Report: Atom N470 1.83 GHz Due Early 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
622
0
18,980
0
It's always interesting to see which direction emerging computer technology takes. I remember, only a few short years ago, it was believed we would all be wearing computers by now. I still remember the commercial with the guy sitting out in front of a fountain at some non-descript city plaza, yelling "buy it, buy it!" into his headset before answering a call from his wife. Then again, who knows? Smaller footprint, low-power consumption computer technology may revitalize those dreams for some people. :)
 

gwolfman

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2007
782
0
18,980
0
The report says that the Atom N470 will have thermal design power of 6.5 W, which is a bit more than the 2.5 W for the N270, but should see an overall savings as it does away with the separate memory controller and graphics chip.
Considering it's replacing the 945 chipset/MCH, it can only get better.
 

IzzyCraft

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2008
1,438
0
19,290
2
[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]A similar priced Athlon X2 Neo with 780G can play Crysis. That bad are intel "slowbooks"[/citation]
But it's no were near the power saving mainly from the 780G graphics
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
I thought they already had a 1.8GHz Atom processor, buts its like twice as expensive as the 1.6GHz Atom, so no one uses it. Of course, one thing these articles always assume is that everyone knows the differences between Pineview, Diamondville, and Silverthorne. I had to look it up on wikipedia to figure out the existing 1.8GHz Atom is an MID/UMPC version and not a nettop or netbook version, apparently theres a difference?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Intel are boneheads for even using x86 for this. Larrabee is essentially trying to make a stream processor out of x86 Atom cores, which they can squeeze perhaps 20 or 30 cores, without enough on-chip cache to feed them. ATI and Nvidia get HUNDREDS of "cores" on the same silicon, if AMD took the same amount of silicon as Atom, and squeezed perhaps 10 stream processors on it and compiled Linux to run on it, it would blow Atom away in performance. However, stream processors and GPUs are not Intel's area of expertise, so they try to force themselves into the market and make you use things they know how to make.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
No offense Str3, but you're way off on this.

From what I read, the Larrabee isn't anything like the Atom. It's a real x86 processor that executes x86 instructions, not decodes them and executes another type of code. I'm not crazy about moving x86 further out; it's a bad instruction set that needed to die years ago. Intel tried, but the marketplace choice x86 over Itanium, at least for the mainstream.

Atom pretty much had to be x86, or no one would care. It needs to be able to run standard code. I don't know why you think they should have used something else, but clearly you're ignoring the importance of compatibility to market success. And it has attained very strong market acceptance. The main error is the damn supporting chipset. It sucks too much.
 
G

Guest

Guest
ARM is making more profit than ever!
They never where a desktop chipset, and neither today.
They mainly are present in your pocket! About every person on the planet has ARM in their pockets, or at least seen it in the form of a cellphone, tamagotchi, Gameboy, etc...
 

False_Dmitry_II

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
1,944
0
19,960
57
[citation][nom]Nintendork[/nom]A similar priced Athlon X2 Neo with 780G can play Crysis. That bad are intel "slowbooks"[/citation]

Similar priced? I either haven't seen what you have or you think netbooks are more than 350. Last time I saw the yukon platform it was a $600 laptop but with the specs more or less of a netbook. I wish AMD would actually compete in the actual netbook range, instead of this "super-portable" segment that I would never buy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
ta152: Larrabee is just a bunch of Atom cores on one die, with a similar interconnect to a stream processor, look it up. They're both x86, Larrabee is just the extreme multi-core version of Atom. The architecture is pretty much identical.
 

justiceguy216

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2009
48
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]str3_no_comma_really[/nom]ta152: Larrabee is just a bunch of Atom cores on one die, with a similar interconnect to a stream processor, look it up. They're both x86, Larrabee is just the extreme multi-core version of Atom. The architecture is pretty much identical.[/citation]

I looked it up a little...according to Wikipedia it's more like Atom than Pentium, but there are still differences. From what I gather Larrabee's real brags are as a GPGPU rather than just graphics :\. I never rarely bother reading the really in-depth ground level tech specs like how each core uses and shares its cache or access RAM... they could use paper clips and hot-glue for all I care, as long as they perform well in real-world apps and have good support I'm happy with them.
 
G

Guest

Guest
justiceguy: That's where Intel actually fails though... How many Atom CPUs it take to equal one Core i7 or Phenom II in performance? Like 16 or so? It's already huge at 16 cores, they can't really squeeze more than 32 cores into one Larrabee, so performance is going to suck no matter what, so their performance claims seem to be outright lies, since 2Tflops(supposedly) divided by 32cores at 2.0ghz(the specs Intel hinted at) equals ~63gflops per core, or about 20x the performance of Atom at a dismal 3gflops at 1.6ghz, whereas Core i7 is about 70gflops at 3.2ghz. Are you ready to call bullshit on Intel yet? Feel free to verify everything I just said.

But how many stream processors can AMD/ATI fit on a 48x0? 800, and soon to be 1200 on the 58x0 series. The individual stream processors are much smaller than the Larrabee cores, because they have a much simpler instruction set, and can make due with much less cache. This is the reason that Atom and Larrabee both fail.
 

radguy

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2008
223
0
18,680
0
Problem is Intels CULV processors ultraportalbs like dell 11z a little overpriced or the acer 1410 already 450 bucks from amazon today. I consider it to be just a slightly better netbook everyone else thinks its an ultraportalbe but for the price size wieght and performance it fits a pretty nice niche in the market. This atom might get close to its performance depending on its architecture but it will still be an atom and still be severly limited. These new 12inch CULV systems are going to change the netbook market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS