Intel Launches Cedar Trail Processors

[Guest]

Intel officially released its 32 nm Cedar Trail Atom processors, which are carrying the sequence numbers N2600 and N2800 in commercial products.

Intel Launches Cedar Trail Processors : Read more

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

No chance; not getting anything less than a Pentium G620.

 

[thesnappyfingers]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]No chance; not getting anything less than a Pentium G620.[/citation]

So in other words you are never getting a netbook?

 

[CaedenV]

half the wattage with double the GPU of the previous generation, now we are talking! Now if only Intel could make a chipset that used less power than the CPU we might get somewhere...


I have used an atom netbook for almost 2 years now and (after installing a 2nd GB of Ram) my only complaint is the aweful gpu on the thing. I mean, I understand a netbook not being able to do HD video (the screen resolution wont even properly display it), but the thing has the hardest time even playing back normal video if it has any sort of compression (and what dosnt these days?), and God help you if there is any flash video lol, sure it will do it, but it really has a rough time of it. I think these improvements will really help. And getting 5 hours on my netbook is great, 10 hours would be really unbelievable.

 

[DjEaZy]

... but gpu sux... as always...

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]thesnappyfingers[/nom]So in other words you are never getting a netbook?[/citation]

My netbook has a Celeron and it performs better than most Atom netbooks. If I'd get a new netbook, I'd get a E-350 based one - Asus just announced it will make such netbooks in 2012, read the article from yesterday. And actually, I'd prefer an "ultra" book rather than a netbook - why quotes? Because I wouldn't buy an ultrabook as it's advertised, I'd just find a properly equipped yet light 14 or 15.6'' laptop - Asus N series would do. I don't see much use for a netbook any more. I mostly use my netbook as a test PC for network boot based solutions and for minor system administration tasks, with these small screens netbooks simply aren't suitable for any other tasks. Their era is over.

 

[aries1470]

Well, when is the dual core comming?
I have a 330 dual core, and it is great It is a home built net-top, with a 5450 running on PCI x1 and it can play back blu-ray with out stuttering! Albeit, I have put 4Gb of Ram, and I am using Win XP SP3 & Win7 in dual boot. Just have to disable anti-virus and it is great :-D plenty of open tabs in I.E. and FireFox. At times it does become a little laggy, but then I am beating it to a pulp and running boinc!

 

[king_maliken]

Ok, this more of a question, isn't the purpose of a netbook the same as a tablet (or very close anyhow, surfing net, media sharing, very mobile, writing notes and so on)?

I personally have a tablet and I just don't see why I'd get a netbook so I'm agreeing with amk-aka-Phantom.

But as for the processor, that's really good if it does really get 10hrs battery life, but as mentioned in the comments above the chipset is still the one sucking more juice, I'd like to get more info on them.

 

[de5_Roy]

meh. bobcat/zacate still owns atom.

 

[tlmck]

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]half the wattage with double the GPU of the previous generation, now we are talking! Now if only Intel could make a chipset that used less power than the CPU we might get somewhere...I have used an atom netbook for almost 2 years now and (after installing a 2nd GB of Ram) my only complaint is the aweful gpu on the thing. I mean, I understand a netbook not being able to do HD video (the screen resolution wont even properly display it), but the thing has the hardest time even playing back normal video if it has any sort of compression (and what dosnt these days?), and God help you if there is any flash video lol, sure it will do it, but it really has a rough time of it. I think these improvements will really help. And getting 5 hours on my netbook is great, 10 hours would be really unbelievable.[/citation]

I got an Acer Aspire One with the dual core ATOM and 64mb discreet video memory. Do not really have an issue with HD video. Of course I replaced Windows Starter with Peppermint OS One since it runs very well on 1gb RAM. Don't know if this really helps the video though.

 

[joytech22]

Oh awesome twice the graphics performance!
That means I should be able to play Portal 2 at 15fps instead of 8. in DX9 mode.

 

[Guest]

*yawn* still can't knock AMD's brazos off its perch

 

[wenqi]

[citation][nom]Ronin Jin[/nom]*yawn* still can't knock AMD's brazos off its perch[/citation]
portal 2 works on an atom? i'm amazed already...

 

[madooo12]

to compete with AMD in the lower end, if AMD gets destroyed there will be no competition
AMD has better GPUs, and that's what intel wants

 

[zodiacfml]

benchmarks will tell.

 

[dealcorn]

Assuming it tests competent at 1080p, Atom will have a better price and better efficiency than anything AMD has got at the moment. This should help sort out whether AMD's recent netbook marketing prowess is due to it;'s outstanding gaming performance vs the fact that it was the cheapest 1080p around until Atom got its act together.

It may seem odd, but in the low price market, folks are sometimes interested in price and Intel wins there big time.

 

[leper84]

I would be extremely interested to see how this stacks up to what AMD is offering with zacate. This part of the market + llano is all AMD has left so I think it has pretty big implications in general.

 

[tului]

I seriously doubt even doubling the old Atom's integrated graphics performance will let it stand up to Llano and the other A series APUs. They are very very nice chips for low cost machines that still want some graphical oomph.

 

[sonofliberty08]

if am a fan of crappy atom, then i must be a tard......

 

[g4114rd0]

actually New species... Dodgy deal!
Just take a picture with your tiny Smurfs!

 

[Guest]

well, ill rather buy a pc with nvidia tegra

 

[Pyree]

Interesting if they go into phones.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Interesting if they go into phones.

That's actually the only use for them I see. Because "half the wattage of previous generation" REALLY doesn't matter. You know what eats the battery on the netbooks the most? WLAN and the screen. CPU doesn't matter much...

 

[Guest]

You guys are crazy. These things are made for people who need to be mobile all day while having more capability than a silly tablet (ever used one... couldn't possibly call it productive). The whole CPU and chipset consumes less than 10W at it's highest performance so you're talking 10+ hours of battery life. It is useful for those who don't plug in like those at work whom are mobile or those on travel. It is not meant to play intense games (seriously). I mean blueray playback and simple games are enough. If you need your complicated games for your travel (doesn't sound very businessy), then you should wait for an Ultrabook which still maintains plenty of portability but will have a great deal more power. Netbooks are just really cheap business devices for mobile people who can't possibly be productive with a tablet (I am not using a touchscreen for business production and it's too damn slow).

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]Oh awesome twice the graphics performance!That means I should be able to play Portal 2 at 15fps instead of 8. in DX9 mode.[/citation]

Not every device is made for 'gaming'
Portable devices are used by business folks, and being able to run a spread sheet faster or look up a map or blue print quicker etc. is quite useful.