atom celerons and pentiums

[OBLAMA2009]

intels gonna do that same crap that amd did and make their entry level chips ultra low performance atoms chips instead of ivy bridge/haswell based:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/intel-to-launch-celeron-and-pentium-processors-with-atom-inside/

 

[NTMBK]

intels gonna do that same crap that amd did and make their entry level chips ultra low performance atoms chips instead of ivy bridge/haswell based:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/intel-to-launch-celeron-and-pentium-processors-with-atom-inside/

You mean they're going to copy the strategy that has made Bobcat AMD's most successful line in a very long time? Gosh.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

You mean they're going to copy the strategy that has made Bobcat AMD's most successful line in a very long time? Gosh.

thats lame for buyers though. now, instead of getting an ivy bridge pentium laptop for $350 your gonna get a much lower performance "atom pentium". the atom brand is so damaged that theyre gonna try to sell it by renaming it. no thanks, bro

 

[SiliconWars]

How about the obvious reason? Kabini has killed the current Atom, Celeron and Pentium line because the former is too slow and the latter two draw too much power.

 

[crashtestdummy]

thats lame for buyers though. now, instead of getting an ivy bridge pentium laptop for $350 your gonna get a much lower performance "atom pentium". the atom brand is so damaged that theyre gonna try to sell it by renaming it. no thanks, bro

Chances are you'll get something with 10-20% less performance with 50% more battery life. Most laptop users would make that trade.

Celerons are aimed at people who are not pushing the limits of their computer, and are generally just aiming to consume media. It makes sense to give them essentially a souped-up tablet processor.

 

[Zap]

If Intel's claims are to be believed, the new Atoms have 2x the performance of current Atoms, and they should be at least as efficient or even more so than current Atoms.

How many of us here [raises hand] have our "Atom" experience on first gen single core 1.6GHz Atoms in original netbooks?

Current Atoms hit up to 2.16GHz with twice the cache memory, faster bus speeds, faster system RAM, faster IGP and newer chipset.

As long as the price is good, I have no complaints with true quad core 22nm "Atoms" that have 2x better performance and possibly better battery life than current Atoms.

Time will tell...

 

[StinkyPinky]

If Intel's claims are to be believed, the new Atoms have 2x the performance of current Atoms, and they should be at least as efficient or even more so than current Atoms.

How many of us here [raises hand] have our "Atom" experience on first gen single core 1.6GHz Atoms in original netbooks?

Current Atoms hit up to 2.16GHz with twice the cache memory, faster bus speeds, faster system RAM, faster IGP and newer chipset.

As long as the price is good, I have no complaints with true quad core 22nm "Atoms" that have 2x better performance and possibly better battery life than current Atoms.

Time will tell...

Those first gen 1.6Ghz atoms were horrible horrible cpu's. It will take me a long time to ever trust another atom again. Maybe Intel should rebrand them like they did for the Pentium -> Core transition.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Good for Intel. If they can deliver the price/performance and performance/watt needed by the market, then they will sell. I think that this is positive news for their new 22nm Atom CPU (did I read quad-core?). Intel's right on AMD's heels here, what with AMD's new Jaguar-based mobile quad-core CPUs coming out soon too.

At least they are both keeping x86/x64 alive at the low-end, keeping the encroachment of ARM at bay.

 

[taisingera]

I had a Dell Mini 9 and that thing was so terribly slooooooow. Only had it for about 9 months. All Intel wants is to make cheaper chips and sell them at current prices of better performing parts. Average Joe will eat these up, in cheap laptops and tablets if all they do is FB, email, and surf and won't be the wiser.

 

[ultimatebob]

The new dual core 2Ghz Atoms aren't half bad. They're now up the the performance levels of the early Core 2 Duo processors, and they are dirt cheap.

 

[Zap]

Those first gen 1.6Ghz atoms were horrible horrible cpu's. It will take me a long time to ever trust another atom again.

That's my point. How many of us who are going "not another Atom" based our prejudices on the first gen Atoms?

The new dual core 2Ghz Atoms aren't half bad. They're now up the the performance levels of the early Core 2 Duo processors, and they are dirt cheap.

This info is useful. So if the new Atoms are 2x this performance...

 

[lopri]

I had 2 atoms - one in a mini-ITX (sold the whole thing in less than 2 weeks) and one in a nettop. (my mom used it for about 6 months until she moved on to iPad)

Both were dual-cores with Hyperthreading.. running Windows XP. lol.

 

[piasabird]

The real market is the tablet market.

If Atoms are so great show us the benchmarks. Include the low power boards like the quad core Celeron and the Lucent Technology Snapdragon Quad Core Motherboard.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The new dual core 2Ghz Atoms aren't half bad. They're now up the the performance levels of the early Core 2 Duo processors, and they are dirt cheap.

Any real benchmarks for this? Maybe to the very, very lowest end of the first C2D, but most C2D were faster than 2ghz, and I have a hard time believing current atom is as fast clock for clock as even C2D.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Even more confusion apparently. I find AMDs Richland/Kabini nomenclature very confusing as well. As for intel, if they feel the atom brand has too much of a negative connotation, I dont blame them for changing it, but it would be more straightforward if they gave it a completely new name rather than overlapping with the big core names.

 

[NTMBK]

Any real benchmarks for this? Maybe to the very, very lowest end of the first C2D, but most C2D were faster than 2ghz, and I have a hard time believing current atom is as fast clock for clock as even C2D.

Given that we're talking about a netbook/tablet chip here I presume he's comparing it to the ULV C2Ds, which went all the way down to a craptastic 1.07GHz.

 

[jhu]

Any real benchmarks for this? Maybe to the very, very lowest end of the first C2D, but most C2D were faster than 2ghz, and I have a hard time believing current atom is as fast clock for clock as even C2D.

First generation Atom is quite a bit slower clock for clock than Pentium 4. Slowest Core 2 was Core 2 Solo @ 1.07 GHz for notebooks. Based on my test results, Core 2 has 3x higher ipc than Atom. So the in-order Atoms aren't faster than any of the released Core 2-based processors. Maybe when they release the out of order Atoms.

 

[SPBHM]

Given that we're talking about a netbook/tablet chip here I presume he's comparing it to the ULV C2Ds, which went all the way down to a craptastic 1.07GHz.

well, looking at these results (not ideal, only 3dmV CPU, CB 11.5 and 3dm06 CPU for the Atom), the 10w C2D ULV (but it needs NB and SB) looks to be on par with the 2.1GHz dual core Atom


http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Atom-D2700-Notebook-Processor.64401.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-2-Duo-SU7300-Notebook-Processor.33844.0.html

so any higher TDP old C2D from 2006-2007 is going to destroy the fastest current Atom,

here you can compared the D2700 to the G530T
2x doesn't look like it's really enough to beat the SB Celeron at 2GHz (which performs the same as many mobile sb/ib Pentium/Celerons)

but it's and old architecture, sure it's improved, but IPC probably haven't changed much since the n270 or whatever...

if the new Atom can deliver 2x (and It's not hard to believe), it could be as fast as the current lower clocked SB Celerons at least, but with much lower power draw...

I hope they still sell some Pentium/Celeron for LGA 1150.

 

[R0H1T]

The new dual core 2Ghz Atoms aren't half bad. They're now up the the performance levels of the early Core 2 Duo processors, and they are dirt cheap.

Umm no they aren't, I have a 2 core wolfdale & it can beat any Atom model in ST/MT tasks hands down, the efficiency however isn't quite the same !

 

[Haserath]

Makes sense to me. This Atom should be quick enough for the low end. Probably half the IPC of their Core line.

I wonder if they'd make a quad atom for the pentiums?

 

[krumme]

If Intel's claims are to be believed, the new Atoms have 2x the performance of current Atoms, and they should be at least as efficient or even more so than current Atoms.

How many of us here [raises hand] have our "Atom" experience on first gen single core 1.6GHz Atoms in original netbooks?

Current Atoms hit up to 2.16GHz with twice the cache memory, faster bus speeds, faster system RAM, faster IGP and newer chipset.

As long as the price is good, I have no complaints with true quad core 22nm "Atoms" that have 2x better performance and possibly better battery life than current Atoms.

Time will tell...

The first gen atom didnt have integrated gpu as i recall?- and therefore had half-bad battery life, pineview had that integrated and sort of got acceptable battery life for the netbooks.
I once had a pineview atom 450 single core at 1.66 GHz. And yes it was just horrible, with a barely working gpu part. But it was horrible primarily because the single threaded performance was so bad.

AMD bobcat had 60% better single treaded performance at same MHz, and that makes the bobcat an usable platform. Its slow but its working and good enough for mom and your sister. Jaguar have aprox 20% better ipc than Bobcat so that acounts for aprox 80% compared to current Atom. 80% is a lot of difference, and then add its typically quad core.

The new Atoms is needed, and i think they will make a nice impression, but i think they will have a hard time figting the A57/A53 from ARM, and dont have the performance on the gpu part of jaguar. They are stucked in a difficult place. If MS win8 had been better, and more successfull Atom could be a very nice product for the x86 tablet market.

And i would like x86 compatability for my phone also, by i am quite confident i am a nice market here. The mobile platform is driven by play store, games, social network and so on.

But its nice we get some competition, and i am sure we will see som impressive battery numbers from Atom - unfortunately it seem efficiency in screen tech is what matters most in the future. And we are well past fast enough on the phones.

 

[lopri]

Earlier Atoms did not have on-die/on-package GPUs, yeah. Instead the GPU resided in the chipset, an ancient one at that. (at one point I believe chipset TDP was actually higher than the CPU's) Of course everyone knows how Intel conduct the business and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the chipsets were bundled with the CPUs so that Intel can keep their old factories running. (a.k.a. Intel "tax")

They had a good run, albeit short-sighted, with nettops.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Earlier Atoms did not have on-die/on-package GPUs, yeah. Instead the GPU resided in the chipset, an ancient one at that. (at one point I believe chipset TDP was actually higher than the CPU's) Of course everyone knows how Intel conduct the business and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the chipsets were bundled with the CPUs so that Intel can keep their old factories running. (a.k.a. Intel "tax")

They had a good run, albeit short-sighted, with nettops.

theyre trying to make atomic nettops the entry level machine now instead of ib based pentiums. apparently they think were that styoopid

 

[VirtualLarry]

theyre trying to make atomic nettops the entry level machine now instead of ib based pentiums. apparently they think were that styoopid

See my rant thread about the rise of "good enough" computing, loosely inspired by this thread.

Edit: At least, the NUC is still all IB chips. For now at least.

 

[Bman123]

Umm no they aren't, I have a 2 core wolfdale & it can beat any Atom model in ST/MT tasks hands down, the efficiency however isn't quite the same !

The wolfdale core 2 duos are the last core 2 duos made