Intel to Release Core i3, i5 ULV Processors in 2H

Status
Not open for further replies.

jarnail24

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2008
70
0
18,640
2
I have an atom and it lasts an 8 hour flight. If this last me atleast 6 without lagging like the p.o.s. atom I'll take it. I need battery life but a little performance definitely wouldn't hurt.
 

zaznet

Distinguished
May 10, 2010
387
0
18,780
0
New processors that are slower... I understand it's for power consumption, but it's a downgrade for system performance and doesn't seem a step in the right direction with existing low power options already on the market. Unless of course this thing blows away the Atom in performance and can match power consumption. We'll see.
 

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2010
1,551
0
20,160
165
Hmm... sounds like Intel is trying to get back the market share AMD is starting to get in the laptop sector... this should be interesting. I still think a good AMD processor can beat whatever is about to come out in price/performance, just because of the surely reduced performance of these to save on power, and the guaranteed Intel i5/i7 price premium...

Just my two cents...
 

liquidsnake718

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
1,379
0
19,310
5
crackbook air using a macos is nothing more than a glorified and overpriced netbook With steriods. Its as light but wider and obviously has a superior processor at about 6 times the price
 

Zinosys

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2009
453
0
18,810
9
Well, that's a good thing. The Atom really wasn't made for computers, until companies thought of the idea of putting them into netbooks. They're not really meant to run a full-blown OS without lagging. :(

So, if these ULV chips offer better performance and good battery life, that's a good thing. Since they'll be 32nm, that definitely won't hurt at all either. :)
 

banthracis

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2009
3,032
0
21,160
153
[citation][nom]1st duke of marlborough[/nom]Hmm, seems to me AMD already makes good CPU's that require much less than their Intel counterparts...Let's see if Intel can step up their game![/citation]

It's the opposite actually. AMD CPU's use far more power than Intel counterparts. This is primarily due to die size, 32 nm in Intel 42 in AMD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-clarkdale-core-i5-661,2514-15.html

AMD hasn't held the efficiency crown since the Pentium 4 era.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS