http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-showcases-2016may31.aspx
I had to do a double-take at the "A9" nomenclature, but apparently it's a thing.
Stoney Ridge
I find it ironic that AMD originally picked their numbering scheme of whatever the intel core i series was +1 (at the time they stopped at A8), now AMD and AMD marketing reps to brick and mortars flat out stated that the cpus on a comparable i series was faster, but the more important thing was the better graphics which they state lead to a better experience.
Then when new amds came out they moved it to A10 to show new cpus are better than the A8 cpus. AMD was barely competive back then when llano came out, but it is now a sad twist of fact that A9 is being compared to atom and look how little we have advanced on AMD effective cpu progress since 2011. Sure odd A numbers are a new thing, but under the logic of the old naming scheme this just does not make sense.
I can't wait for Zen, not because I want a new cpu, but because the last 5 years have been so disappointing from a formerly great company. Bulldozer stank so badly, and the nodes AMD had easy access to have been on 28nm and 32nm for so long.
-----
That said looking at the benchmarks it is loads better than atom. It is a single module dual core but due to its near 3 ghz base clock, and its 3.5 ghz turbo it is much faster than atom. It looks to trade blows with core-m on the cpu front depending on the cooling of core m. But this is a 15w part and not the tablet tdp core m was design for. But 15w is definitely ultrabook territory.
Bring on tsmc 16nm, bring on 14nm Global Foundry. To my understanding Zen for the most part was tapped out on TSMC first and AMD at the time was more confident on TSMC yields...that said the new AMD gpus are on 14nm Global Foundry.
Facebook
Twitter