Intel: We're Not Ditching The Atom Brand

[Nintendork]

You should also check the tablet version of the C-50 (Z-01 desna dual core 1Ghz + HD6250 5.9w vs Atom Z670 + crappy GMA500 1 core)

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lQNPEKbyfKY#!

They compete in the same price segment for tablets and Z-01 make the crappy Atom look like sh*t (because it is).

 

[nrgx]

[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]@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.[/citation]

Excuse me, but you stated in your previous post:

[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]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.[/citation]

You very clearly said ANY ATOM, did you not? You did not qualify your statement with same number of cores, clock speed, chipset difference, nor any other specification. I gave you a single example where you were incorrect, and I was even generous in including the chipset power out of fairness. Admit you were wrong and move on.

I showed you the spec's from Intel's own web site that states the chipset consumes 4.5W MAX for this particular chipset paired to this particular Atom. Once again you are wrong. You keep making these nonsense claims without providing the proof. If you really want to be taken seriously, provide the proof that what you say is true.

But you are correct, the Fusion products will rape the Atom products when it comes to performance. But it is like comparing apples to oranges when you compare a Fusion with an Atom, even Atoms that have integrated graphics that only consume 7W compared to the Fusion 18W. It is like comparing the processing power of an E-350 (18W) with the processing power of an A8-3530MX (45W). If you really want to make a FAIR comparison, you should be comparing the Fusion with the i3/i5/i7 mobile products, which also have integrated graphics and consume 18W or less. Here is a link to an i3 which is a FAIRER comparison to the E-350.

http://ark.intel.com/products/54624/Intel-Core-i3-2357M-Processor-(3M-Cache-1_30-GHz)

I don't know how these processors compare in performance, but this is a closer match to the Fusion product line than an Atom that consumes 33% of the power than the E-350. A processor which consumes ONE THIRD of the power of another will always be raped in performance if they use a similar process. If you can figure out a way to make this statement false then you can make a fortune by starting your own company and beating the snot out of every other CPU manufacturer in existence.

[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]@nrgx
Little intel drone: That craptastic Atom you mention is a crappy 1 CORE ATOM[/citation]

It is funny how people who can't argue the facts always resort to personal attacks.

 

[Guest]

I used an Asus N10J with 1.6Ghz Atom, 2 Gb RAM and 512Mb Nvidia 9300GS as my sole computer for ~18 months before building my desktop. It was mostly hooked up to my 24 inch monitor via VGA / HDMI, and I did everything on it: HD video, gaming (mostly older games + N64, SNES, PSX emulation), ripped all my DVDs, CDs, Bible study, Chrome with 20+ tabs open, documents, spreadsheets, Java development, A/V for church services ... heaps of stuff! Of course I maintained a pretty lean XP install, and although I could tell it wasn't a performance machine, it was fine for what I did. Yes my Phenom II X4 955BE is way faster, but my N10J was good enough for what I wanted to do. And the portability was a major bonus!

I find you've just got to be realistic with performance expectations.

 

[Parsian]

I have been using my HP MINI 311 for school. This thing is a 11.6 inch device with ION chip. Boy, most of the time, I am running Matlab, many tabs of chrome, LibreOffice and Windows Live Messenger all at once and the system is fairly responsive even though it is running the full Aero of Windows 7 Pro 32 bit.

Ive written many of my 3rd year physics lab papers and etc on this device despite the small keyboard.

Once you get to hold of one of these devices, you wont want to carry anything bigger.

However, I am looking for an AMD E-350 or E-450 model preferably from Lenovo since they have the best keyboards. I advised my brother to get a netbook of similar size but with AMD E-350 and he bought one. Boy, it is an amazing device. It is fast and uber responsive and good battery as well.


Once I get the Lenovo model, I will throw a SSD on it, and it will become the most amazing device 😛

 

[nordlead]

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

Wow, so I happen to like my processor/motherboard choice which was the cheapest at the time and the only motherboard that had all the features I needed and I'm an intel drone? I must have forgotten to throw away my AMD based HTPC and desktop PC. Going and wasting another $100 for NO REASON is just retarded. Remind me not to listen to you for advice.

 

[jacobdrj]

I certainly hope the Atom concept does not die... I love my netbook and am desperate to find a replacement... I need that crazy 10 hour battery life with a little more beef than my current 1005HAB (OC'd and SSD'ed). I am really excited about the E-Series AMD chips that combine some 3D muscle with better processing power than most dual core (4 thread) Atom chips, but similar battery life in the 10.1" formfactor. I love 10.1"... It is more portable than a regular laptop, and more functional, for me, than a touchscreen only tablet... Not to mention, the clam-shell screen is protected by the keyboard...

I think Asus or Acer has the right idea combining a keyboard with extra battery life with a tablet. But it has to be x86 compatible to be able to match the versatility of my Atom based netbook. The price has got to be under 300 dollars for it to be worth it (pre SSD) and I would like the screen resolution to be upped to at least 720p... Samsung used to have a line that had similar specs to what I am looking for, and I know there are some Asian models that have the specs I want...

If I want it, I know there has to be others who want it too... It is a niche, but one I love...

 

[ProDigit10]

If they want to make the Atom still attractive, they should skip a step or 2 on their chart! People are tired of waiting! The atom is currently where it should have been by the end of 2009!

 

[Guest]

i think Atoms are as crappy as their 800*600 screens,even my old 12 inch ibook g3 900 mhz,1024*768 and 7hrs+ on battery perform better.

 

[DjEaZy]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]It's not supposed to play warcraft...it's a netbook processor.[/citation]
... why? Because intel haz set a standard, that any netbook should be a peace of $#!t? AMD thinks otherwise... even lowest AMD APU can do some gaming... it can not run crysis of course... but it can do gaming... and OpenCL, and DX11, and GPGPU...

 

[nrgx]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... why? Because intel haz set a standard, that any netbook should be a peace of $#!t? AMD thinks otherwise... even lowest AMD APU can do some gaming... it can not run crysis of course... but it can do gaming... and OpenCL, and DX11, and GPGPU...[/citation]
I am sure the i3/i5/i7 mobile CPU's with integrated graphics, which consume a similar amount of power as the E-350 APU, can do some gaming as well. I think ojas's point was that the Atom is targeted at lower power applications. An extreme example: I am sure everyone will agree that they wouldn't want an 18W processor to power their smart phone because the battery would have to be huge.

Maybe the problem is that Intel is marketting the atom over too wide a range of applications. When I look over the list of atom processors available I see a very wide range of power consumption. I see Atom processors with maximum power as low as 0.65W and as high as 13W.

 

[Guest]

Intel renaming Atom is not unjustified - as I hear it, the 2012 Atoms will be improved with out-of-order capability, which will significantly improve its responsiveness. It will not be unlike the relative step from Netburst to Core.

Thusfar, the Atom is a great little processor. Everyone complaining about it just doesn't know how to use it. Of course a slow, power budget-minded in-order CPU will have its limitations. But a budget/travel CPU isn't meant for intensive tasks. My ancient N280 netbook plays HD just fine (no ION, either), runs multiple tabs of Youtube videos without problems, runs console emulators and tons of old-but-good games, even 3D. Everything I want to do on the go. Intel has been doing a great job with improving the Atom. The speed hasn't increased, but Atom isn't about speed - it's about "barely good enough" x86 computing at the lowest power level. By the metric of performance/power, Intel has nearly doubled Atom's capability with every generation. Atom haters should stop whining and stick with their laptops/desktops; the Atom was never meant for you, just like the i7 wasn't meant for netbooks. It's for people like me, who want maximum mobile freedom, and don't mind a performance hit to get it, because I don't try to use my netbook as my primary system.

 

[skylab-fitness]

The number of idiots posting on this thread is mind-numbing. A skilled computer user can tune an Atom machine to run decently for most every day tasks. People who say otherwise are idiots who don't know how to tune a Windows box.

AMD shills are just as stupid and downright annoying -- no amount of shilling is going to enable AMD release a processor better than Intel's Sandy Bridge i7 this year.