Teclast X98 Pro Specs and Performance

Now we get to the meaty part: Intel Cherry Trail performance. Before we proceed to our benchmark scores, let’s list the full Teclast X98 Pro spec:

• SoC: Intel Atom Atom Z8500, 14nm
• CPU: Four 64-bit x86 cores (Airmont) clocked at 1.44GHz to 2.24GHz
• GPU: 8th generation Intel HD Graphics, 12 EUs, clocked at 200MHz to 600MHz
• RAM: 4GB LPDDR3
• Storage: 64GB internal eMMC 4.51, micro SD slot w UHS support
• OS: Windows 10 and Android 5.0
• Rear camera: 5-megapixel OmniVision sensor
• Front facing camera: 2-megapixel sensor
• Battery: 8000mAh lithium ion
• Dimensions: 239 x 169 x 8mm (9.39 x 6.64 x 0.31 inches)
• Weight: 526g (1.15lbs)
• Connectivity: 802.11b/g/n WiFi, Bluetooth, HDMI, OTG

A couple of things stand out in this list. There’s no mobile data, although we suspect it will be integrated in future models. While you get a cutting-edge SoC package, you don’t get the latest eMMC 5.0 storage. All this is understandable on a budget device and it’s no big deal. Our biggest problem is the lack of an ambient light sensor, which would help extend battery life and improve user experience by dimming the screen automatically. Budget or not, a tablet needs this cheap and useful sensor. 

Despite these foibles, all the building blocks of a high-performance Wintel tablet are here, so let’s see what Cherry Trail can do.

Since Airmont is a die-shrink of Silvermont, there are no spectacular improvements in CPU performance. Slightly higher clocks help in CPU-bound benchmarks, but don’t expect any miracles, especially not in sustained performance, when both parts start throttling.

The addition of 4GB of RAM will make a bigger difference in everyday tasks than a somewhat higher CPU clock. With more RAM, there’s less digging though storage that has to be done, which is always good. However, even though Telcast uses eMMC 4.51 storage in the X98 Pro, our tests indicate the transfers speeds are not bad at all. In fact, looking at external reviews of the Surface 3, we can conclude that Teclast is roughly on a par with Microsoft’s tablet, which is good news considering the huge price gap between these two devices.

So, if the CPU isn’t much faster, what exactly makes Cherry Trail so different? Well, Intel used the die area and thermal envelopes made possible by the 14nm node to integrate a vastly more powerful GPU in the new SoC. GPU performance is the key difference between Bay Trail and Cherry Trail.

Our benchmarks indicate the difference is truly staggering: We are looking at a twofold to threefold boost in most tests and real-life applications. For example, we tried WoT Blitz on a Bay Trail tablet and the review sample, demonstrating a huge performance gap between the two platforms. On the Bay Trail device, we usually got 23-28 FPS on Low detail settings, while the Cherry Trail-based Teclast had no trouble delivering 45-55FPS on High detail settings, with loads of additional eye candy features enabled. This is obviously a good score, considering the 2048x1536 resolution and the fact that WoT Blitz is a very demanding title.

This is great news for Intel and end-consumers. Bay Trail was a good performer, and when it launched, the four Ivy Bridge EUs could keep up with most GPUs used in high-end ARM processors at the time, such as Qualcomm’s Adreno 320. However, that was almost two years ago, and by today’s standards Bay Trail’s GPU is mid-range at best (at this point we are just being kind here). Cherry Trail’s Gen8 GPU, with three times as many EUs and a newer architecture, is a different beast. Basic Windows benchmarks indicate that the new GPU is a good performer that should stand the test of time better than Bay Trail’s GPU. In Android, the sample performed much better.

So far so good, but once you get deeper into it, things turn for the worse. Throttling was our biggest problem with this test unit, especially in GPU-bound tests. Although the 14nm node allowed Intel to stick more transistors into this tiny SoC package and beef up the GPU, it did not do wonders in the thermal department. Sure, you can expect a lot more from 14nm processors, but the idea behind Cherry Trail wasn’t to simply make it more efficient than its 22nm predecessor; it’s supposed to be a better performer as well, especially in the GPU department.

This is the Windows 3Dmark score, and it's not very impressive. However, we had more luck in Android, with a score of 24606 (Unlimited).

This means the new SoC has the exact same scenario design power (SDP) as comparable Bay Trail SKUs, albeit with a slight clock bump. On full blast, the added 8 EUs can generate quite a bit of heat, and we suspect Cherry Trail can heat up faster than Bay Trail in GPU-bound applications and benchmarks. The GPU was the bottleneck on Bay Trail parts, but on Cherry Trail it is not, so it can heat up in no time.

In CPU stress tests, the core temperature hits 85°C before the SoC starts throttling and cutting the CPU clock from 2.24GHz to 1.4GHz. This can take a few minutes and it’s nothing unusual on mobile parts. They are not designed for sustained performance and high Turbo clocks are only supposed to speed up application launches and other demanding tasks. Most of the time, the system doesn’t have to go into Turbo territory, because most people simply don’t use tablets for demanding productivity applications and games.

In Aida and Sandra, the new Cherry Trail SoC performs well.

However, when we tried pushing the GPU to its limits using FurMark, things escalated much quicker. It was not a matter of minutes, as throttling started becoming apparent less than a minute into the test. The temperature went up in no time, and the clocks went down accordingly. This, of course, happens on Bay Trail and other mobile SoCs as well, but it’s a bitter pill to swallow, considering the threefold increase in EU count and the use of a new manufacturing node. It’s easy to argue that Cherry Trail will still outperform Bay Trail when it throttles its GPU, because it will, even at lower clocks, but that’s beside the point.

Once again, we should note that we are dealing with a pre-production hardware sample from a small, budget brand. It’s possible that Teclast cut some corners to ship these units as soon as possible, which would explain these issues to some extent. However, the company has been churning out Bay Trail tablets in the exact same chassis for a while, and we suspect it simply kept using the exact same cooling layout. It’s obviously not good enough, and while it could handle Bay Trail and its much smaller GPU, it simply fails to dissipate the heat generated by Cherry Trail’s 12 EUs. We suspect a lot of fine tuning in Windows needed, as the tablet did not exhibit nearly as many GPU performance issues in Android.

In Antutu, it outpaced Bay Trail devices by about 50%, and it beat the Moorefield processor in the Asus Zenfone 2 by about 10%

In Geekbench 3, we got an average multi-core test, but the single-core results were quite good.

Ironically, while throttling is a problem for Teclast, it gives us chip geeks a chance to compare two generations of processors in the exact same chassis, with the same cooling, which is not something we get a chance to do often. It illustrates that Cherry Trail, despite its advanced 14nm node, may require better cooling than Bay Trail, to compensate for the added GPU muscle.

On the other hand, FurMark is a tad too much for a mobile device. If you use this tablet as any other tablet, for browsing and content consumption, you shouldn’t experience a lot of problems. However, if you want to run demanding games, you will encounter a lot of throttling.

Storage performance was adequate for this type of device, but by no means impressive.