Intel Phases Out Atom D2700 CPU

[Guest]

Intel notified its customers that it has begun phasing out its current flagship Atom processor, the D2700 with Cedarview core.

Intel Phases Out Atom D2700 CPU : Read more

 

[blazorthon]

Alright Intel, that's one more step away from your out-dated Atom processors.

 

[halcyon]

Goodbye and good riddance!

 

[DroKing]

Atom is officially the world's worst processor. I tried a netbook with atom... I couldn't even surf the net at ease without it stuttering on me.

 

[ProDigit10]

[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Atom is officially the world's worst processor. I tried a netbook with atom... I couldn't even surf the net at ease without it stuttering on me.[/citation]
Mostly because they equip those budget machines with super slow harddrives.
I have an EEEPC with an even slower Celeron 800Mhz, and SSD,and am very pleased with it. It's getting outdated in playing back 720p video's, but the future atom processors will be a worthy upgrade from this one.
Believe me or not, but it actually boots my Win XP in 20 seconds!

 

[halcyon]

Atom processors are a big part of why netbooks weren't successful. Nobody wants something slow and sluggish.

 

[mikeangs2004]

I wouldn't think they are even responsive.

 

[ta152h]

"The D2700 was next to the D2500 the first third-generation (32 nm) Atom on the market."

Awkward English, at best. The writing on this site is getting really bad.

 

[felix666]

Intel pushed the Atom in the throat of just every PC manufacturer in an effort to kill the AMD's Geode SoCs that made their way in the OLPCs and industrial computers, where the OSes are not Windows. Windows XP is not tuned to run onto a subpar processor and low memory. A good share of the netpc market now understandably belongs to tablets.
Who still needs Atoms, when ARM-based subsystems perform better, cheaper, with the same level of software support.
How many hundreds of millions will Intel spend on it before throwing the towel?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]felix666[/nom]Intel pushed the Atom in the throat of just every PC manufacturer in an effort to kill the AMD's Geode SoCs that made their way in the OLPCs and industrial computers, where the OSes are not Windows. Windows XP is not tuned to run onto a subpar processor and low memory. A good share of the netpc market now understandably belongs to tablets.Who still needs Atoms, when ARM-based subsystems perform better, cheaper, with the same level of software support.How many hundreds of millions will Intel spend on it before throwing the towel?[/citation]

... Arm does not beat Atom right now, not even the netbook Atoms. Furthermore, the netbooks are slow more because of their crap storage performance and GPU than their crap CPU. The CPU is FAR more than adequate for Windows XP which is actually more than capable of being run well on CPUs with mere fractions of Atom's performance. Some programs today are much heavier than older programs and do bog it down, but it's still more the storage that is the bottleneck, not the software. However, XP itself is NOT the bottleneck.

Go look up the minimum requirements for XP. You'll find that they are something like a Pentium 3 running at 400MHz or so.

 

[nbelote]

Straight from MS:

The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition (and Professional) are:

Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
Sound card
Speakers or headphones

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]nbelote[/nom]Straight from MS:The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition (and Professional) are: Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution Sound card Speakers or headphones[/citation]

Well, it seems that even my minuscule assumption on the minimum requirements was a large overetimation. Thanks for posting that.

 

[ethaniel]

They have fulfilled a purpose, I think it's "mission accomplished" for those chips. They came out at a moment when computer industry was bleeding to death. We can't deny the fact that netbooks saved the day back then, and Atoms were part of that formula. And yes, Atoms are usable if you adapt your environment to the capabilities of your processor. If you want Windows 7 and full Aero support you're clearly missing the point.

Not to mention Intel made a ton of many with Atoms.

 

[ethaniel]

"money".

 

[halcyon]

"...netbooks saved the day..." I clearly missed that point in time.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]"...netbooks saved the day..." I clearly missed that point in time.[/citation]

I think that it's an over-exaggeration, but they did provide the most portable PC available and a lot of people wanted exactly that. AMD's Brazos netbooks are a lot better than Intel's Atom netbooks, so anyone who bought a netbook with them is probably much better off regardless of the storage situation (can't really be any worse).

 

[existencenow]

May be a false positive, but 4 consecutive vists. Avast has sandboxxed this, and the target- amazon story as having malware attached to one of the Gif's in the adverts. may be time to check that out.

 

[gsxrme]

Atoms aren't the problem in the netbooks, Nor the problem at all. The problem is the massive storage media used for those devices. I can put an Atom D525 Gen2 Atom CPU vs any other CPU and give the Atom a SSD "well say Mushkim 830 series" advantage and the Atom is will in every basic general test hands down.

How do i know this? Well i've only build and sold over 100 itx sub $500 computers running 64GB SSDs and every machine is making mom and pops computer experience AWESOME. applications such as Microsoft Outlook, Web browsing, yes java and flash games running and opening way faster than a we'll say core2 Q9300 runnning some junk Hitachi hard drive.

Save some intel Atom hating to the people who know and actually build the equipment.

Yes that means your cheap ass $200 HP netbook that you think should be as fast as a Dell XPS $900 notebook isn't

$200 on a computer is a problem.

 

[maddy143ded]

You know most people donot need a core i7 in their netbooks.......because nothing leess then core i7 extreme is acceptable even for a measly $200 machine.
come on people get real.. at that price point Atom was best when it was released and is still one of the better choices(as against ARM) . yes brazos is a better choice but Atom is not something you just cannot work with.
i have installed a heavily customized Windows 7 home premium in it, and it runs just fine. no stuttering during web browsing or watching 720p videos...
and get this my machine is 2 years old and has the N450 in it. (a single core 2nd gen atom) .
it has never failed me , and i use it exclusively for traveling .(those 24 - 36 hour long train journeys are just about unbearable.) I cant take my desktop with me for travels, and most laptops just don't measure up.

 

[Darkk]

I have been running PfSense on Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz dual core over a couple of years now without a single hiccup. So Linux runs great on them.

 

[waethorn]

Atom's don't do HD video. Brazos does. AMD understands that even the most lowly computer user wants Facebook games (that means Flash acceleration) and YouTube HD to work properly. The Atom doesn't have a real GPU, but even the E-350 has a DX11 GPU that supports GPU accelerated apps and compute functions. The NM10 uses a GPU that dates back to a chipset that Intel doesn't even support anymore: the 3-series chipset. It doesn't pass WHQL certification either, which is why Microsoft kept XP around while Vista was available, and the reason Win 7 Starter was released. Intel selling outdated chips is why Microsoft made compromised versions of Windows, starting with Vista Home Basic on 915 chipsets. It's all Intel's fault, and you won't find these compromised versions of Windows on any current AMD-equipped system, yet you can find Intel systems with 7 Starter in droves even now. Remember at the Atom uses technology from the Pentium M, which borrows from the Pentium 3. The Atom has never used any current Intel technology at any time during its existence. It's just recycled junk, shrunk down, with lower clockspeeds to get better energy efficiency.

 

[Guest]

waethorn, what ATOM based netbooks gave us is 10+ hour battery life or true portability. You are talking about 10W and under processors. Yes, Brazos got it right, but ATOM is now 5 year old technology and Brazos still uses more energy so AMD still needs to get it right in terms of power. nVidia tried to save the day with ION giving the ATOM based netbooks a real HD video choice, but ION sucked a ton of battery and Intel put the kibbosh on nVidia's chipsets (no license).

The next ATOMs will be a completely different animal and a lot more competitive than the 5 year old tech that is currently being sold. Actual graphics that support HD, DX11, etc. and the possible addition of out of order execution (Silvermont) at some point. The next ATOMs should be more worthy. I would like to see AMD get Brazos power reqs down and an SOC Brazos as well (probably go hand in hand).

 

[SteelCity1981]

I was hoping for intel to say Intel realizes the Atom processor isn't good and it will kill it off and replace it with a Ivy Bridge Core i1 cpu.

 

[waethorn]

[citation][nom]TechMunster[/nom]waethorn, what ATOM based netbooks gave us is 10+ hour battery life or true portability. You are talking about 10W and under processors. Yes, Brazos got it right, but ATOM is now 5 year old technology and Brazos still uses more energy so AMD still needs to get it right in terms of power. nVidia tried to save the day with ION giving the ATOM based netbooks a real HD video choice, but ION sucked a ton of battery and Intel put the kibbosh on nVidia's chipsets (no license). The next ATOMs will be a completely different animal and a lot more competitive than the 5 year old tech that is currently being sold. Actual graphics that support HD, DX11, etc. and the possible addition of out of order execution (Silvermont) at some point. The next ATOMs should be more worthy. I would like to see AMD get Brazos power reqs down and an SOC Brazos as well (probably go hand in hand).[/citation]

What are you smoking? Those are the same promises Intel made about their video not sucking in Sandy Bridge, and then again in Ivy Bridge, and yet existing Llano chips still outpace them by an easy margin. I've used an Atom in EVERY class since their introduction: N270, 230, 330, 330 with ION, Z500, Z530, Z550, D525, 2500, 2700, and probably a couple I'm forgetting. First off, the N200's were a joke. Several systems incorporated the Z series for better power management and supposedly better video (they included DX10 PowerVR "GPU's" but Windows would tell you outright that Aero was too slow on them and suggested turning it off). The 230/330 included the GMA 950 that dated back to the Pentium D days (the original dual-core processor) and it could just barely run Aero, but couldn't pass WHQL tests because Microsoft required DX10 since Vista SP1. The ION could never make up for the slow CPU either. Launching basic programs like IE in Windows 7 and opening additional tabs was horrible on the Atom, but a Celeron processor that was 5 years older was still quicker. The 525 was just a die shrink and graphics were moved to the CPU, but they weren't even as good as the 3-series chipsets original graphics cores that they were supposedly based on. The new models only finally got that up to the same level, but as I mentioned before: Intel stopped supporting the 3-series chipset long ago.

I have an E-350 system and I push it hard and still get 4+ hrs out of a one year old small 4 cell battery. I don't see the problem there. Brazos is 1 year old, and AMD didn't have any architecture that was a direct predecessor, so their development track just about right where it should be. Intel even said that they made mistakes in the mid and low-end market, yet they are continuing on the same path of destruction. People want their electronics to be better, and cheaper, not more expensive. Intel is trying to recoup their loss on small margins they made on the netbook fad (which no longer sell) by trying to mesh both Apple and Google's business model: make an high-margin system that directly copies Apple, but sell it cheaper through as many partners as possible to kill Apple. The problem is, nobody wants to go from paying $4-500 for a laptop back to paying $1000+. That works for Apple niche market, but not for Windows PC's. People that want to spend that kind of money are going to be looking at Macs already. I think Microsoft saw that coming, and that's why they're embracing ARM. I get the feeling that they've lost faith in Intel's ability to sway the market. They sure aren't innovating anymore, and they quit doing platform branding, instead putting their entire focus on x86. Average consumers don't care about what x86 is, but they do care if their apps work on their device, and how fast, and that's why Microsoft did what they did with WinRT.

 

[waethorn]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]I was hoping for intel to say Intel realizes the Atom processor isn't good and it will kill it off and replace it with a Ivy Bridge Core i1 cpu.[/citation]

It'd be nice, but Ivy Bridge is still too large of a package to scale down in power consumption.