• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ultra-mobile cpu's

J

jaydee

Diamond Member
Anyone else confused now that Intel has at least 7 cpu's out there with different names, around the same clock speed for the culv market. While it's nice to have such a good selection, it's hard enough to figure out what is "better", much less what's the best "value" performance-wise. Then you figure in overclockability and battery life and it's just a mess. So far I've seen:

1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU1400
1.3 Ghz Intel Celeron M 743 M
1.2 Ghz Intel Celeron SU2300
1.4GHz Intel Core2 Solo ULV SU3500
1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N280
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU2700
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU4100
1.3 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300

to go along AMD's:
1.6GHz AMD Athlon Neo X2 Dual-Core for Ultrathin Notebooks (512 MB L2 Cache)
1.6Ghz AMD Athlon Neo MV-40

I'm guessing worse --> better they go (edit):

Atom < Celeron743 < AMD Neo < Pentium 2700 < Celeron2300 (dual-core) < Pentium4100(dual-core) < Core2 Solo < AMD Neo X2 < Core2 Duo Is this correct?

Even from Intel's website Intel cpu comparison, the table is incomplete with FSB, voltage range, 32 or 64-bit, price, etc. And I also surmise that Arrendale is going to get involved in this market segment as well? What the heck is going on here? Perhaps Anand could do an article 🙂 🙂 pretty pleeeeease...
 
Yes, Arrandale is coming and it should be faster, more efficient and, in theory, cheaper. There are some really nice CULV notebooks out right now, but I'm going to wait it out, and then decided between getting a Thinkpad or something like a Timeline when Arrandale is out.

I think the real advantage of Arrandale is that with Turbo mode, it might be fast enough to playback 720p h264. I am not sure if the current crop are able to do that yet.
 
pretty simple, actually.
atom (pineview/pine trail) < arrandale
The rest are irrelevant. 😉

drizek: X5500MHD (the presumed name for the arrandale GPU) handle dual 1080p streams just fine. Enabled DXVA and the CPU usage goes to almost 0.
 
It might be able to handle certain HD formats such as Blu Ray, but I doubt it will do x264 mkv files.
 
So when is Arrendale coming?

And "theoretically", compared to what, will Arrendale be cheaper than? Just C2D? or everything but Atom? Surely it can't be cheaper than Atom...

This Turbo sounds very promising, I was thinking about getting a $300-400 11.6" laptop, and build an AMD Phenom II X2 for $450 (use existing monitor, key/mouse). But, if I can get equivalent performance out of a Turbo'd small laptop for $600, I can kill two birds with one stone.

In fact, if for ~$800 within 6 months I can get a ~12" laptop with this Arrendale, an Intel 80GB SSD to go inside, that would be absolutely perfect. Turn Turbo off for a long battery life (8 hour) netbook, then turn Turbo on and dock with my keyboard, mouse, monitor for a solid desktop system.


But the fact remains, it's really, really complicated right now with all the 1.3 Ghz processors (particularly from Intel). Why is 1.3GHz the sweets spot anyway? Why not 1.1GHz? 1.5GHz?
 
I was just trying to help a fried with this question this weekend. He was looking at netbooks/notebooks and trying to figure out what he got for his money between a $300 N270, $400 SU3500, $550/$600 SU4100/SU7300 (don't remember the last price points/chips exactly).

We couldn't even find any decent comparison of the N270, N280, and Z530. Very frustrating.
 
Originally posted by: jaydee
Anyone else confused now that Intel has at least 7 cpu's out there with different names, around the same clock speed for the culv market. While it's nice to have such a good selection, it's hard enough to figure out what is "better", much less what's the best "value" performance-wise. Then you figure in overclockability and battery life and it's just a mess. So far I've seen:

1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU1400
1.3 Ghz Intel Celeron M 743 M
1.2 Ghz Intel Celeron SU2300
1.4GHz Intel Core2 Solo ULV SU3500
1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N280
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU2700
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU4100
1.3 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300

to go along AMD's:
1.6GHz AMD Athlon Neo X2 Dual-Core for Ultrathin Notebooks (512 MB L2 Cache)
1.6Ghz AMD Athlon Neo MV-40

I'm guessing worse --> better they go (edit):

Atom < Celeron743 < AMD Neo < Pentium 2700 < Celeron2300 (dual-core) < Pentium4100(dual-core) < Core2 Solo < AMD Neo X2 < Core2 Duo Is this correct?

Even from Intel's website Intel cpu comparison, the table is incomplete with FSB, voltage range, 32 or 64-bit, price, etc. And I also surmise that Arrendale is going to get involved in this market segment as well? What the heck is going on here? Perhaps Anand could do an article 🙂 🙂 pretty pleeeeease...
Click to expand...



the su4100 pentium is a dual core with 2mb cache so it is faster thant he core 2 solo.


basically the core 2 duo is 3mb cache, and 2 cores. the core 2 solo is the same chip with 1 core off, with 3mb cache. the pentium su4100 is a dual core, with 2mb cache (1mb cache diasabled , same die as the core 2 duo).

the su2700 is the su4100 with 1 core also disabled.

they are all effectively the same die. i would put all the single cores below the dualcores. even the celeron dual core over the core 2 solo.

 
Originally posted by: hans007
the su4100 pentium is a dual core with 2mb cache so it is faster thant he core 2 solo.

basically the core 2 duo is 3mb cache, and 2 cores. the core 2 solo is the same chip with 1 core off, with 3mb cache. the pentium su4100 is a dual core, with 2mb cache (1mb cache diasabled , same die as the core 2 duo).

the su2700 is the su4100 with 1 core also disabled.

they are all effectively the same die. i would put all the single cores below the dualcores. even the celeron dual core over the core 2 solo.
Click to expand...

So in order, you'd put them something like this:

solos:
1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N70/N280/Z530 (512kB)
big gap
1.3 Ghz Intel Celeron M 743 M (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU2700 (2MB)
1.4GHz Intel Core2 Solo SU3500 (3MB)

duals:
1.2 Ghz Intel Celeron SU2300 (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU4100 (2MB)
1.3 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 (3MB)

Aside from the Atom, are these all the same die with varying #'s of cores and cache? If so, that would simplify things a lot. Then we'd just have to figure out where Atom - Pine Trail fits in here performance-wise. And benchmarks so we know how much of an improvement each is over the other. How would Hulu do on any of these?
 
Originally posted by: drizek
I think the real advantage of Arrandale is that with Turbo mode, it might be fast enough to playback 720p h264. I am not sure if the current crop are able to do that yet.
Click to expand...

What about the Nvidia ION chipset? I thought it could playback HD.
 
Originally posted by: jaydee
Originally posted by: hans007
the su4100 pentium is a dual core with 2mb cache so it is faster thant he core 2 solo.

basically the core 2 duo is 3mb cache, and 2 cores. the core 2 solo is the same chip with 1 core off, with 3mb cache. the pentium su4100 is a dual core, with 2mb cache (1mb cache diasabled , same die as the core 2 duo).

the su2700 is the su4100 with 1 core also disabled.

they are all effectively the same die. i would put all the single cores below the dualcores. even the celeron dual core over the core 2 solo.
Click to expand...

So in order, you'd put them something like this:

solos:
1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N70/N280/Z530 (512kB)
big gap
1.3 Ghz Intel Celeron M 743 M (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU2700 (2MB)
1.4GHz Intel Core2 Solo SU3500 (3MB)

duals:
1.2 Ghz Intel Celeron SU2300 (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU4100 (2MB)
1.3 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 (3MB)

Aside from the Atom, are these all the same die with varying #'s of cores and cache? If so, that would simplify things a lot. Then we'd just have to figure out where Atom - Pine Trail fits in here performance-wise. And benchmarks so we know how much of an improvement each is over the other. How would Hulu do on any of these?
Click to expand...

i believe they are all the same die. they show up all as 100mm or whatever on the intel spec sheets.
 
richierich1212 said:
What about the Nvidia ION chipset? I thought it could playback HD.
Click to expand...

Good point. Atom w/ION is a completely different story than Atom w/GMA950. ION 2 will be out 1Q 2010 supposedly. New Atom Pine Trail 1Q 2010. Arrendale 1Q 2010. And this is just Intel. AMD and VIA are also fighting in this market. VIA has the Nano, and soon the Nano 3000, both with it's own graphics and (most likely) the Ion chipset as an option.

It would be nice if someone would review/benchmark all the current CULV processors on the market, and speculate on how the 1Q 2010 CULV's. It's nice to have choices, but it's a long process just figuring out what's available.

So now we've got:

1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N70/N280/Z530 (512kB) w/GMA950
1.3/1.6/1.66GHz Intel Atom N70/N280/Z530 (512kB) w/ION
1.3 Ghz Intel Celeron M 743 M (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU2700 (2MB)
1.4GHz Intel Core2 Solo SU3500 (3MB)
VIA Nano 1000/2000 w/VIA graphics
VIA Nano 1000/2000 w/ION graphics
AMD Neo

duals:
1.2 Ghz Intel Celeron SU2300 (1MB)
1.3GHz Intel Pentium SU4100 (2MB)
1.3 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 (3MB)
AMD Neo X2

Coming soon:
Intel Atom Pine Trail single-core w/on-chip graphics
Intel Atom Pine Trail dual core w/on-chip graphics
VIA Nano 3000 w/VIA
VIA Nano 3000 w/ION or ION 2
Intel Arrandale
Intel Celeron/Pentium/Core2Duo w/Ion 2
AMD ???
 
That's all fine and wonderful to order them from best to worst...

But without having some kind of benchmarks there's no way we can determine their value (performance/price)

It would also be important to have their TDP listed so we can determine battery/performance

and the ultimate...(performance/price) * (performance/battery)
or [performance^2 / (price*battery)]

that's what I want to know!!
 
Last edited:
Aro2220 said:
It would also be important to have their TDP listed so we can determine battery/performance
Click to expand...

For the Intel chips, I think the mobile Atom are around 2.7-3W. The rest of them range from 5.5-10W depending on clock speeds and number of cores. Even the fastest SU7300 only uses 2W more than a desktop Atom 330 dual core.
 
Zap said:
For the Intel chips, I think the mobile Atom are around 2.7-3W. The rest of them range from 5.5-10W depending on clock speeds and number of cores. Even the fastest SU7300 only uses 2W more than a desktop Atom 330 dual core.
Click to expand...

Yep, I researched this pretty extensively before buying my UL30A.

A netbook Atom CPU has a TDP of 2.5W. A CULV single core (ex: SU3500) has a TDP of 5W. A CULV dual core (ex: SU7300) has a TDP of 10W.

The latter two will whip an Atom while blindfolded, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top