9w 1.2Ghz single core processor? But Atom 330 eats only 8w and is dual core at 1.6Ghz. Unless Acer gives it a big battery, I don't see how this is going to win any battles against the Atom. Perhaps the HD 4225 graphics is going to make this a clear winner.

Fourstaff9w 1.2Ghz single core processor? But Atom 330 eats only 8w and is dual core at 1.6Ghz. Unless Acer gives it a big battery, I don't see how this is going to win any battles against the Atom. Perhaps the HD 4225 graphics is going to make this a clear winner.

The thing is the Atom dual core are no faster than a 3Ghz-ish Pentium D ;)
Cool'n Quiet also allows a lower multi than SpeedStep.

Fourstaff9w 1.2Ghz single core processor? But Atom 330 eats only 8w and is dual core at 1.6Ghz. Unless Acer gives it a big battery, I don't see how this is going to win any battles against the Atom. Perhaps the HD 4225 graphics is going to make this a clear winner.

It should be said that a K8 A64 1ghz can be up to 7 times faster than a singlecore atom with HT @ 1.6ghz.

K10 2nd gen is 25% faster than K8 ? or more, and the ht speeds and NB speeds over K8 contribute aswell.

i think k10 rocks atom, still costs more to make but its faster.

I think I am overestimating the power of an Atom processor.

FourstaffI think I am overestimating the power of an Atom processor.

The Atom is build purely for battery life, and pretty much everything modern is faster clock for clock.

is this the new congo platform? or is sucessor? or a one off?

Single core 1.2GHz is a bit disappointing, but the RV620 IGP overcomes the need for a dedicated video processor. It does two 1080p streams at the same time.

Plus, when the browsers start using GPU hardware acceleration, this platform should be a lot faster than the Atom.


I think this Aspire is supposed to fight the Atom machines in the low-cost netbooks, and not the CULV Core series in UMPCs.

[I.R.A]_FBiis this the new congo platform? or is sucessor? or a one off?

Congo is the old platform. It uses the old 65nm Athlon 64s and the Radeon 3200 IGP (it's my Ferrari One's platform).

This is the Nile platform. It features a 45nm Athlon II core codenamed Geneva (L3 cache-less) with expectedly lower idle power consumption.

The problem with the old 64nm is that there's no Cool&Quiet. My Athlon Neo L310 clocks at 1.2GHz constantly, so the power consumption is too high most of the time.

I hope I can replace my L310 for a dual-core Geneva, eventually. I bet it would bring more performance and a lot more battery time.

I'm glad to see AMD is expanding into Netbooks. power consumption is a bit high but if the performance is good, this can be a nice package (with the GPU).
I think this should be priced competitively in order to roll the platform in the long run.

I think this comes after Intel announced that they were temporarily halting production of ULVs & netbook processors (N280, N450 etc etc etc) after the how slow the market was to pick up the whole netbook storm

Ppl think that "more cores" and "higher clock" necessarily mean higher performance.
However "more cores" means 1 real core and one virtual one through HT feature. And higher clock doesn't mean much if it's using in-order processing opposed to out of order one probably used in AMD. I can say safely that AMD's 1,2GHz will beat Atom N270 class Intel CPU's easily.

Atom uses an in-order architecture, so even tho it has HT and more cores, it doesn't provide as much performance as a modern out of order processor. It can be faster but only under the right circumstances...

RejZoRPpl think that "more cores" and "higher clock" necessarily mean higher performance.
However "more cores" means 1 real core and one virtual one through HT feature. And higher clock doesn't mean much if it's using in-order processing opposed to out of order one probably used in AMD. I can say safely that AMD's 1,2GHz will beat Atom N270 class Intel CPU's easily.

Even so - that performance comes at a price. AMDs 'Nile' platform (the one used in this Acer netbook here) has a TDP of 9w compared to 2.5w on a N270, Atom's performance is a little slow n sluggish - but on the other hand your netbook can average 6-8hours between charges. & being a netbook, performance isnt top priority. AMD would probably struggle to hit 4hrs tops not bad but it falls extremely short of the Atom & who cares if Windows 7 takes 10 more seconds to boot up when the battery lasts 8hours??

FreedomEclipseEven so - that performance comes at a price. AMDs 'Nile' platform (the one used in this Acer netbook here) has a TDP of 9w compared to 2.5w on a N270, Atom's performance is a little slow n sluggish - but on the other hand your netbook can average 6-8hours between charges. & being a netbook, performance isnt top priority. AMD would probably struggle to hit 4hrs tops not bad but it falls extremely short of the Atom & who cares if Windows 7 takes 10 more seconds to boot up when the battery lasts 8hours??

You may be right, but don't forget the total platform power envelope too. The 65nm mobile amd parts failed miserably in the battery department, let's hope that these do better.

And how much watts does chipset eat in each case? We all know 945GS is far from low wattage one. Plus, AMD based netbook is more like a ULV version with far more muscle in general.
DDR3 and HD4000 series GPU ?

cant find nothing about chipset powerconsumption yet. but according to wiki - Geneva is supposed to be dual core...

Nile platform (2010)

AMD Ultrathin Platform planned for 1Q 2010, as the third AMD mobile platform targeting the ultra-portable notebook market. It will feature the 45nm Athlon Neo X2 Geneva CPU with 2 cores

Here are some power numbers one the predecessors from AT:

anandtech.com/show/2852/6
anandtech.com/show/2862/6

Except that loading programs and OS is more HDD speed dependent, rather than CPU speed.
The few exceptions I can see where a faster cpu helps is javascript performance, and encoding.

If the user can get control of the cpu's multi and voltage, then I would definitely make that my new laptop.

I'm sure we can all agree that clock for clock, this is much faster than the Atom.

FreedomEclipseEven so - that performance comes at a price. AMDs 'Nile' platform (the one used in this Acer netbook here) has a TDP of 9w compared to 2.5w on a N270, Atom's performance is a little slow n sluggish - but on the other hand your netbook can average 6-8hours between charges. & being a netbook, performance isnt top priority. AMD would probably struggle to hit 4hrs tops not bad but it falls extremely short of the Atom & who cares if Windows 7 takes 10 more seconds to boot up when the battery lasts 8hours??

The thing is we don't know what kind of Idle power these thing will be in.
Since Netbook CPUs and GPUs spends most of the time in Idle, and the fact that the Atom will work much harder doing the same task as a K10.

For example, a K10 will have no problem rendering most web pages in its Idle Clock, but the Atom on the other hand might be running at Full Speed. ;)

If this one from AMD is the Neo that coems with 2 physical cores, 9W is not bad at all.

ZubasaFor example, a K10 will have no problem rendering most web pages in its Idle Clock, but the Atom on the other hand might be running at Full Speed. ;)

When a processor is "idle", it does nothing.

I think you mean: if the Atom takes 1 second to do something at full speed, and if the K10 can do the same task in just 0.3 seconds, then while the Atom is finishing its task, the K10 can idle for 0.7 seconds. So it might be more efficient on average.

However, the K10 certainly does not render web pages while idle.

my mind renders naked pictures when idle, why can't the K10 ? :D

And as far as I know, the majority of the power consumption in an Intel Atom netbook comes from the actual chipset itself; the current 945GS doesn't have a very good power envelope, and has little in the way of power saving features.
I suspect if AMD managed to get the chipset on this to use very little amounts of power, then they might be able to draw even with the Atom platform.

Completely Bonkers

ZubasaFor example, a K10 will have no problem rendering most web pages in its Idle Clock, but the Atom on the other hand might be running at Full Speed. ;)

When a processor is "idle", it does nothing.

I think you mean: if the Atom takes 1 second to do something at full speed, and if the K10 can do the same task in just 0.3 seconds, then while the Atom is finishing its task, the K10 can idle for 0.7 seconds. So it might be more efficient on average.

However, the K10 certainly does not render web pages while idle.

If you read properly, you will see that I said "Idle Clock".
That means that the K10 don't even need to leave its lowest power state. (lowest besides things like C6 or sleep state)
Even my Turion Ultra (based on the K8) Notebook renders pages fine with at 525Mhz, and yes it very rarely need to even go to the next state.

FreedomEclipseEven so - that performance comes at a price. AMDs 'Nile' platform (the one used in this Acer netbook here) has a TDP of 9w compared to 2.5w on a N270, Atom's performance is a little slow n sluggish - but on the other hand your netbook can average 6-8hours between charges.

TDP isn't that important here. That stands for maximum consumption and it's used to determine the heat dissipation, not the battery life under "low usage".

Low idle consumption and voltage/clock speed scaling are far more important.


Just look at the battery life with CULV processors.
Many sub-notebooks with dual-core CULVs get as many "battery marks" as Atom machines, using the same 6-cell batteries.

The Acer Timeline 1810T has a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo, a more powerfull GPU than the Atom's 945G or GMA3150 and it will reach 8 hours with normal use.

Again, these Athlon Neo CPUs aren't meant to face the Atom machines. They're supposed to give the CULVs a run for their money as a platform, and they will thanks to the IGP.


The Atom wasn't meant to be in laptops to begin with. The architecture is supposed to invade the ARM's market of cellphones, portable media players and MIDs. That's why Intel sold the XScale division to Marvell in 2004 -> they're off to fight ARM in its own game.

The biggest problem is that WE understand clock per clock performance and comparing Atom to K10 is like comparing apples to donkeys. But the average Joe doesn't understand this one bit. So when they see 1.2GHZ they are simply going to dismiss it and go right to the 1.6GHZ spec. I see this happen all the time.

I think AMD should have targeted 1.6GHZ just for public image! But I'm glad to finally see an Intel alternative. DDR3 and the IGP should blow away the Intel chipset.