First Cedar Trail Nettops Use Nvidia, AMD Instead of Intel IGP

[Guest]

The first Cedar Trail PCs are making their way to customers.

First Cedar Trail Nettops Use Nvidia, AMD Instead of Intel IGP : Read more

 

[Guest]

But can it play Crysis ?

 

[ragenalien]

No, no it cannot. Decent graphics for a holy crap low end processor does not make for a gaming machine.

 

[sonofliberty08]

just dump that crappy atom and replace with fusion or tegra

 

[PrvtChurch]

They are likely using discreet graphics b/c the integrated one doesn't work.

 

[AbdullahG]

[citation][nom]65487Barn484[/nom]But can it play Crysis ?[/citation]
Buy it and find out.

It's unfortunate Intel continues to sell the Atom brand. The AMD E-350 is a much more considerable choice.

 

[law shay]

[citation][nom]65487Barn484[/nom]But can it play Crysis ?[/citation]

Are you nuts ?

These are low-powered entertainment devices -- not gaming beasts. However, I can tell you that my netbook equipped with AMD E-350 can play titles like: (a) the famous 3D Final Fantasy* (b) Need for Speed**. It can also play 720p from youtube (on battery).

* Final Fantasy VII
** Need for Speed: Underground 2.

 

[dalauder]

Are there benchmarks for the Atom D2500 yet? Is it really that atrocious? If it can keep up with a Core 2 Duo, then $300 is a nice price for a typical Windows computer in a tiny package with simple connectivity nowadays.

 

[soccerdocks]

[citation][nom]AbdullahG[/nom]Buy it and find out.It's unfortunate Intel continues to sell the Atom brand. The AMD E-350 is a much more considerable choice.[/citation]

They're not even in the same class. Cedar Trail is supposed to have a TDP of 1-2 watts. The E-350 has a TDP of 18 watts.

Even if Cedar Trail were in the same class as the E-350 it would still not be unfortunate. It would be great that Intel is competing with AMD.

 

[de5_Roy]

why use seperate gfx with atom when you can use amd's e-series or llano apus. may be it'd cost less than the atom configuration.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]just dump that crappy atom and replace with fusion or tegra[/citation]Tegra no, Fusion maybe, depending on model. Compatability issues aside, even a Tegra 3 is DOG SLOW compared to these Intel/AMD nettop chips. Clockspeed means nothing by itself. Granted, the Tegra (and other such mobile ARM-compatible chips) use almost no power, but this is the wrong market.

Also, even a Tegra 3 gets spanked on the graphics side by an old SGX543MP2 like the one in the iPad 2. I can't wait to see what the Series 6 chips can do.

 

[AbdullahG]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]They're not even in the same class. Cedar Trail is supposed to have a TDP of 1-2 watts. The E-350 has a TDP of 18 watts. Even if Cedar Trail were in the same class as the E-350 it would still not be unfortunate. It would be great that Intel is competing with AMD.[/citation]
The D2500-the one mentioned in the article-is technically 10W most likely:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4884/intel-releases-atom-d2500-and-d2700-processors
The E-350 has a TDP of 18W, but it's much more energy efficient. Nettops are really went for single thread apps, which the E-350 and Cedar Trail serve in. The E-350 does significantly better in such tasks compared to the previous gen of Atoms. Yes, Cedar Trail will most like surpass the E-350 in some cases, but overall, the E-350 will most likely take the crown for what it is intended for.

 

[anonymous_user]

PowerVR graphics? Is that like the Poulsbo graphics that has crappy Linux drivers?

 

[amuffin]

I thought tegra 3 was equal to c2d t3000, so why not use that? :I

 

[Nintendork]

Thats was youre typical nvidia bullshit agenda. Nvida used an optimized version of that particular while the c2d was using a really anciente one.

Once you got same version the c2d destroys it like there is no tomorrow.

Atom is just a huge failure, cedartrail is just a die shrink with the same craptastic atom arq(which no other modern x86 cpu including fusion brazos uses) just with a bit more mhz.

Even with the "improced" graphics is behind E-350 HD6250 by a factor of 10.

 

[saturnus]

[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]Thats was youre typical nvidia bullshit agenda. Nvida used an optimized version of that particular while the c2d was using a really anciente one.Once you got same version the c2d destroys it like there is no tomorrow.[/citation]

No it doesn't. The test you were talking about was also with a crippled Tegra3. When the test is re-run with the correct compilers, the Tegra3 is still faster.

Official Coremark site

Tegra250 (Tegra2) = 2.65 coremark/mhz
core2duo t7200 = 2.64 coremark/mhz

Tegra 3 is in principle more or less identical with Tegra 2 when we look at per core per mhz because they both use cortex9 cores. There's just 4 (technically 5) cortex9 cores in Tegra 3 instead of 2 and support for NEON which doesn't add much to coremark performance as it will mostly have an effect in multimedia applications.

 

[c_herring]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]They're not even in the same class. Cedar Trail is supposed to have a TDP of 1-2 watts. The E-350 has a TDP of 18 watts. Even if Cedar Trail were in the same class as the E-350 it would still not be unfortunate. It would be great that Intel is competing with AMD.[/citation]ark.intel.com would disagree: the Atom D2500 has a TDP of 10W. Although this is closer to the AMD C-*0 with a TDP of 9W. And AMD's APUs ship in systems that actually use their IGPs. Plus, being an out-of-order CPU allows the 1GHz C-50 to bench similarly to the 1.5GHz Atom N550. I'm curious what a 300MHz bump does (C-60 and D2500) especially as Cedar Trail should include microarchitectural improvements (but still in-order).

 

[jdwii]

God Intel graphics suck. At least amd can make good enough processors to do everything and perfect processors. Nvidia can make perfect video cards also.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Tegra no, Fusion maybe, depending on model. Compatability issues aside, even a Tegra 3 is DOG SLOW compared to these Intel/AMD nettop chips. Clockspeed means nothing by itself. Granted, the Tegra (and other such mobile ARM-compatible chips) use almost no power, but this is the wrong market.Also, even a Tegra 3 gets spanked on the graphics side by an old SGX543MP2 like the one in the iPad 2. I can't wait to see what the Series 6 chips can do.[/citation]
No, the Tegra 3, at least in benchmarks, is 25% faster than the SGX543MP2.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]c_herring[/nom]ark.intel.com would disagree: the Atom D2500 has a TDP of 10W. Although this is closer to the AMD C-*0 with a TDP of 9W. And AMD's APUs ship in systems that actually use their IGPs. Plus, being an out-of-order CPU allows the 1GHz C-50 to bench similarly to the 1.5GHz Atom N550. I'm curious what a 300MHz bump does (C-60 and D2500) especially as Cedar Trail should include microarchitectural improvements (but still in-order).[/citation]
The title of the article is misleading. The D2500 and the D2700 are Cedarview Atom's. Cedar Trail Atom's are the N2600 and the N2800. Still the TDP of the Cedar Trail Atoms isn't 1-2W.

The C-60 is the one that is more close to the N550 in terms of processing power. Also the replacement for the N550 is the N2600 not the D2500. The D2500 will replace the D510.

 

[psiboy]

Why don't the idiots just use fusion APU's ?

 

[Guest]

Puhleeeease stop talking about that craapy atom! I'm sick of hearing about Intel's monopolist chips that we are forced to buy.

 

[mr_wobbles]

AMD is probably a better choice, but Cedar Trail does have lower power needs. And SHUT THE F**K UP ABOUT IF IT CAN RUN CRYSIS 2

 

[mr_wobbles]

Also, stop with the GHZ-MHZ crap. Everybody knows that it doesnt decide how fast the Processor is. Just to demonstrate, PENTIUM 4 @ 3ghz. my arguement here is done.