| Sunday, August 17 2008 |
While AMD touted the Bobcat as a definitive competitor to Intel Atom, being a low-power K8 based part with the same design advantages its ancestors had over competing Intel parts when they made up for higher performing alternatives, this part won't make it until next year, enough time for the Atom to gain a stronger foothold in the market. As immediate competition to the Atom, AMD seems to have set an Athlon 64 2000+ single core processor as its ULPC / UMPC processor part. This processor is single core, features a 1.00 GHz clock-speed and 256 KB of L2 cache, which should still give it a performance edge over a 1.50 GHz Atom judging purely by the fact that the Atom isn't based on the Core micro-architecture (yet) and uses an older design.
This processor is based on the Lima core, what's most surprising is that it is found to operate at 8 W at its 1.00 GHz frequency which brings it into the Atom platform's energy domain. The second most surprising point is that this processor will be aided by the powerful AMD 780G core logic (chipset), as opposed to current Atom platforms using a i945G adaptation that has significantly higher thermal envelope as opposed the AMD 780G while being a lot slower (in terms of graphics performance and features). Tom's Hardware conducted a comparison between the two and found that the Athlon-780G combo "knocks-out" Atom-i945G technologically.
The AMD 780G uses a fraction of the power i945G uses and makes up for several features the i945G lacks. The only drawback as of now is that AMD hasn't quite been able to reduce the board footprint of these parts. Despite having double the TDP to that of Atom, at 8 W, the Athlon chip still remained comfortable with passive cooling. This opens up a new round of competition, of that between Athlon and VIA Nano which claims to have higher levels of performance / watt over Intel Atom. The first picture shows the processor itself, the second one shows the processor seated on a AMD 780G based motherboard made by Gigabyte, where the processor is made to be cooled by the stock AMD AM2 cooler with the fan removed, to study the effects of passive cooling on the processor.
Source: Tom's Hardware
This processor is based on the Lima core, what's most surprising is that it is found to operate at 8 W at its 1.00 GHz frequency which brings it into the Atom platform's energy domain. The second most surprising point is that this processor will be aided by the powerful AMD 780G core logic (chipset), as opposed to current Atom platforms using a i945G adaptation that has significantly higher thermal envelope as opposed the AMD 780G while being a lot slower (in terms of graphics performance and features). Tom's Hardware conducted a comparison between the two and found that the Athlon-780G combo "knocks-out" Atom-i945G technologically.
The AMD 780G uses a fraction of the power i945G uses and makes up for several features the i945G lacks. The only drawback as of now is that AMD hasn't quite been able to reduce the board footprint of these parts. Despite having double the TDP to that of Atom, at 8 W, the Athlon chip still remained comfortable with passive cooling. This opens up a new round of competition, of that between Athlon and VIA Nano which claims to have higher levels of performance / watt over Intel Atom. The first picture shows the processor itself, the second one shows the processor seated on a AMD 780G based motherboard made by Gigabyte, where the processor is made to be cooled by the stock AMD AM2 cooler with the fan removed, to study the effects of passive cooling on the processor.
Source: Tom's Hardware
User comments
nice one amd, this is what amd should have done from day 1, where intel is weak amd should av been king. SIMPLE
wtf? 2000+? that's like mid-range socket A speed.
by: hat;933464
wtf? 2000+? that's like mid-range socket A speed.
Compare it to the Atom.
Now that AMD has downgraded its mobile processors, its on.
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
Who the hell is gonna care about 4w?
If this is an immediate competition then it may be enough to knock the sales out of intels Atom. Good strategy AMD!
by: ShadowFold;933500I shit 4 watts for breakfast :p
Who the hell is gonna care about 4w?
The 2000s not really comparable in the most important field, size. It's only available in mATX form factor so basically pushes it's self out of the market it's trying to get a foothold in. I guess it all depends on who they can get to use this in an ITX or netbook. It's performance per watt puts it above intel and Via but we all know AMDs biggest problems always been marketing.
Ive been doing some research in this area, cheap my low power computing thread in system builders
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;933534with the 780 chipset you would expect that though
Ive been doing some research in this area, cheap my low power computing thread in system builders
The intel solution isnt blu ray capable (something one would want in a htpc), and with todays high energy rates one could se how one would want a low powered htpc or download box.
the amd solution has 3 times the sata ports, insanely faster onboards graphics, just to name a few.
by: lemonadesoda;933489Actually, if you actually read the entirety of Tom's review, they came up with a 13% performance advantage for the Athlon in real-world tests (not the synthetics you posted). Factor in the huge advantage in graphics power (and features) offered by the 780G chipset, and I don't see a whole lot of fail. Also, keep in mind that they used a desktop-grade motherboard with a 4-phase power design. The Athlon system proved itself energy efficient as it is, and with a minimalist board design like the Atom uses, power consumption would only drop further. Swap the 780G for a 740G and... Well, I think you get my point.
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
{performance graph}
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
{performance graph}
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
The real downside is, as you said, the size of the chip, but I highly doubt that is going to restrict it in the netbook market. UMPCs, maybe, but do we even have full-speed Atom chips in the UMPC market to begin with? No, nor is that a market consumers are particularly interested in anyway. The primary issue as I see it will come from the higher cost of production for AMD, especially given that they will be competing in a low-margin market to begin with. As the Tom's preview pointed out, while I'm sure AMD's yields on K8 chips are doing just fine, what we're not sure of is how many of them can run at the voltage standard this chip is setting, and that may be what ultimately creates a good deal of trouble for the project until its successor arrives...
by: WhiteLotus;933537True dat
with the 780 chipset you would expect that though
Tom's states the 2000 system can't decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
by: unsmart;933561but even so the 2000 coupled with the 780 chipset is a no brainer surely
Tom's states the 2000 system can decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
by: unsmart;933561The intel system cant even get to that resolution much less to think about decoding it
Tom's states the 2000 system can decrypt blu ray ether.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997-8.html
AMD should have released dual-core 8w cpu directly not single core, then no competion atleast some money will go into AMD's pocket.
by: lemonadesoda;933489
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
PCmark AND tom's hardware bwhahahahahah. Everyone knows that BOTH are paid by intel. They have been for years.
It has to be the worst possible synthetic benchmark. (besides the old sysmark that intel owned, but would never admit to).
At 1 GHz I can get an old turion (like 2 yrs old) to run a lot lower (well a lot relatively haha) than .8v, so I wouldn't be worried about any yields. They could've made these years ago.
This 8W isn't jack with the mem controller on there and w/o a chipset devouring power unlike the atom.
They need to take off the heatspreader and spread out those fins along the MB (a nice new and thin cooler design).
This 8W isn't jack with the mem controller on there and w/o a chipset devouring power unlike the atom.
They need to take off the heatspreader and spread out those fins along the MB (a nice new and thin cooler design).
actully if they really wanted to compete id bring AXP back actully. Its smaller, and lower power, imagine a 65nm Barton and what it would actully do. And as said the A64 2000 is about the speed of an AXP 2400 in reality, so id say bring me a Barton AXP 2ghz chip on a 65nm process, and make it imbedded to save time
@DrPepper :roll: That was too funny.
I say this is a good move by AMD, get in everywhere. the netbook is the "it" thing these days so it may pay off for AMD.
I say this is a good move by AMD, get in everywhere. the netbook is the "it" thing these days so it may pay off for AMD.
by: WhiteLotus;933566The vid has no issue with blu ray,it's the CPU not able to decrypt the data for processing by the GPU. The upside to the 2000 using mATX is there may some software OCing option that could bump it up just enough to play blu ray and then drop it back. It really does make you wonder how much you could down clock some of todays CPUs.
but even so the 2000 coupled with the 780 chipset is a no brainer surely
I can run my X2 4200 @ 1000mhz with 1v but its an EE chip though its Windsor, im sure the Brisbane could go lower
the big thing about this is the chipset - 945g and its onboard video are damn well antiques, and the AMD chipset uses less power than the intel version which evens up the power usage.
The CPU is faster, but uses more power - the chipset is faster, more modern, and better features - yet it uses less power. Overall the AMD system is as clear winner.
The CPU is faster, but uses more power - the chipset is faster, more modern, and better features - yet it uses less power. Overall the AMD system is as clear winner.
Why don't they take the Phenom and clock down each core to like .5ghz? Lol how would that handle?
Edit: Just messing around with AOD and droped the multi to 5x and the fsb to 100 and got it to .5ghz each core. Didn't apply though.
Edit: Just messing around with AOD and droped the multi to 5x and the fsb to 100 and got it to .5ghz each core. Didn't apply though.
by: zaqwsx;933692i think the concern there is expense, and that a quad would be wasted on a ULPC - dont forget that a quad at 500MHz would be next to useless for apps that cant utilise more than one core.
Why don't they take the Phenom and clock down each core to like .5ghz? Lol how would that handle?
Edit: Just messing around with AOD and droped the multi to 5x and the fsb to 100 and got it to .5ghz each core. Didn't apply though.
by: Mussels;933704Your right but it would be funny to see!
i think the concern there is expense, and that a quad would be wasted on a ULPC - dont forget that a quad at 500MHz would be next to useless for apps that cant utilise more than one core.
by: zaqwsx;933708lol i actually run my quads at 200x6 (1.2GHz 1.15v) sometimes when i know i'll just be watching media and not gaming. barely makes a difference to windows/2D use, and some games barely even change.
Your right but it would be funny to see!
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
actully if they really wanted to compete id bring AXP back actully. Its smaller, and lower power, imagine a 65nm Barton and what it would actully do. And as said the A64 2000 is about the speed of an AXP 2400 in reality, so id say bring me a Barton AXP 2ghz chip on a 65nm process, and make it imbedded to save time
why can't intel die shrink the i945G though?
by: PP Mguire;933736yes it did, but the volts where 1.65 and 130nm. Now voltage goes down with die size, the A64 is more complex than AXP is for one thing, while being very similar to AXP with IMC. Now then shrink the Barton from 130nm to 65nm. That drops the die size and voltage alot, and id bet an XP 3000 @ 65nm would run with about .07V be insanely small also, its only 51.3m transistors remember
AXPs run hot as hell though. What ever happend to Nvidias Targa (sp)? That thing looked to be teh p00nage.
0.7 volts you mean?
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;933753No, the chip is bond, athlon bond 0.07
0.7 volts you mean?
Is that a horrible joke or what :laugh:
by: TheGuruStud;933755I sig that
No, the chip is bond, athlon bond 0.07
Is that a horrible joke or what :laugh:
jesus is coming soon, repent!
In truth im glad to see AMD fighting back, the new Deneb looks great, and this could hurt ATOM badly. Now if they would advertise it they would have a chance of retaking the market
amd, advertise? yeh right!
by: lemonadesoda;933489BOBCAT is going to be released next year, AND because of that AMD has released this Lima NOW to compete until Bobcat is ready.
I doubt Intel will be standing still for NINE MONTHS until AMD are ready to launch their competitive product.
AMD Lima is HUGE
...not good for embedded or pica-ITX.
Just applying Moore's law of doubling CPU power every 18 months, we should expect Lima to beat current Atom by at least 100% in order to be a clear winner in 9 months time.
... I'm not seeing it at all. It's going to be about the same performance as Atom is today. The only time Lima beats Atom is when HT is turned off. In fact, being so late to market and no better in performance and being so much bigger, there is only one descriptive: FAIL
Judging by the benches at Tom's there's only one descriptive IMO: epic WIN.
This is not a big deal, and not any real achievement by AMD. Intel could release a 1GHz Celeron 400 and it would achieve the same thing AMD has done here. This isn't going to compete with Atom, it is way to big to do it.
The thing about Atom is it's size, it has a tiny die, and a very tiny footprint. The Atom processor is smaller than a Penny, this is a standard AM2 processor, there is a huge difference.
The thing about Atom is it's size, it has a tiny die, and a very tiny footprint. The Atom processor is smaller than a Penny, this is a standard AM2 processor, there is a huge difference.
I'm not so sure about that: 1.2 Ghz Celeron consumes a lot more than the Atom and this 2000+. 200 mhz won't make a big difference. And Intel will not release a Celeron that would compete with Atom and the problem with Atom is the platform anyway. It is too big and power hungry (the whole platform) to have an edge in UMPCs and ULPCs, and too underpowered for use it in desktop low-cost PCs. They are using it anyway, but I don't see the point except for marketing purposes. Overall Celeron based Eee was better than the new one IMO.
TBH I don't know what Intel was thinking when they designed the Atom. Designing a chip like Atom just to put it to waste by pairing it up with that chipset...
EDIT: Oh and the size of the CPU means nothing until you have a chipset that can fit in really small devices. RIght now none can be used into them, that's the point.
TBH I don't know what Intel was thinking when they designed the Atom. Designing a chip like Atom just to put it to waste by pairing it up with that chipset...
EDIT: Oh and the size of the CPU means nothing until you have a chipset that can fit in really small devices. RIght now none can be used into them, that's the point.
atoms problem is entirely the chipset, i agree with you darkmatter.
Any one considering the price?
The eeepc with its Atom processor(1000H) costs 29,000INR compared to a compaq with a dual core AMD 1.9 ghz(the newer puma) and an Nvidia 8200 Graphics card and 160Gb hdd for 30,000INR. Even the Dell vostro's are less expensive.
The eeepc with its Atom processor(1000H) costs 29,000INR compared to a compaq with a dual core AMD 1.9 ghz(the newer puma) and an Nvidia 8200 Graphics card and 160Gb hdd for 30,000INR. Even the Dell vostro's are less expensive.
yous getting robbed .. you can get an atom board for less tahn an A64 2000+
:|
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;933555
True dat
You can game on a ULPC :)
AMD are making me cry by holding its release back. God damn it the 4850e + 780G was impressive, now that amount of power for a UMPC would be awesome! (As well as sub-desktop computers...these systems have more than enough power for internet cafes, etc).
by: [I.R.A]_FBi;933793askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
amd, advertise? yeh right!
Excuse me i meant Nvidia Tegra.
http://www.overclock3d.net/news.php?/gpu_displays/nvidia_launches_its_tegra_processors/1
http://www.overclock3d.net/news.php?/gpu_displays/nvidia_launches_its_tegra_processors/1
i see all tests , amd 64+ below intel away , that's good for amd laptop's i hope see same in desktop
by: btarunr;933956i asked the indians here and they say they've never heard of it
askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
by: Mussels;934016What are they, tourists? Immigrants? AMD is quite a brand here. Storekeepers "recommend" AMD + GeForce IGP boards over Intel + Intel IGP.
i asked the indians here and they say they've never heard of it
Maybe they are just like, total n00bs? *in Jeremy voice*
by: btarunr;934019theres just two indians who live where i'm staying right now, and their friends. They cook really bad tasting curry all the time :P
What are they, tourists? Immigrants? AMD is quite a brand here. Storekeepers "recommend" AMD + GeForce IGP boards over Intel + Intel IGP.
I guess they've been in aus for a few years now, is this vishy thing new?
by: Mussels;934028Vishy's career is pretty old. Ask your friends about him, they'll know - Vishwanathan Anand (Chess Grandmaster) - but this ad campaign isn't, it's a little over 4 months old.
theres just two indians who live where i'm staying right now, and their friends. They cook really bad tasting curry all the time :P
I guess they've been in aus for a few years now, is this vishy thing new?
Most people in India say AMD heats up a lot.
AMD does advertise decently enough much more than what Intel does over here. They even have
"Technology partner AMD" at the end of some of the popular TV serials.
edit-As far as the cooking goes, men don't start learning cooking here until they have to start living by themselves. The mother generally cooks.
AMD does advertise decently enough much more than what Intel does over here. They even have
"Technology partner AMD" at the end of some of the popular TV serials.
edit-As far as the cooking goes, men don't start learning cooking here until they have to start living by themselves. The mother generally cooks.
anyone hear about heat weather in iraq , iraq is no1 in temperature so im from iraq and i use amd and my friends use intel , my cpu have a little temp from intel im rest it as real test use my amd6000 and intel pantium D with 2m cash booth of them with stock fan and im turn off amd cool in quit, when room temp are 50c sure this is weather temp without AC in room , so in this test idle amd cpu temp read 63c with full load 74c , intel idle temp read 67c and full load im turn off pc when become 78c
You need to see what speed your fan is running at. Maybe you could try under clocking your CPU.
Pentium D heat up more AFAIK but a C2D and C2Q won't heat up as much as a x2 but the puma seems to be pretty cool.
I saw two laptops side by side in an exhibition which were probably on all day, One was a compaq and the other HP. The Hp with a C2D(T5850 I think) was running Vista with all drivers installed while the compaq a QL-60 running XP with no drivers. The HP was burning hot to touch even in the palm rest area while the compaq was warm even at the bottom.
Pentium D heat up more AFAIK but a C2D and C2Q won't heat up as much as a x2 but the puma seems to be pretty cool.
I saw two laptops side by side in an exhibition which were probably on all day, One was a compaq and the other HP. The Hp with a C2D(T5850 I think) was running Vista with all drivers installed while the compaq a QL-60 running XP with no drivers. The HP was burning hot to touch even in the palm rest area while the compaq was warm even at the bottom.
by: btarunr;933946you can pretty much game on ANY pc - so long as it aint from the age where Pentium DX's & SX's with their Windows 3.1 counter parts walked the earth (& if we are talking about the DX & SX then we must choose another game)
You can game on a ULPC :)
A great game that ive had working on almost ANY machine that ive ever touched - Unreal Tournament - software mode anyone???
even if you install it to play by yourself & not on a LAN - its still a good few hours of wreckless stupidity so long as u have tons of mods & maps to burn through.
probably the lowest spec machine ive come across which ive games on is a really really really really really really supremely really really old knakerd IBM thinkpad - I think it was running a PII at 166-200Mhz with 8mb RAM & a build in Trident (II???) 2mb G.card
running a ton of skin mods loads of extra maps & a Dennis Leary sound mod....
I had a fun 12hr shift at work that day lol - I even had a mate pop in & take have a go on the laptop. but the only bad thing was the cooling vents & cooling fan was all clogged up with dust so I didnt need any central heating turned on.
I lacked the tools & the time to take the laptop apart but then again it wasnt my laptop to begin with :toast::toast::toast::toast:
Your forgetting counter strike.
And doom.
by: xfire;934150not really - im not making a list of ALL the games you can run in 'software mode' I just happend to mention U.T because its one of the games i ALWAYS seem to be carrying around a on 4gb USB stick.
Your forgetting counter strike.
but yeah if we were to start someplace - Lemmings - Worms - Quake - Strike (I loved that game on my DX II)
omg...quake - damn i had fun running that across the college network along with U.T & having campus Vs. campus tournaments (even though we were told we werent allowed to run games across the network) but for both U.T & Quake i was either 1st or 2nd place out of 10+ people. then i would start getting hungry & my scores would plummet... :confused:
its happend at LAN parties too where id be godlike one moment then fall 3 places because im hungry :eek::eek:
never game on an empty stomach
I actualy have that same problem myself.
Makes me remember the days of gaming UT04 in high school.
Makes me remember the days of gaming UT04 in high school.
by: btarunr;933956:|
askvishy.com apparently they spent lots of money in India. Indian buyers seem to love AMD and adore Vishy
what about the rest of the world? id love to be in india though, intels must sell for cheep
by: DarkMatter;933842The 1.2GHz Celeron L only consumed 19w at 1.3v, and remember, it was a desktop aimed product. Considering the scalability of the Core architecture, dropping the speed to 1GHz, and binning them to find the ones that can do that speed at 1v or below and you have a processor that easily competes with Atom and the Athlon 2000+.
I'm not so sure about that: 1.2 Ghz Celeron consumes a lot more than the Atom and this 2000+. 200 mhz won't make a big difference. And Intel will not release a Celeron that would compete with Atom and the problem with Atom is the platform anyway. It is too big and power hungry (the whole platform) to have an edge in UMPCs and ULPCs, and too underpowered for use it in desktop low-cost PCs. They are using it anyway, but I don't see the point except for marketing purposes. Overall Celeron based Eee was better than the new one IMO.
TBH I don't know what Intel was thinking when they designed the Atom. Designing a chip like Atom just to put it to waste by pairing it up with that chipset...
EDIT: Oh and the size of the CPU means nothing until you have a chipset that can fit in really small devices. RIght now none can be used into them, that's the point.
I agree, that Intel won't do this, but my point wasn't that Intel should do it, it was that essentially, that is all AMD did. They took a single core processor that already exists, dropped the clock speed down to pathetic levels, and binned them to find the ones that would do that low clock speed at an extremely low voltage. That isn't anything special, IMO. When they get something that is actually new, then we can make a big deal out of it.
As for the chipset, I totally agree, right now the chipset is the downfall of Atom. The 780G is definitely better than the i945. Though you don't have to use a i945 with Atom.
What other option you have right now besides i945?
On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?
If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something. But right now we don't need Atom as it is. Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution, you can't implement it in smaller devices, so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it. Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine. If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is. I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway. It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?
If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something. But right now we don't need Atom as it is. Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution, you can't implement it in smaller devices, so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it. Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine. If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is. I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway. It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
by: DarkMatter;934361
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
Eee - Cheap, small & more enviromentally friendly?
though I kinda agree - its nothing more then just a Micro/Baby ATX (Or ITX???)
tightly packed into an incredibally small case made of recycled plastic.
Personally I think if they really wanted to they could influence the industry & bring down the overall price of the 'mobile' hardware market so you can walk into your local hardware store & order an MxM g.card or Mobile CPU, Mini PCi cards etc - & have them stick it in a bag for you at the RIGHT prices & also because they ACTUALLY stock them
not many high street shops will stock cpus & other upgrades asside from RAM for laptops. I swear if they cut down the price & stocked them - everyone would be running an much more efficient PC
take a look at the Pentium M cpu they used in laptops - some online retailers sold Mini/Baby ATX's for them & the CPU's overclocked & performed like mad while also retaining their energy saving abilities.
like i said - if mobility parts were cheaper im sure everyone would be replacing their Media centers with these low power consumpton components
Agreed. But I suppose desktop parts are cheaper for a reason. If they could make mobile parts as cheap as desktop ones they would simply do it. Mass market is big enough to take the risk if the problem was that, as was the case when the mobile market was on it's infancy. Or maybe they are still trying to exploit the "new" market, making more profits. That's a posibility, of course.
EEE-Pc is not cheap. You can get much better laptops for that price.
by: xfire;935299
EEE-Pc is not cheap. You can get much better laptops for that price.
Newegg has nice sales if you watch. They had an HP turion x2 1.8, 3gb ram, 250 hdd, nvidia, etc for 650. That's a steal.
thats a nice little compaq - you could tweak it to play HD media and even light gaming (WoW on minimum settings, CS/CSS on minimum etc)
I'm getting it:D
by: DarkMatter;934361I'm not sure, but I know I just read an article that said manufactures were starting to use other chipsets with them. I thought I read it here...
What other option you have right now besides i945?
by: DarkMatter;934361Size and cost are the major reasons. Getting the die size down as small as possible was one of the main goals. This allows them to fit a huge number on a single wafer(~2500 IIRC), which maximizes profits while still keeping the final costs extremely low. Plus the small die produces very little heat.
On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?
by: DarkMatter;934361You do know that the 945GSE is a sub-10w chipset, right? The desktop version of the i945 Tom's used is a 22w chipset, but there is nothing really stopping anyone from using the laptop chipset in the desktops.
If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something.
by: DarkMatter;934361We don't need it in desktop as it is, in moble devices with the mobile chipset, it is a wonderful addition.
But right now we don't need Atom as it is.
by: DarkMatter;934361I agree, in the desktop environment, but ulta-mobile Atom solutions are much smaller, look at the Eee PC as an example.
Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution
by: DarkMatter;934361Then how did they get it in an EeePC?
you can't implement it in smaller devices
by: DarkMatter;934361No, it just has no advantages in the segment Tom's tested it in.
so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it
by: DarkMatter;934361They already have made a proper chipset, the i954GSE, it just isn't used with the desktop version, but it could be.
Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine.
by: DarkMatter;934361I hope they do, healthy competition is good for the consumer(me).
If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is.
by: DarkMatter;934361The Ulsub-notebook market, like the EeePC, is really the only market where it fits.
I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway.
by: DarkMatter;934361Tegra and Atom shouldn't even be considered in the same legue. Atom is meant for computers, Tegra is meant for portable devices(Cell Phones, PDAs, GPS Units, etc.). The Sub-Notebook market is really the only place Atom fits, and Tegra is way too under-powered for that market, and other solutions are way too power hungy. The difference between 50w and 55w in the sub-notebook market can be about 15 minutes of battery life, something that is definitely important to a lot of people.
It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?
by: DarkMatter;934361It is all a matter of preference. Some people like the Sub-Notebook, ultra-small, super-light notebooks. They like having something that they can fit in their car's glove box, and still have the ability to type on a real keyboard, use the internet at Starbucks. I know when I was in college I would have bought one of the smaller ones in an instant. I had to lug enough crap around campus, I would have gladdly paid for a smaller laptop.
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
WOW against such a methodical reply what can I say? :D
Well I was asking if there was another chipset as I didn't knew if there was any. Even though after a second read I must admit my question looks rhetorical.
I neither knew the existance of the mobile version, see, I thought they used the same. All my next comments were derived from this, so what can I say...
As of when talking about smaller devices I was refering to smaller ones. That's why I introduced Tegra. As I said it's because I don't like the small EeePC and similars. For me there's no place for anything between a full featured PC and iPhone/Touch-like devices. But that's just me, I recognize that other people want such things, so I withdraw what was said.
Oh and the 50/55 watts was about a desktop/media center PC. Again the lack of knowledge about the mobile chipset, made me think Atom was not really ready (not more than a Celeron) for ultra-mobile devices. I don't know anything about the Eee anyway, just the specs overview.
Well I was asking if there was another chipset as I didn't knew if there was any. Even though after a second read I must admit my question looks rhetorical.
I neither knew the existance of the mobile version, see, I thought they used the same. All my next comments were derived from this, so what can I say...
As of when talking about smaller devices I was refering to smaller ones. That's why I introduced Tegra. As I said it's because I don't like the small EeePC and similars. For me there's no place for anything between a full featured PC and iPhone/Touch-like devices. But that's just me, I recognize that other people want such things, so I withdraw what was said.
Oh and the 50/55 watts was about a desktop/media center PC. Again the lack of knowledge about the mobile chipset, made me think Atom was not really ready (not more than a Celeron) for ultra-mobile devices. I don't know anything about the Eee anyway, just the specs overview.