen and makes space a high premium… Tablets compactness also means they have to deal with thermal issues and thus need to be designed more efficiently… Tablets also require higher end batteries to provide enough run time…

          Suffice it to say there are many reasons why you have to pay more for a tablet or 2 in 1 device or convertible than you would a simple laptop, which in turn costs you more than a equivalent desktop as you also pay more for portability…

          Really, there are Smart Phones that charge more per device! So please get a clue as to how much these things tend to cost and not just put it all off on the high profit margins they usually sell with…especially the new stuff like the RealSense 3D camera that definitely costs more than a regular camera, and the still considered premium options like qHD…

          Sure, if we get rid of all the profit margins it can get pretty affordable but in the real world that’s never going to happen… Companies need profits in order to run and pay off their employees as well as make the product worth it to themselves… So deal with it… since as you liked to put it only the mentally ill would produce products for no profit and wind up out of business…

          We’ll get cheaper devices when the technology really gets cheaper and not just the SoCs… Everything that goes into a device also has to get cheaper!

          Issues, like how and where OEMs source parts are at issue…

          Companies like Apple manage extremely large profit margins by pre-establishing their parts and getting the lowest possible price for those parts but most other companies can’t do that… Especially when Apple pretty much takes away most everything that’s normally available and thus forces many companies to create their own production of things like Aluminum milling machines and that increases their costs…

          Really, the business practices and pricing are based upon more than you’re thinking!

          1. (1) The $15 was for the cost of manufacture, test and package. It’s based on the die size… Apple’s latest A8 is estimated to cost $37 (that includes the profit paid to TSMC). Apple’s A8 is estimated to be 89mm^2. Perhaps I was low with the $15 figure… $20 is probably closer to the real cost.

            (2) Core-M is 82mm^2, which is smaller than Moorefield (aka Quad-core Tangier) both are package into a 14mmx14mm package. I looked for Tangier die sizes on the web, but none are listed… I can’t say the die size here.

            (3) Core-M was demo-ed at Comdex 2014 in a tablet called Llama Mountain. It has almost identical dimensions to Dell Venue 8 7000. Display is the same resolution. Just google “Intel llama Mountain” and look at Intel’s PDF press release.
            (4) I would love to tell you about Broxton and the future of Atom on 14nm, but I can’t do that until another source releases that information first.
            (5) The reality is that Intel is going to keep the profit margin on Core-M so high that it will never sell in the numbers that A7 and A8 do (or Snapdragon 800 series). My point is that it could if it wanted to, and that would dramatically change the tablet market. It’s a frickin $20 chip… it blows my mind.

          2. 1) Nope, not even close! You’re comparing a much cheaper to make ARM SoC like Apple’s A8 to the much higher cost of a PC end Processor!

            First, the 14nm FAB is new of and much of that adds investment costs for Intel to set it up… While TSMC is still making the A8 and the new A8X on the older 28nm FAB…

            While the Apple SoC may have a larger number of total transistors, that alone is not a real indicator of the cost and performance of the chip… The count isn’t done the same for both to begin with, since the A8 is a SoC and thus includes other components like the GPU versus counts that only include the CPU cores for the Core M, etc…

            And it is valid to charge for greater range of capability as you’re not only paying for the manufacturing of the chip but the intellectual cost and value of the technology that goes into it!… For which the A8 will never be used to run a desktop OS, etc…

            2) Core-M is 14nm, which means it packs more in a smaller space but that also means it’s a higher cost process than the 22nm FAB Moorefield, which is also a much simpler chip with multiple times less performance!

            Core-M also operates at a higher TDP than the Moorefield, which is specifically designed to be usable in small devices like Smart Phones…

            So no, your conclusions here are erroneous…

            3) The Llama Mountain was a 12.5″ tablet! Not a 8.4″ Tablet! The board alone is specifically larger than a typical Smart Phone to begin with and would leave next to no space for a battery in a small 8.4″ tablet!

            So again, no, and again you’re ignoring the cost of the rest of the device as well… Like it or not these things are still not as cheap to make as you may want them to be and we’re still a gen or two away before they are…

          3. Well you obvious don’t work in the biz, as you don’t know that true costs are never known until you are finished with building the product and can add-up all the costs involved. Predicted volumes and yields as well as costs from the previous node are used to estimate the cost per die. It is based on this prediction that products are defined to make and sell. The estimated cost is based on die size and defect density of the process. Everyone uses estimated cost, as it is usually done with guard-band (the specifically over estimate to be safe). I take it you work in software… I might have an intimate knowledge of 22, 14 and 10nm die areas and the estimated costs.

          4. Don’t be obtuse, of course the true costs are never known because there are too many variables to give a definitive answer…

            Best we ever get is what’s average for a given production yield… and everyone who knows anything about the business knows that already!

            But you’re obviously trying to sound like you know more than you do but it remains that your conclusion is at best pie in the sky wish thinking…

            Again, the 14nm FAB is new… It’s the same FAB as Broadwell that has been delayed because of issues with the FAB, among other reasons… So the yields per wafer aren’t going to be as ideal as they will be later once they iron out all the issues with the new FAB…

            Second, Core M is a very optimized Core processor in order for it to be able to operate at such low TDP and not give up too significant amount of performance as the trade off… the Core architecture wasn’t originally designed to operate at such low power and thermal range and efficiencies at other than originally designed thresholds usually result in a dip in efficiency… going both down and up in scale!

            Third, being very optimized means there are specific tolerances it has to meet and that means even fewer yields per wafer are acceptable and that further increases initial costs…

            Never mind the multiple Billions Intel already spend developing and setting up the 14nm FAB…. If you really knew anything about the business then you’d know it gets increasingly more expensive to reach the next nm advance in FAB…

            Fourth, you’re still apparently ignoring the elephant in the room with the simple fact you have yet to account for the cost of the rest of the device!

            Components like Intel’s RealSense 3D camera cost a lot more right now than traditional cameras… while, until qHD becomes more common it also is a more premium priced component than more common lower res screens…

            All of these things add up! And most OEMs aren’t charging as much a premium in profit margins as Apple does because they know they couldn’t get away with it like Apple can…

            Meaning, BOM for this tablet may still be well over $300 when they charge $499 for it and it’ll be over $500 BOM for a Core M laptop, let a lone a Core M tablet that is also crammed into one of the smallest tablet sizes, which makes it even harder to make and that of course tends to raise the pricing for all the extra work involved…

            While OEM’s not only have to cover the cost of the device parts but their own R&D costs, employees costs, shipping and storage costs, Profit margins for the company itself to make the whole process worth it to them, warranty support, tech support, etc.

            So, I’m not kidding when I say what you’re asking for will never happen with the existing costs!

          5. NRE is usually no more than 10% of the estimated product cost. If the expected volume is 10 million die, then 10% of $20 would be $2, for a total budget of $20 million for NRE. I’m assuming that Core-M is expected to build at least 10 million die over the lifetime of the product. That leaves $18 for the non-recurring manufacturing cost. I am saying that the NRE is already baked into the estimated product cost.

            Cost is cost… you really don’t want to sell below that, but anything above it is all profit. My point is that Intel management is crazy to think that Atom can compete against ipad and snapdragon 800 series…. I am talking tablets here, not 2-in-1s or laptops. I bought the dual-core tangier in the 2014 Dell Venue 8, and quickly returned it when I saw the battery life and performance being well below snapdragon 800. Quad-core Tangier’s (Moorefield) battery life will be worse, single core performance will not improve, and it still has software incompatibilities. Core-M is close in architecture to A8 and Nvidia K1 denver… similar die area, beefy dual-cores with great single thread performance.

            Atom SOC truly is a low-cost product, and does not belong at the $500 price point. It barely belongs at the $200 price point.

          6. Straight up, you really don’t know what you’re talking about… The average cost of Intel chips has been around $40 since 2003!

            Sure, that still means Intel is charging hundreds on top of the cost of the chip but the chip is more than just the material and manufacturing costs but also the cost of the intellectual property and the hidden costs involved in developing the technology to begin with… Until you can wrap your head around that simple fact then you’re not going to be correctly estimating how much these chips should actually be fairly priced!

            While again, you’re focusing on the cost of the processor/SoC to the exclusion of everything else when everything else still makes up the bulk of total costs of these devices!

            And no, you’re also wrong on battery life because they already achieved a competitive level with the last gen ATOMs and have since advanced along with the rest of the market… So the only reason a Intel based device wouldn’t have competitive battery life is because the OEM didn’t design it with competitive battery life…

            Really, even ARM SoCs get throttled to preserve battery life! The days that Intel couldn’t compete on power efficiency is over two years ago!

            The Tangier (Merrifield) and Moorefield even still use Imagination Power VR GPU’s, just like the majority of ARM SoCs like Apple’s!

            What Intel still has trouble competing is in graphical performance for its own in-house GMA and unit costs… Thus why they presently subsidize their mobile chips and the main focus of the next Cherry Trail/Braswell update is on graphical performance… Immediately advancing the ATOM to the same Gen 8 GPU as Broadwell and increasing the number of EU’s from the present 4 to 8/16…

            Braswell also focuses on lowering costs for Intel and also OEM’s by making it far easier to source 3rd party parts…

            Much of the reason why ARM is so affordable is because it is so easy to source parts and customize design… So Intel is already addressing part of that disparity…

            While the Goldmont update (Willow Trail, Morganfield, etc) will address the remainder by providing a platform that can similarly be customized as needed and is fully flexible from mobile to mid range devices… Along with more than doubling the max performance they can offer by then as well…

            But before we get side tracked again, stop ignoring the cost of the rest of the device!

            The majority of the cost is for the rest of the device! The OEM profit margin is larger than the cost of the SoC!

            While the Core M isn’t a full SoC and that means it has additional chips that add to the space it needs… Like I stated before the board alone is pretty large and would leave very little space in a small 8.4″ tablet…

            Really, the Core M may be able to be put into fan-less tablets but even the Lenovo Yogo Pro 3 suffers from performance throttling and the Core M would only operate at full power when active cooling is added, as demonstrated by Intel with the prototype docking station that adding active cooling to help cool the demo tablet…

            So we’re not talking about a chip that is yet as easily assimilable into mobile devices as the ATOM series… It’s a lot closer but it’s still a larger chip and has to deal with additional components that a SoC would have integrated instead, further adding to the space needed by it…

            I could go on but it should be obvious already that my points are valid and I shouldn’t have to spell out everything for you to understand this!

Comments are closed.