Intel ensures Atom's uselessness

s44

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2006
9,427
16
81
Huh.

Not only is this about muscle-flexing and protecting their chipset sales, but I suspect that Intel really doesn't want consumers to discover how much a decent GPU can do with even a minimal CPU -- and therefore how much more important the GPU is these days.

Edit:
Well, now Intel is denying the story. However,
No one has gotten Intel to say that they would sell the Atom separately or bundled. It's been unclear and indeterminate as to whether Intel would unbundle the processor from the chipset
If and while the unbundling remains just theoretical and unexplored outside the spokesman's comment, consumers are still getting the shaft.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,479
10,137
126
Intel is up to their old dirty tricks again, it seems.

I thought forced product bundling was illegal?

It's a shame, I was really looking forward to Ion, it seemed fairly revolutionary in terms of the types of SFF systems it would enable.
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
You can make a case that it isn't useless, but the bundled chipset is really a dog.
Power hungry and slow.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
I thought it was mainly the desktop variant that was power hungry, and the mobile chipset (on smaller process etc) was just a dog, but not so power hungry?
Either way the consumer loses out either with worse power consumption/performance, worse performance or higher cost.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
Typical Intel bully, the trashest igp chipsets as usual, very greedy as usual. Typical sub-par ethics in the name of profit. :disgust:


Jason
 

HexiumVII

Senior member
Dec 11, 2005
661
7
81
CPU aren't really that useless, i have ULV 1GHz Core2 and they still run snappy. The G45/X45 graphics are whats useless. I don't care if you have 8 i7s, you stick in a Radeon/Geforce, the computer will fly way faster. Those pathetic X45s can't even beat i7 3D on emulation, now that's just sad. Don't even get people started on HDMI (non)support.
 

Atechie

Member
Oct 15, 2008
60
0
0
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Intel is up to their old dirty tricks again, it seems.

I thought forced product bundling was illegal?

It's a shame, I was really looking forward to Ion, it seemed fairly revolutionary in terms of the types of SFF systems it would enable.

Intel is just returning the favour of how NVIDIA played Intel with SLI on Intel Motherboards, doing the same thing to NVIDIA is not okay...but it was okay for NVIDIA? :confused:
 

nismotigerwvu

Golden Member
May 13, 2004
1,568
33
91
Originally posted by: Atechie
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Intel is up to their old dirty tricks again, it seems.

I thought forced product bundling was illegal?

It's a shame, I was really looking forward to Ion, it seemed fairly revolutionary in terms of the types of SFF systems it would enable.

Intel is just returning the favour of how NVIDIA played Intel with SLI on Intel Motherboards, doing the same thing to NVIDIA is not okay...but it was okay for NVIDIA? :confused:

When it hurts the consumers the consumers tend to feel it isn't ok.....
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Atom has brought netbooks to a new level usage. Sure NV wants a peace of the pie. But Intel is heading Atom towards SoC . So There is no need for Intel to play nice with NV until the 32nm.SoC become reality. Intel built the Chip first. Inrtegration is next step @32nm.

So screw NV. Like any of you care about netbooks. I see the power savings . But NV just isn't part of Intels SoC programm. What so hard to understand. It has nothing to do with flexing muscle. It has to do with road maps. NV isn't on Intels future road maps. Nor will it ever be. Rigthly so.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Atom has brought netbooks to a new level usage. Sure NV wants a peace of the pie. But Intel is heading Atom towards SoC . So There is no need for Intel to play nice with NV until the 32nm.SoC become reality. Intel built the Chip first. Inrtegration is next step @32nm.

So screw NV. Like any of you care about netbooks. I see the power savings . But NV just isn't part of Intels SoC programm. What so hard to understand. It has nothing to do with flexing muscle. It has to do with road maps. NV isn't on Intels future road maps. Nor will it ever be. Rigthly so.

It's flexing muscle now.
As you say, Intel has nothing to fear from nVidia with future Atom products, since they won't be even able to use other chipsets, so why not open it up to NV for now in this part of its life, and give the consumer what they want.
Current Atom isn't SoC, so why act like future products have real bearing on todays products? Future Atom is going to be different to current Atom, so why not let NV have a bit of current Atom, knowing that they won't have any part of future Atom.

Maybe Intel is just afraid that if they let NV have a small slice of the current pie, expectations will be raised for future products.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
This is pretty bullshit move by Intel. I know it makes perfect business sense, but as tech consumer... this really rubs me the wrong way. Everyone knows that the current Atom + 945G/SE bundle is negating the main benefit of Atom, 8w CPU paired with 30w IGP... idiotic. So here comes nVidia with a much better IGP that consumes less power and handles both North/Southbridge duties. BUT because Intel either wants to A) Kill Atom because it's eating up their lower end chip sales (bread and butter) or B) Prevent nVidia from creating a competetive solution to their SoC plan for next year, we have this problem. Why can't Intel offer a better solution? The very least is to offer a platform that bundles Atom with low power G45 chips.

Again, this shows you how dirty business becomes when they're offered power over marketplace.
 

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
473
136
It looks like Intel has just legitimized an excellent alternative in Via's Trinity platform. Trinity would certainly be my choice if I were looking.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
How is it BS move by intel . Intel never had a deal with NV. NV put out a story saying it was so. Just so fanbois would cry a river. If NV wants a netbook . Let them produce with there hardware. Intel owes NV nothing . Just the otherway around.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,923
2,138
126
After nV locked out SLI for so long to their own chipsets (which was not great for us consumers) and Jen Hsun Huang talking about "whoop ass" and all that...why should Intel play nice?
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
SLi is a very niche market. Atom and the netbook is NOT. Here we have a pico-ITX sized PC, capable of playing 1080p blu ray content, consuming negligible amount of power while taking up pretty much no space. Intel has nothing to compare against this platform nVIDIA has prepared. Yet they are denying them this ample opportunity, and bundling the atom with an outdated 945G (a pile of ***p) and the 3 year old ICH7R. Denying the consumers of a platform with loads of potential by dumping old inventory and crap IGPs down our throats.

I agree with what lonyo said. The word "anti trust" springs up here. What they are doing seems very monopolistic. If they had a better platform.. or a better IGP for that matter, things would have been different.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,479
10,137
126
Perhaps the mobo makers can purchase the Atom + 945G chipset from Intel, and then purchase the GeForce 9400 chipsets from NVidia, and then sell Atom + 9400 systems, while continuing to sell 945G mobos on the side, using the "leftover" chipsets.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
SLi is a very niche market. Atom and the netbook is NOT. Here we have a pico-ITX sized PC, capable of playing 1080p blu ray content, consuming negligible amount of power while taking up pretty much no space. Intel has nothing to compare against this platform nVIDIA has prepared. Yet they are denying them this ample opportunity, and bundling the atom with an outdated 945G (a pile of ***p) and the 3 year old ICH7R. Denying the consumers of a platform with loads of potential by dumping old inventory and crap IGPs down our throats.

I agree with what lonyo said. The word "anti trust" springs up here. What they are doing seems very monopolistic. If they had a better platform.. or a better IGP for that matter, things would have been different.

NO anti trust here at all zero. NV makes x86 CPUs news to me. NV wants part of INTELSPlatiform. Were does law say Intel has to let others have use of its tech for their personnal gain.
Again Atom @ 32nm. is nothing like Atom 45nm. So its not that long of a life for Atom till SoC. No need for intel to share profits with a company who spent zero dollars on Atom research and production. Screw NV . and there constant whinning.

 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Well, I guess the top end VIA cpus or a low end athlon will just have to be paired with the nvidia chip.
Atom's performance is quite variable (and usually low), especially without hyperthreading. Rather than a 4W atom and crappy performance + integrated graphics, I'd rather use a 10W athlon 64 and a 2W ati or nvidia integrated graphics.
 

Atechie

Member
Oct 15, 2008
60
0
0
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
SLi is a very niche market. Atom and the netbook is NOT. Here we have a pico-ITX sized PC, capable of playing 1080p blu ray content, consuming negligible amount of power while taking up pretty much no space. Intel has nothing to compare against this platform nVIDIA has prepared. Yet they are denying them this ample opportunity, and bundling the atom with an outdated 945G (a pile of ***p) and the 3 year old ICH7R. Denying the consumers of a platform with loads of potential by dumping old inventory and crap IGPs down our throats.

I agree with what lonyo said. The word "anti trust" springs up here. What they are doing seems very monopolistic. If they had a better platform.. or a better IGP for that matter, things would have been different.

They are both niches, don't post FUD
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,162
984
126
Netbooks are not FUD. Go take a stroll onto any college campus or coffee shop. Tons of people have Netbooks. One of my friends has one for each person in their family. I finally bit on getting an EeePC after my Lenovo began to become a BIG, Big problem in my backpack.
 

zebrax2

Senior member
Nov 18, 2007
972
62
91
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Netbooks are not FUD. Go take a stroll onto any college campus or coffee shop. Tons of people have Netbooks. One of my friends has one for each person in their family. I finally bit on getting an EeePC after my Lenovo began to become a BIG, Big problem in my backpack.

+1
 

Atechie

Member
Oct 15, 2008
60
0
0
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: Atechie
They are both niches, don't post FUD

Im not sure where your from but in this world even a circus chimp that gets paid can get a netbook..

I am from this world, and while i see netbook's here and there, I see no more of them than I see multi-GPU setups.

A netbook is between a craptop and a mobilephone preformancewise and turd where is matters.
Miniscule screen, the keybaord is made for small disabled monkeys..and any use besides light browsing and wordprocessing wwould be pointless.

It the "buzz" this year...next year we will have moved on (Intels roadmap for the Atom line dicates this)..go figure.