AMD: We're Launching an Atom Killer in 2010

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
AMd mentioned it would not get involved with netbooks and the Atom.
This shows how big liars they all are... Just like Sony with their newer PSP. Instead of saying they don't know or will get involved later, they said 6 months ago they where not going interfere with the netbook market!

They have some of the most energy efficient graphics cards. So if they could build a very basic Atom processor, with an integrated Radeon (IGP) on chip (like what Intel is trying to do with the G40 chipset), we might see some great gaming netbooks!
The GPU of a netbook doesn't need to be too great, since it only needs to support 1024x600 resolution at max; meaning even a Radeon 4650 or 4770 could play crysis at playable framerates.
 
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]AMd mentioned it would not get involved with netbooks and the Atom.This shows how big liars they all are... Just like Sony with their newer PSP. Instead of saying they don't know or will get involved later, they said 6 months ago they where not going interfere with the netbook market!They have some of the most energy efficient graphics cards. So if they could build a very basic Atom processor, with an integrated Radeon (IGP) on chip (like what Intel is trying to do with the G40 chipset), we might see some great gaming netbooks!The GPU of a netbook doesn't need to be too great, since it only needs to support 1024x600 resolution at max; meaning even a Radeon 4650 or 4770 could play crysis at playable framerates.[/citation]

Keep dreaming. Single core on a crysis workload? The CPU would self destruct with a big plume of smoke in the image of a raised middle finger telling you to sit and spin for even thinking about it.
 
[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]Keep dreaming. Single core on a crysis workload? The CPU would self destruct with a big plume of smoke in the image of a raised middle finger telling you to sit and spin for even thinking about it.[/citation]

On minimum settings and 1024x600 resolution, a 2GHz+ solo core and a 4650 would be enough...

I love AMD motherboards.
I was going to buy a 780g, but my finances fell through.
They also make some nice discreet laptop cards.

Please follow through with this and make a kickass product AMD, your ass in the CPU market depends on it. 😉
 
Great. AMD is building products for the future that can defeat products Intel currently has on the market. They just aren't competitive performance wise in the CPU market right now and I can't figure out why. Thought they were get their act together after ATI was all settled in, much like ATI is currently doing with their competitive chips, but they haven't done so. Their chips are a full release behind Intel chips and I don't even think they are TRYING to innovate for the future and they are just contempt with trying to best whatever Intel currently has on the market and conceding defeat to whatever they have down the pipe. How about some innovation? How about something that will catch Intel completely by surprise and embarrass their architecture like Athlon and Athlon X2 did to Pentium 4 and Pentium D.
 
I've been wondering for years why AMD didn't bring back the K6 for something like this. It was low power, very small, and performed extremely well for the power use/size. You couldn't hit high clock speed because it had a small pipeline, but who cares? Extra stages use more silicon, and thus more power, and high clock speeds use more power. The IPC for the K6, especially with enhancements, is much higher than the Atom, so it wouldn't have to reach speeds even close to it.

I don't know why AMD abandoned this chip, and went with the K7 line exclusively, which is much larger and much less efficient in terms of power. An enhanced K6 would be a very effective low power chip, and really always was, even though it was not marketed as such. Making a K7, or derivative into an Atom competitor is not realistic, it's just not the right starting design for it, and will fail like AMD mobile chips have since they abandoned the K6-III+.

 
i thought amd had the right decision not making an atom like cpu, since it is lower profit and amd's production is maxed out and they don't have the advantage of a smaller cpu manufacturing process..
now i wonder why, maybe they think an atom like CPU has a greater future.. in phones, cars, and etc.
 
What about underclocking and undervolting the 4050e, die-shrink it some more, chop-off parts of an AM2+ board to make it ITX size, and solder the processor in. It would beat the atom in every performance aspect, though I wouldn't be too sure how many more watts it would need.
 
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom] ... I don't even think they are TRYING to innovate for the future and they are just contempt with trying to best whatever Intel currently has on the market and conceding defeat to whatever they have down the pipe. How about some innovation? How about something that will catch Intel completely by surprise and embarrass their architecture like Athlon and Athlon X2 did to Pentium 4 and Pentium D.[/citation]

Actually, the Pentium 4 when it came out was very competitive with the Athlon, and the Northwood embarrassed the Athlon. The Athlon 64 was generally better than the Pentium 4, particularly the Prescott, but, it really did not embarrass it at all. By the the Pentium 4 was de-emphasized with the last release being the Pentium EE 965, the performance between it and the FX-60 was uneven, although probably favoring the Athlon 64 slightly. Certainly for games it did, but there were many benchmarks where the EE 965 was the faster processor. So, embarrass is an overstatement.

Also, the Athlon 64 was not any kind of surprise, and was a relatively small change from the Athlon. I was surprised when it came out in a different way; how much like the Athlon it was. The Athlon surprised Intel, that's for sure, and I still remember them saying this big, power hungry chip would be impossible for AMD to build in numbers, when it first came out. Of course, it was untrue (it was big and power hungry, but they could build it), and in the meantime, Intel was building something much bigger, and much considerably more power hungry (Pentium 4), so, it's a little ironic to say the least.
 
You know... I think AMD should release some inexpensive yet efficient Mobile Quad Cores for Notebooks or some Triple cores like they have for desktops.
 
Well this means cheaper notebooks to everyone who needs them. So this is a good news! Intel makes a lot of profit with Atoms because of high price and low production cost. Nice to see some more competition!
Ofcource it means that Intel will hack and slice their prises to kill that new "Atom killer" as soon as it comes to market. And maybe they can do it, but it definitely makes market more sound than today!
 
I think we're going to have a winner here. AMD already has solid chipsets, solid low-power CPUs, and graphics that have always kicked Intel's butt. I know that Intel is promising great things coming down the pipe, but remember that they want netbooks to suck. They don't want anything cannibalizing their higher-end more expensive CPUs. Look for AMD to throw that idea out the window. They have lately been the mainstream and budget man's champion. Look what they did to dedicated graphics with the 4000 series. Look what they're doing with their $40-50 low power CPUs ... and oh yeah, even they have Virtualization Tech enabled unlike most of Intel's lower end. This is worth a lot to people who still want full XP mode when they upgrade to Windows 7. AMDs keeping all the cards in the hands of even their budget buyers, unlike Intel. I'm not an AMD fanboy. I have one of the fastest setups out there with i7 and a GTX 295, but that's high end. Hooray for Intel and their success with high end expensive crap. I need it for the work and editing I do.

But why not make a netbook that at least doesn't suck? AMD is in an even better position than nVidia, by far, because they can easily and quickly fab their own CPU for their own graphics and chipset. With everything "in house" they can provide a compelling product at a compelling price to manufacturers like HP and Dell. If my laptop died right now, I would be buying a cheapo netbook to replace it, just to get me through the rest of school and have something for the road. I really hope it can wait until AMD brings their offering to the table, as it will put the heat on Intel to either reduce Atom prices for nVidia or make decent graphics chipsets for their integrated platforms. Either way, WE WIN.
 
[citation][nom]tenor77[/nom]If they want it to be an Atom killer they should call it the particle accelerator[/citation]
ha! i can just see that one newegg now....
 
I would love for AMD to put out a chipset that can handle gaming and HD videos better than the Atom.
More competition is always good.
 
AMD should stick with their initial gut feeling and sit out of the netbook market. Said before, I dont think netbooks have any market niche' and poor initial sales are proving this true. The way ahead is the ultra capable cell phone (Pre, BB, Iphone, etc.). This is where they should aim to create new upgraded platforms.
 
I have used AMD products in the past, but I am wondering if I will be able to get AMD motherboards withOUT "fritz-chips" in the future?
 
I have used AMD products in the past, but I am wondering if I will be able to get AMD motherboards withOUT "fritz-chips" in the future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom