atom!?!?

[anikhtos]

the intodusing of tha atom was an interesting moove from intel for building very low powered systems.
At first gen with 330 we had the problems with processor at 10 watt and northbridge at 20 watt lol. But at least you had enought pci lanes to go around.
Round 2 for intel and d525 introdused with minimum speed advantage and a new chipset low watt this time. But now the pci lanes were effectively down to 4.
Round 3 for intel and the d2700 atom has no support for 64bit os!!!!

Last day i spent out reading about the future roadmaps of intel atom and intel promised to speed up the roadmap even somethign like 2 times the over the moore law.
So intel is going to give a 16bit capable only processor in one year?!?!?!?

sometimes i do not understand the company
some of their products just do not make any sense
and in 2012 d2700 has no present.

(i have 2 atom systems with the atom 330 which so far is the best implementantion cause i was able to find and buy a mainboard with a pci-e x16 lanes and one also with pci-e x1 plus one pci in a flex atx mobo. all pci-e run in version 1.0 but never the less 16 lanes are much better than 4 in the nm10 era. )
From the other side was hoping for something from amd but abandon the upgrade of e-450 project.

 

[Olikan]

if ppl buy, intel sells

like any other company

 

[anikhtos]

if ppl buy, intel sells

like any other company

but this time intel with every generation it makes the atom platform worse and worse and worse
3 years with the same cpu power i knew moore law will end up one day but it had to start with atom

 

[greenhawk]

intel proberly could see the atom being perfered by the masses instead of the celeron / i3 processors.

that would not be acceptable for intel so they limit the atom to what it is intended for, small low powered units.

But seeing as the last comment I remember reading was intel looking to place the atom into hand sets, I can think it's feature set will shrink even more.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Ok let me see if I have this correct; you are looking for a board that is low power (the reason you selected Intel® Atom&#8482, supports more than 4GB of memory (64bit OS), and has at least a 16x PCI-e slot for your video card? Am I missing anything?

Well, I guess I am since it seems a little self-defeating to build a low power system that is under 100w only to include a PCI-e slot that will lead to the doubling, tripling or more the power requirement so you can put a video card in a system that is designed to be used for low performance in the first place. It seems to me that you are looking for more of the performance of a board based around a processor like the Intel Core™ i3-2100T and a board like the Intel Desktop board DH67CL (Mini-ITX w/ a x16 PCI-e).

I am trying to figure out how you think that the Intel Atom is less capable today than it was when it was first released. We never have supported a 64bit OS on any of the Intel Atom based systems. Also the Intel Atom processors have a faster clock speed, bus, better integrated graphics, support more memory then they did in the past.

 

[podspi]

It's because the point of the Atom is for low-power, low-performance machines.

The original atom didn't have a specialized chipset which guzzled more power than the Atom itself. Now the atom is paired with lower-power support chips, which as you mentioned, have fewer features.

Have you looked at Brazos-based machines instead? They are also low-power, cheap machines. At the very least they're a lot faster...

 

[Qbah]

Ok let me see if I have this correct; you are looking for a board that is low power (the reason you selected Intel® Atom™), supports more than 4GB of memory (64bit OS), and has at least a 16x PCI-e slot for your video card? Am I missing anything?

Well, I guess I am since it seems a little self-defeating to build a low power system that is under 100w only to include a PCI-e slot that will lead to the doubling, tripling or more the power requirement so you can put a video card in a system that is designed to be used for low performance in the first place. It seems to me that you are looking for more of the performance of a board based around a processor like the Intel Core™ i3-2100T and a board like the Intel Desktop board DH67CL (Mini-ITX w/ a x16 PCI-e).

I am trying to figure out how you think that the Intel Atom is less capable today than it was when it was first released. We never have supported a 64bit OS on any of the Intel Atom based systems. Also the Intel Atom processors have a faster clock speed, bus, better integrated graphics, support more memory then they did in the past.

Good summary :thumbsup: Wondering the same myself

On the other hand in my opinion the Atom is an abortion of a CPU (platform?). I had a MSi Wind clone a few years ago and boy, that thing was a lesson in patience! D: Another reason for this might be that other components in such a netbook are far from performance leaders too. Though I guess some people might find it useful or it wouldn't sell at all...

 

[anikhtos]

Ok let me see if I have this correct; you are looking for a board that is low power (the reason you selected Intel® Atom&#8482, supports more than 4GB of memory (64bit OS), and has at least a 16x PCI-e slot for your video card? Am I missing anything?

Well, I guess I am since it seems a little self-defeating to build a low power system that is under 100w only to include a PCI-e slot that will lead to the doubling, tripling or more the power requirement so you can put a video card in a system that is designed to be used for low performance in the first place. It seems to me that you are looking for more of the performance of a board based around a processor like the Intel Core™ i3-2100T and a board like the Intel Desktop board DH67CL (Mini-ITX w/ a x16 PCI-e).

I am trying to figure out how you think that the Intel Atom is less capable today than it was when it was first released. We never have supported a 64bit OS on any of the Intel Atom based systems. Also the Intel Atom processors have a faster clock speed, bus, better integrated graphics, support more memory then they did in the past.

lol reaally then how i installed win xp x64 just fine with them
if you never supported 64bit os? at least atom 330 i had no issue with xp x64 os with drivers. so you did support 64bit os in the past with atom
and the first atom 330 i found a mainboard with a full pci-e x16 v1.0 so you used to give also more pci lanes than the new atom lines
well a pci-e is not only for graphic cards i put there a raid card which worked flawless to make a low power nas
so you are destroying your line
and frankly 4giga in 32 bit os is nto 4 is more like 3.2 giga so i am mising a good 800mb

i only say that the atom line looses every generation somethin
2nd generation fewer lines
3rd generation no 64bit support
so where is the improvement of the platform??
and being inside intel i though you would have a better information about your own products

the maiboard was ecs 945GCD-M v1.0

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

D945GCLF

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D945GSEJT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D525MW

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D425KT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D510MO

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D410PT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

DN2800MT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700MUD

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700DC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500HN

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500CC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

I can't speak for companies that I don't work for but with the Intel® Atom™ based boards and the systems that we have released it seems that we don't support any 64bit OS. Support is generally more than just having drivers it also means that technical support will also help you with the product with issues that may come up with that OS. For all of the Intel Atom based board above that we have release there is no 64bit support. The Intel® Atom™ processors that are used may be em64t and able to run a 64bit OS but we are not supporting them in a 64bit OS. So ECS may have written some drivers for Windows XP 64bit but we are not. I guess we will have to disagree in that I believe that the Intel Atom based processors are more capable today then what they have been in the past for what they were designed for.

 

[anikhtos]

D945GCLF

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D945GSEJT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D525MW

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D425KT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D510MO

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D410PT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

DN2800MT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700MUD

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700DC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500HN

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500CC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

I can't speak for companies that I don't work for but with the Intel® Atom™ based boards and the systems that we have released it seems that we don't support any 64bit OS. Support is generally more than just having drivers it also means that technical support will also help you with the product with issues that may come up with that OS. For all of the Intel Atom based board above that we have release there is no 64bit support. The Intel® Atom™ processors that are used may be em64t and able to run a 64bit OS but we are not supporting them in a 64bit OS. So ECS may have written some drivers for Windows XP 64bit but we are not. I guess we will have to disagree in that I believe that the Intel Atom based processors are more capable today then what they have been in the past for what they were designed for.

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=15834&lang=eng

drivers for the 965 chipset paired with the first atom with 64bit support

 

[Coup27]

This "rant" makes no sense. For a start, you can check many datasheet webpages such as http://ark.intel.com/products/59683/ which clearly states that CPU has 64-bit support.

Whilst none of the boards listed above by IntelEnthusiast may support 64-bit, the Gigabyte GA-D525TUD does. If you check the datasheet webpage for the D525 it also clearly says it supports 64-bit.

Why you insist on wanting to run 64-bit on an Atom is an entirely different question. Why you also want a 16x PCI Express Lane is equally puzzling.

Personally I don't think Intel's Atom is at fault here, I think you have chosen the wrong processor for your needs. As IntelEnthusiast said, a low TDP i3 would be more suitable and you can also get ITX boards to suite.

Edit, or even a Sandy Bridge Pentium, such as G630T.

 

[Topweasel]

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=15834&lang=eng

drivers for the 965 chipset paired with the first atom with 64bit support

That was never an Atom platform. That was a laptop chip-set Intel and manufacturers used to get quick adoption of Atom till Intel released a specific chipset for Atom.

Atom even if at a CPU level can support 64-bit, its still not intended for that environment. Why should Intel develop an support a chipset to get 64bit functionality. I would tell you right of the bat, I don't care if its 1 program, or several running at once, that gets you to think that 32-bit for Atom is a limitation, if you are running into a system Ram issue at a 4 gig max on an Atom then you are already taking the CPU well beyond its use case. The machine is going to run like crap.

Would you be angry if a Pentium III 1GHz couldn't run more then 4GB or run a 64bit OS? Because that is what the Atom pretty much is performance wise, a 10 year old CPU, shrunk into a small power saving package. Brazos supports 64bit. Might even fill in everything you are looking for, but it will run just as poorly as the Atom is.

 

[anikhtos]

This "rant" makes no sense. For a start, you can check many datasheet webpages such as http://ark.intel.com/products/59683/ which clearly states that CPU has 64-bit support.

Whilst none of the boards listed above by IntelEnthusiast may support 64-bit, the Gigabyte GA-D525TUD does. If you check the datasheet webpage for the D525 it also clearly says it supports 64-bit.

Why you insist on wanting to run 64-bit on an Atom is an entirely different question. Why you also want a 16x PCI Express Lane is equally puzzling.

Personally I don't think Intel's Atom is at fault here, I think you have chosen the wrong processor for your needs. As IntelEnthusiast said, a low TDP i3 would be more suitable and you can also get ITX boards to suite.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/325554-10-atom-d2700-cedar-trail

check for intel enthusiast answer there
intel has removed the support of 64bit os for the atoms series
lol even at the downloading center at intel removed any link to 64bit oses any more

i prefer uatx board i can not live with itx are so small and crampy.
the atom 330 was great
i have no complains
i bought 2 of them
i only say the roadmap is going worse and worse
each atom generation is worse than the previous

 

[anikhtos]

That was never an Atom platform. That was a laptop chip-set Intel and manufacturers used to get quick adoption of Atom till Intel released a specific chipset for Atom.

Atom even if at a CPU level can support 64-bit, its still not intended for that environment. Why should Intel develop an support a chipset to get 64bit functionality. I would tell you right of the bat, I don't care if its 1 program, or several running at once, that gets you to think that 32-bit for Atom is a limitation, if you are running into a system Ram issue at a 4 gig max on an Atom then you are already taking the CPU well beyond its use case. The machine is going to run like crap.

Would you be angry if a Pentium III 1GHz couldn't run more then 4GB or run a 64bit OS? Because that is what the Atom pretty much is performance wise, a 10 year old CPU, shrunk into a small power saving package. Brazos supports 64bit. Might even fill in everything you are looking for, but it will run just as poorly as the Atom is.

first generation atom did not have their own chipset and itnel just used an old one which consumed mor epower than the cpu and was critisized for that
but regardless of that the first generation was able to support 64bit os
by the way the machine feels much better than a p4 2,5 gz
maybe cause even gma950 is better than the gpu at p4 or even that it is dual core makes it responce better.
atom feels great i even played rome total was on the atom

 

[Coup27]

why cant you use a Pentium like G630T with a uATX board?

 

[Topweasel]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/325554-10-atom-d2700-cedar-trail

check for intel enthusiast answer there
intel has removed the support of 64bit os for the atoms series
lol even at the downloading center at intel removed any link to 64bit oses any more

i prefer uatx board i can not live with itx are so small and crampy.
the atom 330 was great
i have no complains
i bought 2 of them
i only say the roadmap is going worse and worse
each atom generation is worse than the previous

Because you think the Roadmap for Atom is a bottom up. You were wrong, and its more of a mid bottom down.

When Netbooks and Netops came out that was the most "performance" driven it ever was in development. Intel has been working it's Peformance chips down to an acceptable power range. Now Atom is doing the same thing. But its goal is like Brazos eventually is to be a low power SOC, not a full system CPU. Do a search on Medfield.

You seem to be locked onto a CPU series, and not a role. What you are looking for is a low power Core series not the Atom.

 

[anikhtos]

Because you think the Roadmap for Atom is a bottom up. You were wrong, and its more of a mid bottom down.

When Netbooks and Netops came out that was the most "performance" driven it ever was in development. Intel has been working it's Peformance chips down to an acceptable power range. Now Atom is doing the same thing. But its goal is like Brazos eventually is to be a low power SOC, not a full system CPU. Do a search on Medfield.

You seem to be locked onto a CPU series, and not a role. What you are looking for is a low power Core series not the Atom.

my next system will be the e3-1265l v2
a xeon cpu with 45 watt 4/8 cores/threads
i imagine i can built that at the end of 2012??? first the release of products and then to be somewhow available so end of 2012 or earlu 2013

but it is my opinion to think that atom is gettign worse every generation
others may not see it like that but other people other needs other judgements
http://www.supermicro.nl/products/motherboard/ATOM/ICH9/X7SPA-HF-D525.cfm
also other was thrilled for a low powered machine
atom as a server why not
lot peopel still use the same software and the same workload so why not use a machine
with less power

 

[nenforcer]

I own an Atom 330 and have run both Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit as well as a Ubuntu 64-bit and couldn't be happier with it.

The problem is not that the Atom platform itself is getting worse, because its not, its that the competition from AMD Fusion Brazos is that much better.

I am holding on to my nVidia ION Atom 330 I've had since early 2010 even past AMD Fusion Trinity in 2012 probably until AMD Fusion Kaveli? in 2013.

Hopefully Intel will have some competion (Valley View?) for AMD at that point so it won't be such an easy decision slanted toward an AMD APU. There is currently no compelling Intel Atom chips / platforms for a HTPC as IntelEnthusiant just pointed out with the only 32-bit platforms.

If you read the Intel Atom sales figures they have taken a sharp nosedive the past couple of years.

 

[smyrgl]

People who are concerned about the Atom's performance really don't get what this thing is about. If you are looking for a budget box that still delivers for gaming, Atom isn't your cup of tea.

However for certain use cases it is actually far superior to Brazos simply because of better software compatibility (owing to its ubiquity, not anything special Intel has done), especially on Linux. I have two Atom boxes in my home: one is in my Synology NAS, the other is in one of my XBMC front end boxes mated to a bunch of other low power kit including a successor to the ION2 platform (this is a Cedar Trail based system) for 1080p hardware decode.

When it comes to a use case that involve embedded systems, the priorities look like this:

1) Enough performance to run your given use cases.
2) Compatibility.
3) Power consumption.
4) Cost.
.
.
.
5) Everything else.

 

[anikhtos]

People who are concerned about the Atom's performance really don't get what this thing is about. If you are looking for a budget box that still delivers for gaming, Atom isn't your cup of tea.

However for certain use cases it is actually far superior to Brazos simply because of better software compatibility (owing to its ubiquity, not anything special Intel has done), especially on Linux. I have two Atom boxes in my home: one is in my Synology NAS, the other is in one of my XBMC front end boxes mated to a bunch of other low power kit including a successor to the ION2 platform (this is a Cedar Trail based system) for 1080p hardware decode.

When it comes to a use case that involve embedded systems, the priorities look like this:

1) Enough performance to run your given use cases.
2) Compatibility.
3) Power consumption.
4) Cost.
.
.
.
5) Everything else.

i am saying that each atom generation is getting worse in supporting feutures
second generation lost pci lanes
third generation lost 64bit support
so that makes 330 atom with 965 chipset the best one intel made

 

[smyrgl]

i am saying that each atom generation is getting worse in supporting feutures
second generation lost pci lanes
third generation lost 64bit support
so that makes 330 atom with 965 chipset the best one intel made

Actually the Cedar Trail Atoms support 64-bit OS's just fine. I'm using one on my current XBMC box (Ubuntu 64-bit).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree with OP! Personally, I think Atom is CRAP, and should never have been developed. It's an interesting concept, sure. But it brings about the idea of "just barely good enough" computing, and that idea is incompatible with the performance ecosystem of existing x86 designs. I look forward to faster, better desktop CPUs, not "slow, same performance, but lower power". I could, within reason, give a crap less about power-consumption. (Currently rocking an AMD X6.)

Atom is a clear step BACKWARDS in the desktop computing world.

 

[anikhtos]

Actually the Cedar Trail Atoms support 64-bit OS's just fine. I'm using one on my current XBMC box (Ubuntu 64-bit).

IntelEnthusiast wrote :

On the Intel® website there has been Windows 7 64bit drivers (no graphics or storage drivers) for the Intel Desktop Boards D2700DC and D2700MUD. These 64bit drivers are to be pulled from the Intel site. In the end we are not going to be providing any type of support for developing 64bit drivers for any Intel Atom™ D2700 based boards. So the statement from Jetway that 64bit support is not going to be offered because Intel isnt providing support for these is correct.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team


You are lucky intel removes the 64bit support from atom
that what their representative said
so mobo with the new atom and 64bit support are in thin air now

and you did not read all my post atom 330 i run it win xp x64 ith no problem

but people have problem with the newest atom to instal 64bit os
someone bought a jetway mobo to find out tha tin bios it was disabled the atom 64bit support lol
and then this from intel meaning
intel official withdraw the support of 64 for the cedar trail atom
so if you find a mobo with 64bit support for the new atom it is possible
but do not count to be the rule
intel mobo do not support
at least jetway do not support

 

[Topweasel]

my next system will be the e3-1265l v2
a xeon cpu with 45 watt 4/8 cores/threads
i imagine i can built that at the end of 2012??? first the release of products and then to be somewhow available so end of 2012 or earlu 2013

but it is my opinion to think that atom is gettign worse every generation
others may not see it like that but other people other needs other judgements
http://www.supermicro.nl/products/motherboard/ATOM/ICH9/X7SPA-HF-D525.cfm
also other was thrilled for a low powered machine
atom as a server why not
lot peopel still use the same software and the same workload so why not use a machine
with less power

Depends on what you see as worse. Worse meaning a better desktop/laptop CPU then yeah, the separation was only ever going to get worse. The very design basis for the CPU was to take it to as low a power envelope as possible on the current process. The Atom was great as a netbook/nettop/simple server processor, because performance based processors hadn't yet got down to the point where they could efficiently put into those services. As Intel has paired it down and even more so when IB comes out. That use case is gone. What Intel has as far as I have seen since that point, is to reduce size and power usage down even more, to become a set top SOC, and handheld device processor.

It's not that Atom has gotten worse, its that Atom is no longer being targeted at your use case.

 

[smyrgl]

You are lucky intel removes the 64bit support from atom
that what their representative said
so mobo with the new atom and 64bit support are in thin air now

and you did not read all my post atom 330 i run it win xp x64 ith no problem

but people have problem with the newest atom to instal 64bit os
someone bought a jetway mobo to find out tha tin bios it was disabled the atom 64bit support lol
and then this from intel meaning
intel official withdraw the support of 64 for the cedar trail atom
so if you find a mobo with 64bit support for the new atom it is possible
but do not count to be the rule
intel mobo do not support
at least jetway do not support

OK, so Intel isn't officially providing drivers for the Cedar Trail Atoms. Fine.

Doesn't mean that they don't work just fine in 64-bit mode. I'm guessing that this has to do with the graphics driver (which is irrelevant in my case since I'm running a hybrid system on Linux with the Intel graphics disabled) and Intel not wanting to provide support. A shame to be sure, but since most of these boards are being sold in the ION3 config like my ID80 (or whatever you want to call it) it's a non-issue for most people I suspect.