Intel Pentium J2900 - 2.67 GHz Quad Core

[Insert_Nickname]

Still, I'd buy one of these for my grandma-aged family - it's more than enough for them and ~1/8 of the power of their old Intel Pentium4HT processor.

Everything you can buy today runs circles around a P4HT. Even a single core Celeron G465 is as fast as a P4EE 3.73GHz. I think that says it all...

Though I agree 100% on energy efficiency. P4's where power-hogs.

 

[pw257008]

Edit: I still am not sure that for light usage not involving a lot of opening and closing programs that an ssd is essential. I have an i5 with a 7200 rpm hdd, and chrome or Firefox open almost instantaneously, programs a few seconds at most, and I can then just minimize them, and I just put it to sleep, so boot times are not a problem. I am sure an ssd would be nice, but the computer in no way feels slow or frustrating to use.

I'm 100% with you on this. I noticed far more difference between an i5-2410m and an A6-5200 than I ever have between my i5 with SSD vs. with the HDD it replaced. Boot is certainly quicker with the SSD, but that difference is dwarfed by the difference in boot time between the i5 and the A6. Processor is still king for performance (well, after internet speed).

 

[videogames101]

I think this is the future actually. People don't need faster computers, but they could use lower power consumption and smaller form factors. Yes, even for desktops.

bull

I have trouble viewing 1080p30 h264 streams with an i5 2410m, I can't even imagine what a terrible experience that would be using a quad bay-trail...

 

[jpiniero]

bull

I have trouble viewing 1080p30 h264 streams with an i5 2410m, I can't even imagine what a terrible experience that would be using a quad bay-trail...

That's a GPU task really.

 

[Vesku]

That's a GPU task really.

Sure, but the Baytrail GPU even in the desktop Celerons and Pentiums is pretty anemic. The Baytrail GPU at its fastest clocks doesn't quite match what you get out of Sandybridge HD2000.

Hopefully the GPU in the next generation of these low power x86 SoCs will come close or match HD4000. A 20 or 30% boost in CPU performance both ST and MT would also go a long way.

 

[videogames101]

That's a GPU task really.

your comment might be relevant if we weren't talking about silicon with gpu and cpu capabilities.

 

[podspi]

I'm 100% with you on this. I noticed far more difference between an i5-2410m and an A6-5200 than I ever have between my i5 with SSD vs. with the HDD it replaced. Boot is certainly quicker with the SSD, but that difference is dwarfed by the difference in boot time between the i5 and the A6. Processor is still king for performance (well, after internet speed).

If you have a lot of memory, after the computer has been on for a while Windows does a great job at caching most of what you'll need to read from the disk into RAM.

Biggest advantage of an SSD (imho) is at startup (when there is no memory caching) and when you are memory constrained (which can happen).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

bull

I have trouble viewing 1080p30 h264 streams with an i5 2410m, I can't even imagine what a terrible experience that would be using a quad bay-trail...

...are you sure there isn't something wrong with your system? Because that processor should be able to handle that, even w/o GPU acceleration.

 

[Blue_Max]

...are you sure there isn't something wrong with your system? Because that processor should be able to handle that, even w/o GPU acceleration.

Agreed... the Intel video on that chip is dandy -- more than enough for 1080P and some light gaming.

 

[pw257008]

If you have a lot of memory, after the computer has been on for a while Windows does a great job at caching most of what you'll need to read from the disk into RAM.

Biggest advantage of an SSD (imho) is at startup (when there is no memory caching) and when you are memory constrained (which can happen).

Oh I totally agree (though I'm solely Linux these days, though my Firefox lies to Netflix about that...). My 8GB of RAM takes permanent storage mostly out of the equation for most operations though I certainly notice my SSD at boot up (and when launching apps for the first time). All I'm saying is the boot time improvement from upgrading to an SSD does not match the difference between the A6 and the i5, both with hard disks, so even in an SSD's strongest area, processor matters more than storage type. It's not that an SSD doesn't matter, it's just that sometimes the pro-SSD crowd gets a little cocky and acts as if an Atom system with SSD would perform better than an i3 with a hard disk, which just isn't the case.

 

[TeknoBug]

Today's "netbook processors" are decidedly faster than yesterday's.

Definitely, most absolutely definitely. I still have my MSI Wind12 U230 netbook (bought in 2009 I think) with an AMD N40 CPU and it's so slow that I think a Duron 900 from 10 years ago is still faster.

 

[crashtech]

Netbooks got a bad name back then, and PCs are going to get a bad name now. Why buy one of these PCs when a tablet is just as fast, and most laptops are faster?

 

[evident]

i will be a while for me to touch anything related to the atom processor after the traumatizing experience I had with those old netbooks. let me know when they perform as fast as a core 2 duo e8400

 

[AtenRa]

Netbooks got a bad name back then, and PCs are going to get a bad name now. Why buy one of these PCs when a tablet is just as fast, and most laptops are faster?

What tablet is as fast at the same price as those Desktop 10W TDP SKUs ???

There are faster laptops and there are faster Desktops as well, but no laptop or desktop is faster at the same price and TDP as those ATOMs.

 

[crashtech]

What tablet is as fast at the same price as those Desktop 10W TDP SKUs ???

There are faster laptops and there are faster Desktops as well, but no laptop or desktop is faster at the same price and TDP as those ATOMs.

I don't care enough about this to belabor the point; if you think these so-called desktops are a good thing, then that's your right. I think they are crap.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't care enough about this to belabor the point; if you think these so-called desktops are a good thing, then that's your right. I think they are crap.

I believe they are fine for the price/power usage and platform (SFF) they are meant for. Not everyone needs a 4GHz Quad Core Haswell + $600 GPU. It is nice that Low Power CPUs are becoming more adequate and catching higher end Desktop SKUs in performance. People could return to Desktop if they would have a choice of nice small fast low power systems instead of those ugly white/black boxes of the past. For the majority of people desktop is an ugly large box. When Laptops started to have adequate performance at a smaller form factor and better looking's than Desktop, their numbers grow beyond the scale.

 

[code65536]

Ark lists the Bay Trail Pentium J2900 as having a tray price of $94.

Ark lists the Haswell Pentium G3220 as having a tray price of $64.

So the G3220 has a faster clock, a much better IPC, and despite having half the cores, comfortably outperforms the J2900, according to some publicly-available benchmarks.

So... why what's going on with the pricing here? The J2900 has inferior performance (and also a smaller die, I assume?), yet it's priced almost 50% more than the G3220 (nominally, at least; who knows what the real price the large OEMs actually pay)?

And yea, the J2900 uses less power, but we're talking about desktops here...

Are the OEMs really saving enough (or any?!) money with these to justify annoying their customers with slower parts?

 

[SPBHM]

I think you need to compare G3220+H81 vs J2900.

but, even G1820 is superior.

using "bay trail" on anything larger than a tablet/netbooks is a shame.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Are the OEMs really saving enough (or any?!) money with these to justify annoying their customers with slower parts?

Probably. A 10W CPU requires a tiny, cheap heatsink and almost no case airflow. Power delivery from the board is easy, so they can skimp on mobo components. Power draw is almost nil, so they can skimp on the PSU. When you consider how much of a desktop exists for no reason other than to funnel power to the CPU and remove the resulting heat, you can see that an OEM's margins improve when they start using a CPU with a power draw lower than many desktop chipsets.

Mass market demand for extra processing power has slowed to a crawl thanks in large part to diminished expectations from netbook/tablet/smartphone users; additionally, some of those AiO PCs are actually put together pretty well. You get your screen and all your ports in a handy little box that sits neatly on top of the desk, and many of the screens on units costing $300-$400 are larger than the CRTs you got with $500-$700 machines from a decade ago. My mom just upgraded from her old 2.4 ghz Netburst Celeron to a machine with an E1-2500 in it. The CPU is faster than what she had, and she went from 33.6 gigs of HDD space to 500 gigs and from 512mb of memory to 4 gigs. Her screen went from a 17" CRT to an 18" or so LCD.

These CPUs have a role, and that role, generally speaking, is to improve margins for OEMs as they sell the next generation of lowest-common-denominator hardware to people that still need/want a Windows PC for basic tasks at home. There is no absolute mandate that Moore's Law is going to make low-end chips as good as a mid-range chip from 5-8 years ago when grandma and grandpa don't need anything as good as, say, an E8400.

 

[crashtech]

I believe they are fine for the price/power usage and platform (SFF) they are meant for. Not everyone needs a 4GHz Quad Core Haswell + $600 GPU. It is nice that Low Power CPUs are becoming more adequate and catching higher end Desktop SKUs in performance. People could return to Desktop if they would have a choice of nice small fast low power systems instead of those ugly white/black boxes of the past. For the majority of people desktop is an ugly large box. When Laptops started to have adequate performance at a smaller form factor and better looking's than Desktop, their numbers grow beyond the scale.

The system in question is this:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...63e63b9a8ecfeb75e1666b7en02&SearchPageIndex=1

I could see the point, maybe, when they do low power CPUs in something like an AIO, but the system in question looks like a traditional desktop and has a powerful sounding moniker, a quad-core Pentium J2900. At least if they are selling low-powered, low-performing stuff, they should be more forthcoming.

 

[DrMrLordX]

That box has twice the memory and storage space of your typical AiO, and a CPU better than the plethora of E-series CPUs still out there (there are a ton). The tradeoff? It's a box with no monitor, built-in speakers, or built-in webcam.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My mom just upgraded from her old 2.4 ghz Netburst Celeron to a machine with an E1-2500 in it. The CPU is faster than what she had, and she went from 33.6 gigs of HDD space to 500 gigs and from 512mb of memory to 4 gigs. Her screen went from a 17" CRT to an 18" or so LCD.

You let your mom buy an AIO with an E-series APU? Bad son!

Seriously though, why not an AIO with at least an IB Pentium, or 1007U / 1037U? If you're going to spend the money to upgrade, and she holds on to her machines that long, don't you think that if the CPU is marginally faster than what she had before, then in five years time, it will be REALLY slow, in comparison to current rigs five years from now. Why put her intentionally behind the 8-ball, so to speak?

These CPUs have a role, and that role, generally speaking, is to improve margins for OEMs as they sell the next generation of lowest-common-denominator hardware to people that still need/want a Windows PC for basic tasks at home.

Listen to yourself, seemingly defending this practice. It's like selling watered-down milk.

There is no absolute mandate that Moore's Law is going to make low-end chips as good as a mid-range chip from 5-8 years ago when grandma and grandpa don't need anything as good as, say, an E8400.

No, but market forces should ensure that. That is, if we had a healthy, demand-based market.

 

[pw257008]

How is the market not demand-based? It's not like the salespeople at Best Buy or Micro Center want people to buy the E1s. They're doing their best to upsell to the core series, and talk down Celerons and E-series.

 

[AtenRa]

The system in question is this:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...63e63b9a8ecfeb75e1666b7en02&SearchPageIndex=1

I could see the point, maybe, when they do low power CPUs in something like an AIO, but the system in question looks like a traditional desktop and has a powerful sounding moniker, a quad-core Pentium J2900. At least if they are selling low-powered, low-performing stuff, they should be more forthcoming.

That system is a mini-itx case Desktop, it is very small and quiet. You can put it bellow your TV or on-top of your desktop. You can even upgrade it later with a new 14nm ATOM based BGA mobo/APU. It is not the fastest in its price but it sure has everything anyone is looking for this type of PC and it also has the lowest power consumption.
The Performance those APUs have is adequate for everyday usage like browsing, video playback, light office and more.

 

[Revolution 11]

How is the market not demand-based? It's not like the salespeople at Best Buy or Micro Center want people to buy the E1s. They're doing their best to upsell to the core series, and talk down Celerons and E-series.

Seems like you have never been to Best Buy before. What they want to do is trick the buyer into thinking that a E-series is better than the Core CPUs and pay more for it to boot.