The latest version of Intel's processor price list includes the company's first 32 nm Atom processors.
New 32nm Atoms Surface on Intel's Website : Read more
New 32nm Atoms Surface on Intel's Website : Read more
- Status
mavroxur
Distinguished
- Feb 8, 2009
- 1,502
- 6
- 20,015
Intel is really stepping up the Atom line. At first, I was disappointed in the Atom CPU after laying hands on a few of the early ones. But after playing with some N570 based netbooks with a couple gigs of RAM and SSD's, they FLEW. Not to mention I imaged them, ran through the Win 7 OOBE, and ran all the Windows updates as well as 3rd party updates, and they still had 5 hrs+ battery life remaining. They blasted through the OOBE faster than a mid range C2D desktop. I hope Intel keeps the Atom family around for a while, since it's finally maturing into something useful.
Manicslayer
Distinguished
- Feb 23, 2010
- 67
- 0
- 18,640
This is a nice step forward for Intel, unfortunately they still don't have anything that can top AMD's offerings, just as AMD has nothing on Intel's tippy-top end processors. Intel has some great minds behind it and I think they realize the 5% market share for extreme cpu's just isn't worth losing the handheld/netbook market to AMD.
So if a manufacturer like HP or Apple were to release the a netbook or a tablet with the same specs, a model with D2700 and another on with D2500. There wouldn't be a reason for the different in price to be $10.. But they'd charge extra $100! (in apple case at least $500)
ltdementhial
Guest
- Aug 20, 2011
- 91
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]So if a manufacturer like HP or Apple were to release the a netbook or a tablet with the same specs, a model with D2700 and another on with D2500. There wouldn't be a reason for the different in price to be $10.. But they'd charge extra $100! (in apple case at least $500)[/citation]
No. There are a lot of reasons they would charge more than $10.
Many things go into pricing different models. the raw cost of One part is just a tiny bit.
There is first the underlying hardware (cooling, battery, etc) for the faster processor. It will use a bit more power, generate more heat, need to be cooled. This can mean a different or bigger cooler with a more robust fan.
The cost of maintaining more than one product line. This is a large part of it too. Having more than one model of an item creates more work to keep them separate, differentiate them in design, shipping, packaging, marketing, accounting, parts, warranty, etc.. hundreds of factors.
The fact they want to be able to sell BOTH of these is perhaps the biggest one. They target the lower end one at a smaller price point, the higher one for a nicer higher specced (often with more options) version. Who is going to buy the lower end model if the higher end one is only $10 more?
They probably also want to make a profit, but if you want to start your own company that doesn't profit, never makes enough to re-invest in R&D, and goes out of business soon after, by all means, just use only your own money to do it.
Sorry, that is just how business works.
No. There are a lot of reasons they would charge more than $10.
Many things go into pricing different models. the raw cost of One part is just a tiny bit.
There is first the underlying hardware (cooling, battery, etc) for the faster processor. It will use a bit more power, generate more heat, need to be cooled. This can mean a different or bigger cooler with a more robust fan.
The cost of maintaining more than one product line. This is a large part of it too. Having more than one model of an item creates more work to keep them separate, differentiate them in design, shipping, packaging, marketing, accounting, parts, warranty, etc.. hundreds of factors.
The fact they want to be able to sell BOTH of these is perhaps the biggest one. They target the lower end one at a smaller price point, the higher one for a nicer higher specced (often with more options) version. Who is going to buy the lower end model if the higher end one is only $10 more?
They probably also want to make a profit, but if you want to start your own company that doesn't profit, never makes enough to re-invest in R&D, and goes out of business soon after, by all means, just use only your own money to do it.
Sorry, that is just how business works.
amigafan
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2011
- 212
- 0
- 18,760
In article there were mentioned speed and price, but Y U no mention TDP? According to the Wikipedia (Intel's website is designed primarily for consumers so finding useful information is not as easy as on Wikipedia) the new 32nm Atoms have a TDP of 10 W. Which for me doesn't really spark any interest in *new* Atoms.
Intel is just looking for x86 to get in.
The real push for them will come with a 22 or 14nm Atom with a mature Intel GPU similar to Ivy or Sandy Bridge.
Now that Google is working with Intel, forget about it. ARM WILL be out. Intel in the past has leveraged its insane margins to cut prices to OEM's like Dell or Apple or now Google in order to get control of a market. ARM's days are numbered. Soon we'll be doing H.264 rendering on our smartphones and tablets thanks to Intel and Quicksync.
The real push for them will come with a 22 or 14nm Atom with a mature Intel GPU similar to Ivy or Sandy Bridge.
Now that Google is working with Intel, forget about it. ARM WILL be out. Intel in the past has leveraged its insane margins to cut prices to OEM's like Dell or Apple or now Google in order to get control of a market. ARM's days are numbered. Soon we'll be doing H.264 rendering on our smartphones and tablets thanks to Intel and Quicksync.
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
Atoms have been great processors, what really brings them down is the awful GPU support that comes with them, not to mention the sad north bridge chips that take far too much power. As I have noted previously, my little netbook (N450 processor) gets 4-5 hours of battery life when been used on a 3 cell battery, and on CPU intensive things (like recording audio) it does quite well for such a budged processor. The problem is when you try to use it for multimedia, like video, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Personally I do not understand why they don't go down to the 22nm level like the ivy bridge processors? They would be right on par with ARM procs for TDP, and be able to do so much more. Plus (if the process is good) they could get an even higher yield and get that sad price point down another $10 or so. That would also fend off AMD which has much better/cheaper native GPU support that leaves intel in the dust.
Personally I do not understand why they don't go down to the 22nm level like the ivy bridge processors? They would be right on par with ARM procs for TDP, and be able to do so much more. Plus (if the process is good) they could get an even higher yield and get that sad price point down another $10 or so. That would also fend off AMD which has much better/cheaper native GPU support that leaves intel in the dust.
"For tablet applications, we already know that good-enough processors dominate the market and Intel will have to come much closer to the $20 to $30 price range to have a greater chance to become a rival for ARM implementations."
go intel go!
id love to see intel processor in my cellphone someday.
go intel go!
id love to see intel processor in my cellphone someday.
Intel will most likely surpass ARM before the end of next year in the tablet/smartphone arena.
ARM is having to continually add cores and increase the complexity (Arm Cortex-A9, Cortex-A15) to improve tablet/phone performance. NVidia Tegra 3 has 5 ARM cores. TI has a 4/6 ARM core part for late 2012. Performance gains are largely coming from clock speed increases as they doubled the pipeline stages from A9-A13 (8 stage integer vs 17 stage integer). Which means they'll also run into frequency and core limits like Intel/AMD did.
Intel just has to keep shrinking and move to Tri-Gate which it's doing next year. (22nm tri-gate). It's really only the power consumption keeping them out of the tablets right now. Once Intel attaches a memory to the Atom (like Apple A5/A4 does) the Atom platform power requirements will drop significantly.
I wish them luck but someone needs to help them more with the FAB tech. Intel has a 2 year lead.
ARM is having to continually add cores and increase the complexity (Arm Cortex-A9, Cortex-A15) to improve tablet/phone performance. NVidia Tegra 3 has 5 ARM cores. TI has a 4/6 ARM core part for late 2012. Performance gains are largely coming from clock speed increases as they doubled the pipeline stages from A9-A13 (8 stage integer vs 17 stage integer). Which means they'll also run into frequency and core limits like Intel/AMD did.
Intel just has to keep shrinking and move to Tri-Gate which it's doing next year. (22nm tri-gate). It's really only the power consumption keeping them out of the tablets right now. Once Intel attaches a memory to the Atom (like Apple A5/A4 does) the Atom platform power requirements will drop significantly.
I wish them luck but someone needs to help them more with the FAB tech. Intel has a 2 year lead.
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Intel is just looking for x86 to get in.The real push for them will come with a 22 or 14nm Atom with a mature Intel GPU similar to Ivy or Sandy Bridge.[/citation]
ARM would be an idiot to stay still in this kind of market heating up. I wager they'll continue to come out with new and improved lower power designs. The real question is, will Intel catch up to ARM? Or will the Atom flounder?
ARM would be an idiot to stay still in this kind of market heating up. I wager they'll continue to come out with new and improved lower power designs. The real question is, will Intel catch up to ARM? Or will the Atom flounder?
The real question is: Will GPUs for ARM desings will improve quickly enough so it can rival Intel and/or nVidia or AMD APU when Intel CPUs are on par with ARM designs?
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
[citation][nom]digiex[/nom]typo?[/citation]
Not really. The D525 is a dual core Atom with HT, meaning it appears to operating systems as a quad core.
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]The real push for them will come with a 22 or 14nm Atom with a mature Intel GPU similar to Ivy or Sandy Bridge.[/citation]
Unless Intel can really leverage its fabrication advantage, they aren't beating ARM anytime soon. HD Graphics aren't a mature solution, by the way, not yet. Having an insanely highly-clocked GPU to make up for a performance deficit isn't a mature solution, regardless of how good QuickSync is.
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Now that Google is working with Intel, forget about it. ARM WILL be out. Intel in the past has leveraged its insane margins to cut prices to OEM's like Dell or Apple or now Google in order to get control of a market. ARM's days are numbered. Soon we'll be doing H.264 rendering on our smartphones and tablets thanks to Intel and Quicksync.[/citation]
The only way Intel is going to push ARM out over the short-term future would be to employ the same illegal tactics used against AMD. It's just not going to happen. Atom and ARM are vastly different architectures; we're simply not going to end up with x86 or x86-64 smartphones as the norm overnight, even with a new design for the purpose. ARM products are far easier and cheaper to manufacture right now than Atom CPUs; at the very least, we'd end up with much more expensive smartphones if we had future Atom CPUs in there. I would fully expect a non-Atom CPU from Intel targeting this segment, if anything.
I'm afraid that super-fast video encoding on a tablet or smartphone isn't exactly on its way very soon.
Not really. The D525 is a dual core Atom with HT, meaning it appears to operating systems as a quad core.
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]The real push for them will come with a 22 or 14nm Atom with a mature Intel GPU similar to Ivy or Sandy Bridge.[/citation]
Unless Intel can really leverage its fabrication advantage, they aren't beating ARM anytime soon. HD Graphics aren't a mature solution, by the way, not yet. Having an insanely highly-clocked GPU to make up for a performance deficit isn't a mature solution, regardless of how good QuickSync is.
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Now that Google is working with Intel, forget about it. ARM WILL be out. Intel in the past has leveraged its insane margins to cut prices to OEM's like Dell or Apple or now Google in order to get control of a market. ARM's days are numbered. Soon we'll be doing H.264 rendering on our smartphones and tablets thanks to Intel and Quicksync.[/citation]
The only way Intel is going to push ARM out over the short-term future would be to employ the same illegal tactics used against AMD. It's just not going to happen. Atom and ARM are vastly different architectures; we're simply not going to end up with x86 or x86-64 smartphones as the norm overnight, even with a new design for the purpose. ARM products are far easier and cheaper to manufacture right now than Atom CPUs; at the very least, we'd end up with much more expensive smartphones if we had future Atom CPUs in there. I would fully expect a non-Atom CPU from Intel targeting this segment, if anything.
I'm afraid that super-fast video encoding on a tablet or smartphone isn't exactly on its way very soon.
someoneelse
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2009
- 126
- 0
- 18,680
intel might beat arm on battery life if they stay ahead of everyone else with their manufacturing process. 22nm atoms will be here next year probably.
with more and more consumer devices require powerful low power chips its a good market to be in
with more and more consumer devices require powerful low power chips its a good market to be in
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Gigabyte B760 GAMING X DDR4 or MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
- Started by Samuel-212
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question What Cat6 Ethernet Cable Should I Get? I'm From The UK
- Started by legendairyjoe
- Replies: 7
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram