The Intel Atom Thread

[IntelUser2000]

Lenovo Yoga 330 is even faster than the Swift 1 despite the single channel memory. The advantage over the Acer Swift 1 is striking, being upwards of 20% in some cases.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenov...-for-office-and-internet-related-applications

284 points in Cinebench R15 makes it basically on par with the 10W J5005, and doesn't even throttle.

The laptop weights 2.7lbs and costs $400 US according to online sites. The screen is the weakest point, but maybe not so. With a small 36WHr battery it gets nearly 9.5 hours of battery life. Even has a spare M.2 slot. Sounds like a very decent value device.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I was waiting for Gigabyte's J5005 board, but they only have a lower end chip. So I didn't get it. The Asrock one lacks a NVMe SSD slot.

So instead I put down $10 for this device:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Gadge...ith-a-modern-Pentium-Silver-CPU.330368.0.html
https://www.ogadget.com/x1/falcon

Coming in October
Retail Price $699, Special offer for $399($300 off)

The 360 degree hinge and 500g weight along with Pentium Silver N5000 is what got me in. Also has a nice 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD with decent selection of ports.

This part from Notebookcheck is interesting:

The Falcon will launch as a Kickstarter project on October 16

Although I don't know where they got that information.

 

[dark zero]

And now there is info that the Atom processor will be made by TSMC:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/279894-intel-may-outsource-chipsets-atom-production-to-tsmc

A bad sign for Intel Atom?

 

[DaveSimmons]

And now there is info that the Atom processor will be made by TSMC:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/279894-intel-may-outsource-chipsets-atom-production-to-tsmc

A bad sign for Intel Atom?

That article says they may do it so they can use their own manufacturing capacity for more profitable i5-i9 CPUs, because the demand is so high.

How is that a bad sign? ("We need to hire someone else so we make even more money! Oh no, too much money!")

 

[you2]

When it comes to manufacturing it does seem Samsung is out pacing intel. Intel really needs to refine the 10nm process and get on with the next processor. To be honest I'm not sure atom is the wave of the future. What I mean by that comment is if they can improve the low power processing of the higher end processors i would think at some point the atom per sey will become obsolete. I do realize there is a huge gap between 35w processors and sub 5w processors so there is a long ways to go. Conversely one could argue that eventually the atom will be as powerful as an i3 or i5.
-
One thing that does concern myself with a company like Intel - as oppose to Qualcomm - is that for a processor such as the Atom they are fighting a marketing issue - i.e, i suspect they cripple the Atom as much as possible to make it viable but to keep it from competing with higher end processors (such as the arbitrary 2GB limit the eralier models had - they argue it was to save pin count and therefore $$ but i suspect it was more of a market decision than technical or $$ issue).

 

[DrMrLordX]

I don't think Goldmont+ is crippled in any way artificial way. I suspect Tremont won't be crippled either.

 

[you2]

Goldmont is an architecture. They have like 30 processors for different purposes ranging from servers to automative. Too lazy to walk through the implementations for each purpose.

I don't think Goldmont+ is crippled in any way artificial way. I suspect Tremont won't be crippled either.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Goldmont is an architecture. They have like 30 processors for different purposes ranging from servers to automative. Too lazy to walk through the implementations for each purpose.

My point still stands. The uarch, regardless of its implementation, is not crippled to make it less-desirable than Core. That's really as good as Intel could make it under the circumstances.

 

[you2]

Depends on how intel chooses to implement it which was my original point.

 

[IntelUser2000]

one thing that does concern myself with a company like Intel - as oppose to Qualcomm - is that for a processor such as the Atom they are fighting a marketing issue

Boo hoo. They are all "evil" corporations with the sole focus of making money. I'm pretty sure anyone who's ever worked for anyone else before have felt that their employer was being too greedy at some point. But both Intel and Qualcomm have been accused of monopolistic tactics.

such as the arbitrary 2GB limit the eralier models had

This isn't true anymore, and it was nearly a decade ago. Segmentation does work for making more money for the company. We as consumers wish they don't do this. But as long as they aren't doing something to hurt us directly(like if they were in the pharmaceutical business, or dumping waste into rivers), then the market will eventually adjust itself to a more sane point.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Depending on the motherboard, current and recent older Atoms support either 8 GB or 16 GB which is plenty for the use cases for a lower-speed and often passively cooled CPU.

If you want to do heavy RAM-intensive processing using 32+ GB then you want a stronger CPU.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Depends on how intel chooses to implement it which was my original point.

The implementation that affects us users is whichever one we choose to buy with our money. Someone in my family has a Pentium Silver AiO machine. It isn't impressive, but it gets the job done better than her old Jaguar-based AiO, and it isn't crippled artificially. It just works, albeit a bit slowly (though that's more the 7200rpm spinner, some of the time). It doesn't have vPro. Shucks. I think it's missing AVX2 as well (could be wrong).

It was really hard to get anything Core-based in the same price range with the same feature set, so she settled on the Pentium Silver, and she hasn't lost anything substantial from making the choice.

Crippling the platform would be reducing max RAM to 4 GB (not the case; her AiO has 8GB) or something goofy like that. And yeah I think it is missing some SIMD instructions. That might suck for a few games that require them, maybe.

 

[you2]

Yes intel handi-caps the atom to force you to buy core if you want certain features but there are alternative processors made by different vendors that are perhaps better bang per buck.

The implementation that affects us users is whichever one we choose to buy with our money. Someone in my family has a Pentium Silver AiO machine. It isn't impressive, but it gets the job done better than her old Jaguar-based AiO, and it isn't crippled artificially. It just works, albeit a bit slowly (though that's more the 7200rpm spinner, some of the time). It doesn't have vPro. Shucks. I think it's missing AVX2 as well (could be wrong).

It was really hard to get anything Core-based in the same price range with the same feature set, so she settled on the Pentium Silver, and she hasn't lost anything substantial from making the choice.

Crippling the platform would be reducing max RAM to 4 GB (not the case; her AiO has 8GB) or something goofy like that. And yeah I think it is missing some SIMD instructions. That might suck for a few games that require them, maybe.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yes intel handi-caps the atom to force you to buy core

I think the point of my post was that nothing Intel does to handicap Atom (in this case, a Pentium J5005) really forces you to buy Core. No vPro and AVX2 is not exactly a big deal in a home/office AiO that is cheap.

if you want certain features but there are alternative processors made by different vendors that are perhaps better bang per buck.

In the same power envelope? Who in the x86 world is chasing the 5-15w space? AMD barely has anything running at such a low power.

 

[mikk]

Goldmont+ was really impressive after all with the IPC increase when everyone did expect a tick like improvement.

 

[you2]

Well there you go adding restrictions. Who said anything about having to stay in the x86 world ?

I think the point of my post was that nothing Intel does to handicap Atom (in this case, a Pentium J5005) really forces you to buy Core. No vPro and AVX2 is not exactly a big deal in a home/office AiO that is cheap.



In the same power envelope? Who in the x86 world is chasing the 5-15w space? AMD barely has anything running at such a low power.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well there you go adding restrictions. Who said anything about having to stay in the x86 world ?

You, in comparing Atom to Core. Intel needed Atom to run x86 and x64 code not ARM code.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Well there you go adding restrictions. Who said anything about having to stay in the x86 world ?

Simple logic. I can count on one hand the number of non-x86 chips that run the same applications/software as Goldmont+ (Snapdragon 835, Snapdragon 850, and even then, not exactly).

 

[you2]

I think you are confused. DrMrLordx compared it to core; my statement in response to his was that if you want certain features (which he referenced) is you had to buy core or alternative vendors.

You, in comparing Atom to Core. Intel needed Atom to run x86 and x64 code not ARM code.

 

[dark zero]

I think the point of my post was that nothing Intel does to handicap Atom (in this case, a Pentium J5005) really forces you to buy Core. No vPro and AVX2 is not exactly a big deal in a home/office AiO that is cheap.



In the same power envelope? Who in the x86 world is chasing the 5-15w space? AMD barely has anything running at such a low power.

And VIA looks away with their IPC jump...