Intel: We're Not Ditching The Atom Brand

[maddy143ded]

[citation][nom]rottingsheep[/nom]@maddy143deddon't forget the bloatware manufacturers install,[/citation]
[citation][nom]rottingsheep[/nom]@maddy143deddon't forget the bloatware manufacturers install,[/citation]
who says that you have to use the manufacturers bloatware. I have never had a PC or laptop, that i have used without first formatting it, outright. you use the serial key thats at the back of your laptop to reinstall your OS. and drivers are readily available from the manufacturers or Intel itself. then install whatever you want to....
I just now did a fresh install on my sisters acer laptop. its a old C2D, that she got from her management college. it was filled with loads of crap and bloatware from the college. but i just reformatted it with Win 7 pro. and its running as good as new now.
I am supposed to get a new Asus Tablet from the Nvidia settlement pretty soon, and raring to play with it too. its an Atom dual core tablet, so it should be pretty faster then my old acer one. Acer has lasted me for nearly 2 years. and is still good for another year of usage for my little cousin....

 

[alyoshka]

I have a Acer too, and, my kid loves it. Period.
As long as you don't want them to go overboard, it's a cool thingy to have since my wife uses it too, I think it's pretty ok. The screen size sucks (10.1) but with that size on your chest, I think it'll be pretty big . Since it's just used for light browsing, watching movies, making phone backups, transferring music and videos and working on MS Office. It does it's job pretty well.

 

[alyoshka]

After all it is a Nettop. Not a full fledged PC..... it could have crammed in a lot more stuff today, no doubt, but it's technology, changes by the minute. The purpose for which these things are made , they do just fine, you can't expect the Morris Minor to win the Grand Prix, can ya?

 

[ianj14]

I have three Atom based machines, two Acer nettops (a Veriton with N260G and a Revo with a D525) and a barebones with an N280.

The Veriton (N260G, 1GB mem) runs W7 connected to a 1080p TV and while not exactly fast, it is fine as a media player for the TV and for browsing, all on full 1080p through the HDMI.

The Revo (D525, 2GB mem) has W2K8R2 Web Edition as a test web server, and responds very well according to feedback I've had from users accessing the test sites on it. It can be a little slow opening programs though I put that down to the HDD being a slow 2.5 inch drive. I have seriously considered an SSD for it but not until prices are down enough to be workable.

The custom (N280, with 1GB mem) runs W2K8 and is used for Microsoft's WSUS and Forefront. It's in a test/evaluation configuration, but even with only ten computers to look after it can be very slow. However I'm effectively asking it to do a couple of tasks where the recommended processor is dual core at 2.8GHz, with 4GB of memory! So that it works at all is a bonus.

So for all the above tasks the Atom is just about fine. But for serious computing such as any kind of graphical processing, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

 

[sonofliberty08]

for those idiots that love Atom, try Fusion and u know what is good
Atom are just piece of shet that fools those idiotic fanboi, even VIA Nano are better than the Atom, if u looking for a POS system......
when Tegra came into netbooks market, Atom will be completely dead.

 

[maddy143ded]

[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]for those idiots that love Atom, try Fusion and u know what is good Atom are just piece of shet that fools those idiotic fanboi, even VIA Nano are better than the Atom, if u looking for a POS system......when Tegra came into netbooks market, Atom will be completely dead.[/citation]

Ofcourse Atom will be dead in its current form.... and let me tell you I am the Biggest Fanboy of AMD.... but for the last 2-3 years Atom was virtually the king of netbook Hill. and it was AMD and other companies fault that they were not ready to compete at that level... I have used Fusion and I would love to get It , but since I am getting a Netbook free of cost (replacement after 3 years of wait for the Nvidia Litigation Settlement) I will use that for now. and since all the companies are going in a rapid development frenzy, tha product thats most talked about now will be biting dust in just 3-6 months.... so better of saving money where i can, and buy the best product availble when I actually need it...

 

[Guest]

The problem was never the Atom but how it was sold and the promises that PC manufactures made that were not true. The Netbook is really OK for what it was designed to do. It would probably do even better if it had not been marketed with a operating system that over powered it. Windows XP was OK but out dated. Windows 7 did not do very well on the single core models. Graphics were really a issue too. In hind site Intel really had no choice. It had a low powered Chip that had to work with Windows and they don't work that well together. Ubuntu made a decent Netbooks version of their Linux OS. But not many decided that would work either. Low power is nice, but only if it meets customer satisfaction in using it. Atom did not do that very well.

 

[maddy143ded]

there is a reason that the tablets are selling so much... net-book started the trend for the tablets. people now realize that they need only so much power while traveling, so in a sense tablets are what the net-books should have been.
and I am pretty sure that if the tablet's prices come down the the level of the net-books (starting at $200, without sacrificing processing power or size) then, net-books(especially current atom single core models) will simply die, overnight.

 

[maddy143ded]

[citation][nom]jescott418[/nom]The problem was never the Atom but how it was sold and the promises that PC manufactures made that were not true. The Netbook is really OK for what it was designed to do. It would probably do even better if it had not been marketed with a operating system that over powered it. Windows XP was OK but out dated. Windows 7 did not do very well on the single core models. Graphics were really a issue too. In hind site Intel really had no choice. It had a low powered Chip that had to work with Windows and they don't work that well together. Ubuntu made a decent Netbooks version of their Linux OS. But not many decided that would work either. Low power is nice, but only if it meets customer satisfaction in using it. Atom did not do that very well.[/citation]
well Intel could have jumped into the Android bandwagon then instead of trying for meego.... if the netbooks had android back then or a tablet based around the ATOM , then we would have seen much more development. also atom based tablet with Android, would have kept ARM based Ipad from getting the early supremacy.

 

[Guest]

Atom, basically performs like a Pentium 3 or early Pentium 4, which means it performs like a typical computer 10 years ago. I bought my Atom netbook knowing this and never disappointed because it does what I intend it to do, to run 10 years old software.

Anyone who wants to buy these things should know the same, that you are willing to settle with running very very old software or perform very simple task like email. Recent batch of netbook generally can even decode 720p or 1080p, but don't expect to run anything fast if the software is even mildly demanding in today's standard. It should never be the purchase of a first-time computer buyer because for a little more amount you can always get a better and faster laptop. It has always been meant for a companion device for those already own more powerful computers.

 

[vaughn2k]

Intel: We're Not Ditching The Atom Brand
- Yeah sure ....

 

[nordlead]

[citation][nom]enewmen[/nom]If you really like Atoms, then you will love dual-core C-series APUs.My 8w 10" C-50 netbook with 4 gigs RAM can ALSO easily handle Photoshop, Starcraft 2, full 1080p video, etc..You can also find mini-itx size APU PCs that work as great little file severs and can actually play the HD video over HDMI to the TV.[/citation]

Yes, but the problem was finding a motherboard that is capable of what I needed without having to buy someone's overpriced complete solution. Considering I built my file server for only $150 (not including storage drives) with a few spare parts I doubt I'd find a mini PC for that cheap. I also bought my motherboard back when the AMD chips were first coming out. I still don't know where I can buy a C-50 based motherboard as I've only seen them in laptops. I've seen the E-350's but the motherboards didn't have the features I needed. I would have bought an AMD chip if I could've gotten one with all the same features.

 

[Pilk]

I personally think they should just drop the atom brand, rebrand the product and upscale the performance atom is @&$( +_)

 

[nrgx]

[citation][nom]maddy143ded[/nom]well Intel could have jumped into the Android bandwagon then instead of trying for meego.... if the netbooks had android back then or a tablet based around the ATOM , then we would have seen much more development. also atom based tablet with Android, would have kept ARM based Ipad from getting the early supremacy.[/citation]
Android did not exist when the first Atom was released, and android was not dominating the market when Intel started developing MeeGo. I think this proves that Intel can not predict the future. However, I have seen articles that Intel is working with google to port android to the Atom within the last month.

 

[oatmeal25]

Perhaps they should ditch Atom, it's always a regrettable purchase

 

[jdwii]

It's not supposed to play warcraft...it's a netbook processor.

One of the dumbest thing i seen all day. Just because its a netbook does not mean it should NOT be able to play basic games such as Sims or age of empires and my E-350 would agree with me. Intel atom can barley play videos and Intel wants to know why the Atom has such a bad name. I used a atom just recently and Google chrome keeped messing up on it and then i used a C-50 and it ran PERFECT.

 

[Nintendork]

There is no excuse to buy the pathetic atom. You either buy Fusion C-50 or the E-350 (replaced right now with the C-60 / E-450).

They cost the same, consume the same and run circles aroun any atom offer(even the new "32 atom crap with castrated DX9 gpu because it was shitty with DX10")

All of my friends have sent their slowtoms to the garbage, and now own Fusion based netbooks or mininotebooks. Best decisicion in their lifes.


nordlead
Stop the intel drone excuse and go buy your AMD E-350 in newegg.

Atom IS SLOW IN EVERY ASPECT. Their arquitecture is so crappy (inorder) that is the only x86 cpu that use it, that's the reason for the bottlenecks .

And I repeat:
Any C/E AMD APU CONSUMES LESS THAN ANY ATOM IN IDLE AND CONSUMES THE SAME AT LOAD WITH BETTER CPU AND OBSENE GPU ADVANTAGE.

 

[livebriand]

If the new CPU can actually run Windows decently, I might consider it. Until then, I'm sticking with my AMD Zacate E350 netbook.

 

[nrgx]

@Nintendork

I believe you are mistaken regarding power consumption. If you look at the specifications you can plainly see that the E-350 consumes 18W. Here is a link:

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopAPUDetail.aspx?id=1&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&

The Atom Z530P, which has a similar clock speed as the E-350, consumes 2.2W even though it was originally released in 2008. But, the E-350 includes a video controller, so it is unfair to compare ONLY the Atom to the E-350, so let's throw in the chipset as well which contains the video controller. The chipset that goes with the Atom Z530P consumes 4.5W. The Atom and the chipset together consume 6.7W, which means the E-350 consumes 2.69 times the power of the Atom and chipset COMBINED. I am not even including the E-350 chipset.

Here is a link to Atom Z530P product specifications:

http://ark.intel.com/products/41173

And look a little lower on the same page to see the chipset power consumption, aka system TDP.

I think it is clear that AT LEAST the Atom Z530P consumes less than the E-350 which makes your statement incorrect.

 

[nrgx]

I personally think they should just drop the atom brand, rebrand the product and upscale the performance atom is @&$( +_)

If you want higher performance then you have to pay more in terms of power. The atom is meant to compete with ARM CPUs, which perform worse than the Atom (but also consume less power). If you are ok with consuming almost three times as much power as compared to the Fusion products, then really you should be looking at a CPU such as the i5-2557M which consumes 17W and also has an integrated video controller (The AMD E-350 consumes 18W and contains a video controller). This would be a closer comparision.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Intel, Y U NO?I had to work with a lot of Atoms because many fools fall for the low power consumption nonsense and then I have to manage whole networks of these POS machines... they're absolutely USELESS. I advise all our clients against Atom.2 days ago we also got an AMD Zacate box. Very good Mini-ITX Gigabyte board - has everything, USB 3.0, SATA 6 Gbps, HDMI... but the CPU is useless, I'd take a Core 2 Duo over it ANY DAY.In future, I plan to use i3-2100s in all low budget builds, these CPUs are great value for money, unlike the stupid Atom. So what if I can get the whole mobo with an Atom on it for the price of an i3-2100? The mobo will be $h!t and the PC will be slow as hell. Trust me, I've seen ENOUGH of this low-power junk. AMD or Intel, it doesn't have a place on desktops... Low-energy laptops - maybe, but I'd rather see Fusion than Atom there (and TBH, a Core i3 would still be better - WTF is the use for a low-power laptop if it's bloody slow?)Atom's low power architecture sucks big-time. It's been proven that a 1.6 GHz Atom is about as fast as a 900 MHz Celeron M, and I'm convinced it is right by trying out both the old Celeron M EeePC 900 MHz (my netbook) and a newer Atom EeePC (1.6 or 1.8 GHz, not sure exactly).Even for basic tasks, these CPUs are not enough. The systems freeze while writing an e-mail or copying files... they just suck. Atoms as they are must go.[/citation]

LOL that 900MHZ celeron if i remember correctly runs at ~600mhz and is underclocked (900mhz model @ ~600mhz) - thats even worse! LOL

atoms are good just not good at replacing a SERIOUS computer for SERIOUS tasks like email.... AND antivirus, it is a joke that people think these things can replace a full pc, people are tight-asses tho, get what they deserve, makes you wonder if they even know why an i7 costs so much more then an atom....

 

[godnodog]

I´m happy with my Atom, when i bought it I allready knew what to expect and that is why I bought one with an Nvidia graphics, I added a 1GB ram, but when I´m on the move I actually have it undercolck to save battery, when I´m inside it´s plugged in It´s overclocked, it does what´s intended for, mail, web and seing photos and videos.

If I want more I´ll turn on my desktop with an old Athlon X2 4600+ with an Nvidia 8800GT and play I play Crisis 1(but with low settings of course) or 2 just fine.

Hoping to see good benchies for Bulldozer otherwise an Intel 2600K will probably be purchased.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

LOL that 900MHZ celeron if i remember correctly runs at ~600mhz and is underclocked (900mhz model @ ~600mhz) - thats even worse! LOL

No, that's the first EeePC, 700 or 701, I forgot... Mine is 900, and it runs on full 900 MHz. Though, I had the old model before and I beat Morrowind on it Tried it on the Atom = fail.

 

[Nintendork]

@nrgx
It does only consume 18w when you max both cpu+gpu (if you max both of them means they're raping atom in performance).

Also atom chipsets consumes more.

Atom+ION perform slow in cpu+gpu app's with way higher power consumption than zacate.

 

[Nintendork]

@nrgx
Little intel drone: That craptastic Atom you mention is a crappy 1 CORE ATOM. Doesn't matter the frequency. not even the highest clocked 2core/4thread brings the same experiencia as the most basic C-50 1Ghz.