[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]They tend to be named after an area that they were developed in. Canoe Lake seems like an area in Oregon since thats where one of Intels biggest FABs is located.Sure. But a dual core Athlon II can't match Atom in battery life. Atoms game is not pure performance. Thats Core. Atoms is ULV. And so far nothing matches Atom at its performance and power usage.I can see the applications of this for more than just Netbooks too. Being able to make something that thin would be q feat and probably work to produce very light and portable tablets that can be used in the science and medical field over a WiMAX network.Now if anything, this is also powered by Intels Moorestown based Atom and if so, didn't THG do a review of the CPU and they said it was capable of decoding dual 1080P HD streams?[/citation]
That's not true, really. Core was not designed for pure performance, it was designed for performance/watt, and easily exceeds the Atom in that category.
Atom was not designed for performance per watt. By those standards, it's a failure. Another very important component is that it had to be very cheap to make. The Core line did not have as stringent parameters in that department.
So, the Core line offers much better performance per watt - that's what it was designed for. The Atom is low wattage and low cost, with performance being, at best, a tertiary consideration.