Intel Releases Anti-Nvidia Ion Documents

[norbs]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if you want 1080P get a normal laptop. adding 1080P would defeat the purpose of why netbook's exist. and that is because there cheap laptops. besides there would be no purpose if they added 1080p if you couldn't take advantage of it on the screen itself.[/citation]

That doesn't make sense; your saying adding a feature to netbook makes it no longer a netbook? With almost everything the same except the chipset it magically becomes more then a netbook and you should just buy a laptop.

hmm do you work for Intel?

 

[danimal_the_animal]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if you want 1080P get a normal laptop. adding 1080P would defeat the purpose of why netbook's exist. and that is because there cheap laptops. besides there would be no purpose if they added 1080p if you couldn't take advantage of it on the screen itself.[/citation]

the point has been made more than once....

still some folks cant afford a 1200 laptop with a 1080p lcd......but if the ion takes off.....you can be that the next net book will have a 720p LCD with HDMI out......

 

[danimal_the_animal]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if you want 1080P get a normal laptop. adding 1080P would defeat the purpose of why netbook's exist. and that is because there cheap laptops. besides there would be no purpose if they added 1080p if you couldn't take advantage of it on the screen itself.[/citation]

you can try to convince people till you are blue in the face, but they are still going to do what they feel like in the end.

 

[hellwig]

Intel sees they made a big mistake licensing their FSB tech and whatnot to Nvidia back when Nvidia first got into the chipset business. Intel didn't see any threat, and to be honest, the first couple generations of NForce didn't really pose much of a threat (not even to VIA or SIS). However, once Nvidia started tying their chipsets to their graphics cards (onboard GPUs, SLI, etc...), Intel started feeling the heat.

Seriously, the NForce 4, 5, and 6 series were top of the line, and people were willing to go to Nvidia for the enhanced graphics performance in high-end games. The fact that Intel licensed crossfire from ATI, which at the time was a weak performer (thanks in part to Intels lack of PCIe bandwidth) didn't help much.

Now, Intel has licensed CrossFire and SLI for their x58, and are trying to prevent Nvidia from making Core i7 chipsets. Trying to hurt Nvidia in the Ion market is just an extension of that tactic. Intel is just a greedy, monopolistic corporation, and like any such corporation, they will only accept success if it comes after driving all their competitors into the ground.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]Sorry, that was not my question to bojee. I understand the ION platform and I think Intel is shooting themselves in foot by fighting the Nvidia.I agree that ION could be cool HTPC, but tiny nettop is useful on you kitchen top and excellent video quality could be achieve at 720p or less. There is issue if you have a 1080p source and you want to transcode it on the fly, but nettops was never attended for that.[/citation]

I have to agree with what he's saying; that a netbook or umpc with a screen resolution of max 1024x600 can't even playback 720P video (unless rescaled).
And it makes little to no sense to use a mini notebook to view HD video of the 1080 P or i standard.
Computers like the EeeBox, or Ion platform could make up for great HDTV pc's!


---------
As far as Via VS the Atom, I still believe to this date, that the Atom is slightly better (partly due to it's effective HT and 45nm process).
I hope via will be able to design their chips on a smaller die too. Current 65nm processes are a little outdated.

-------
[citation][nom]dyingcat[/nom]Although 1080p on a 8" screen will be useless, I suppose just being able to play the movie is a good thing by itself. I've always hated converting movies to lower res, just so I can watch it on my smaller devices. If ION allows me to skip the converting and use the same files I use on my desktop, then I suppose it's worth it.[/citation]
Then again, why would you want to watch the few 1080 HD video's that are available on:
1- a device that has no blueray player
2- a device that costs as much as a blueray player
3- a device that generally has SD card as storage device (although later netbooks are equipped with HD's around 80GB)
4- a device where batterylife matters, and if you would be able to decode 1080 video it will most likely not last 1 full movie on the battery
5- I understand you get the point of the screen resolution. If you plan on watching HD movies on your device, why not buy a laptop that CAN decode it, and where you DO have enough pixels on the screen to display it? There are plenty of options out there. You can't expect a mininotebook to have all day battery life, while having enough horsepower to decode 1080 video! This might only become possible when better power saving technology become available, and when the whole mobo chipset including GPU and CPU will be built on a 32nm or sub 32nm process.

I personally think the audience that wants to view 1080 video on a netbook is quite small, though the audience looking for a great HD capable system that is both small, and stylish is large!

I guess viewing 1080 video on a netbook capable doing so, could potentially double or triple the price compared to current models on the market.

------
[citation][nom]kato128[/nom]I don't see what the fuss is about. Intel should just sell the atom chips to nvidia and let them sort out the ion netbooks etc. That way they're making all the profit from their own solution (which according to them is better) and they'd make money from nvidia even if ion flops.[/citation]
I think Intel sees it can make more profit by selling their old chipsets, allowing their old 65-90nm fabs to still produce,before they need to be redesigned.

-------
[citation][nom]phil0083[/nom]Holy crap, I'm switching to AMD if Intel's going to be a douchebag like this from here on out...[/citation]
Or Nvidia + Via!

--------
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if you want 1080P get a normal laptop. adding 1080P would defeat the purpose of why netbook's exist. and that is because there cheap laptops. besides there would be no purpose if they added 1080p if you couldn't take advantage of it on the screen itself.[/citation]
Agree fully!
----------
[citation][nom]danimal_the_animal[/nom]the point has been made more than once....still some folks cant afford a 1200 laptop with a 1080p lcd......but if the ion takes off.....you can be that the next net book will have a 720p LCD with HDMI out......[/citation]
a $500 laptop can do 720p easily, AND has a 1280x800 screen.
there are $600 laptops with 1440x900 screen resolutions out there, that give you some benefit in watching 1080 video over 720 (which would be the limit on a 1280x800 screen); perhaps a better buy for viewing HDTV then a mini notebook which costs nearly as much?

 

[bosjee]

Sorry for missing out on the conversations here. Many of the users already answer the question of why one would need a nettop to play 1080p.

For a nettop with 1080p:
1. It can be hook up to a 1080p tv and stream the 1080p video contends.
2. Good as a HTPC.
Currently, I have Mythtv setup using a ralatively expensive desktop. It can do everything I throw at it but the draw backs are the energy cost and noise. An Ion plantform would be a good Mythtv frontend and backend if it can accept a tuner card.

For a netbook with 1080p, the need for this is that I don't need to transcode the 1080p source in order to view it.

Currently my notebook is just not powerful enough to stream 1080p/i sources.

 

[Guest]

Intel needs to get their heads out of their own body orifices...
"neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook and nettop users" - This is one of the most short-sighted statements that I have heard from a major tech leader like Intel in a while.

About 90% of my computing time is spent on my EEE 901 netbook and an Atom 330 nettop system. My biggest gripe about both of these systems is graphics and video. I hate the video stuttering and poor graphics performance. The Intel GMA950 has terrible performance. I would be OK with the GN40 if it offered decent performance, but from Intel's statements I seriously doubt it will be much better than the 950.

Bring on the Ion!

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

The 9400 chipset is also better at things like Aero and Compiz effects than Intel's chipsets.

 

[Guest]

I find the comment "that it’s based off of older Nvidia technologies" a bit odd since products with the mcp79 have only been on the shelves since what.. Q3/Q4 2008? It can't be stressed enough the idiocy of such a comparison when your talking about a 945 architecture no matter how power saving a derivative of it maybe.

The overall nature of this "Intel Document" seems suspect considering the past hype on the subject and claimed rebuttals by Intel that the riff isn't true.

This does reek of sales hype from an OEM though.
Either that or Intel has laid off the wrong people.

There is a sliver of information about ION 2 in Q4 2009 using traditional Intel processors out on the net (hopefully mobile versions and not LGA775 based which wouldn't make sense). That would fall in line with the atom shift to IGPU being built in around the same time frame.

 

[symbios]

it offers no advantages that an Intel platform cannot provide,they think the people is idiots and dont know whats better.intel gma its the worst igp there is even worst than an voodoo 2 vga.they just want to sell their useless gma.