Slow as a snail: X-Scale powered Dell Axim

Officially, Dell has said, "We're working to verify whether or not there's a performance issue." But isn't the spokesperson being a little coy?

Microsoft has said, "Feedback from product reviewers, enthusiasts and customers has been positive around the quality and performance of the new Windows Mobile software." So from Microsoft's perspective, everything is hunky-dory.

The Washington Post technology correspondent, however, paints a less than rosy picture.

What about Intel? It's technology is at the heart of this product. So what's inside? Dell customers have a two-model product range to choose from. The entry-level device supports an Intel X-Scale processor at 300 MHz, 32 MB of Intel StrataFlash ROM memory, and the same amount of SDRAM. The advanced version increases the processor speed to 400 MHz, and the ROM memory to 48 MB; the SDRAM doubles to 64MB.

Last August, I wrote a four-paragraph piece (August 14th) about X-Scale's poor performance, which VHJ has kindly given permission to republish here:

"ZDNet has picked up on a few of the negative performance aspects of Intel's latest and not so great StrongArm-based X-Scale PXA250 processor that serves the PDA market. In short, the X-Scale performs no better than the StongArm it replaces, even though it operates at nearly twice the clock-speed.

It all sounds very similar to the P4 intro where its higher frequency failed to translate into higher performance until SSE2 optimized benchmarks, extra cache, and big frequency ramps saved the day [ed: sort of; the Athlon XP still wins a good many benches]. X-Scale runs at almost twice the frequency of the StrongArm SA1110 design that it replaces, but only gives comparable performance when executing tasks on Microsoft's Pocket PC PDA operating system.

A Microsoft spokesman said, "Fundamentally, devices don't seem to be demonstrating the performance improvement that many were expecting." Although a generational mismatch between Microsoft's Pocket PC operating system and Intel's X-Scale processor is the line that is currently being trotted out as an explanation for this, Microsoft has no plans to upgrade the OS for X-Scale. So consumers will again be offered new technology that fails to meet expectations, and is invariably more expensive. Further commentary can be read here.

History again repeats itself and the frequency myth continues. The sad fact for companies like AMD, is that history has taught us that Intel's first generation products, even though they may perform badly, will eventually go on to turn silicon into gold."

So these Dell Axim PDA stories about poor performance should not be a surprise. Microsoft has already implied that X-Scale is an under performer.

When these Axim owners upgraded their OS, did they really believe that they would get more features and better performance from the same platform? If past Microsoft OS upgrades teach us anything - Win 3.1 to 95 to 98 comes to mind - each new OS required a better performing platform to achieve the same level of speed as the previous OS. It now seems apparent that Microsoft's Pocket PC 2003 has revealed Axim's performance ceiling, and with it Intel's PDA technology.

CNet also reports, "A number of manufacturers--including Dell, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Toshiba and ViewSonic--have announced new PDA models or plans to offer new models based on the Windows Mobile 2003 for Pocket PC in the near future."

These new models will no doubt be based on Intel's PDA technology, so it had better be a lot better than what we're currently seeing from Dell. If not, we're likely to hear more from a growing list of disappointed consumers.

If these new models prove to be under performers, it might mean reverting to Pocket PC 2002, just to make these products useable. Now that would be embarrassing, especially for Intel.

I've never seen the "intel inside" logo used for X-Scale. Because most consumers don't know what drives their technology, it was a smart move on Intel's part to leave the logo out, which nicely shines the accountability light on someone else.

It seems apparent to me that Intel needs some real competition to bring X-Scale up to a level of performance that is acceptable to end users. AMD has its Alchemy Solutions SOC (system-on-chip) products that could fit the bill. Compared with Intel's X-Scale at 400 MHz, the 500 MHz AMD Alchemy Au1100 offers about 30% better MIPS performance at around 25% less power ( page 8 of PDF). It would of course mean porting Windows Mobile 2003 to MIPS, but at least the end user would get performance that is useable, and better battery life to boot.

It's interesting to note that the AMD Alchemy Au1100 will be used to power the "Student PC", which will be used by 215 million Chinese students ( page 11 of PDF). Why wasn't Intel's X-Scale good enough to meet that need? It would seem that the Chinese Ministry of Education did their homework; the same can't be said of Dell.

See Also
Has Dell's Axim got a big Microsoft problemo?

External L'INQage
Update slows Dell handhelds, say owners
X-Scale fails to deliver (August 14th)
Intel: Software makers can speed X-Scale
X-Scale-Pocket PC marriage lacks oomph
Arm wrestling with Microsoft tests Intel's muscle
Don't Pick This Pocket