Atom Dual Core

[fallen2004]

I found a review http://www.guru3d.com/article/ecs-atom-330-dual-core-p945gc-review/

It looks sweet and still only 8W with 1.6 GHz, 2x512KB (1MB) of L2 cache and has hyperthreading still

When do you all think Netbooks will start coming out with these babys on

 

[yomamafor1]

I think this will be a nice performance boost for the Netbooks. On the bright side, Netbook will become much more capable in handling multiple programs at the same time. On the negative side though, dual core Atom equipped Netbooks will definitely eat into the UMPC market.

Imagine a 500~700 bucks Netbook performing relatively on-par with 3000 UMPCs, while having 1.5x~2x the battery life.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I found a review http://www.guru3d.com/article/ecs-atom-330-dual-core-p945gc-review/

It looks sweet and still only 8W with 1.6 GHz, 2x512KB (1MB) of L2 cache and has hyperthreading still

When do you all think Netbooks will start coming out with these babys on

I heard a rumor from Fudzilla that Intel won't even let manufacturers put the Atom 330 in netbooks. Anyway, the dual-core Atom 330 is not really all that impressive as C2D ULVs have a slightly higher TDP (10 watts) but have much higher performance. The single-core Celeron 220 at 1.20 GHz and with much less cache than the C2D ULVs beat the single-core Atom pretty soundly, so the C2D ULVs ought to really smash the Atom dual-core. (I've not seem then benched against each other.) I think the only real saving grace for the Atom 330 is that it's probably going to be less than a hundred bucks, compared to the ~$230-290 prices the C2D ULVs run OEMs.

EDIT: typo

 

[Dekasav]

Yeah, I really don't think Intel did as well as they were hoping with Atom. It's great that it takes only 4 watts, but it's performance is pretty low (due to no OoOE) The fact that AMD was able to seriously downclock an old Athlon, and take a little more power but kill it in performance is evidence of that. Pity, it could've been cool.

 

[fallen2004]

Atoms r also designed to be cheap and that they are so i think price/performance wise they arnt bad

Also they are meant 2 run cool which from what ive seen they do very well aswell

Intel beter let it be used for netbooks as a it would be perfect for it, cheap, lower power and powerful enough to be able 2 multitask

 

[zodiacfml]

the intel atom uses very small die space/s, it is very cheap.
the only reason why c2d's and athlon's beat it in performance because it had twice or more the die space/transistors of an Atom.
dual core atoms still makes sense since there are flash on the internet than can consume a lot of cpu cycles, sometimes heavier than HD video.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Yeah, I really don't think Intel did as well as they were hoping with Atom. It's great that it takes only 4 watts, but it's performance is pretty low (due to no OoOE) The fact that AMD was able to seriously downclock an old Athlon, and take a little more power but kill it in performance is evidence of that. Pity, it could've been cool.

Comparing what the uses they are for, the size of the entire package and the fact that Intel gets 2500 of these per wafer compared to only a few hundred for Core 2 per wafer, I think they will do fine.

Once Intel goes to the next step and either integrates the chipset on the die or makes the chipset itself smaller it will bring a new range of smaller protable devices with a much more powerful core.

But I still find it weird they even decided to release a desktop variant since 1. the chipset it is paired with sucks and is about 2 years old and 2. it was obviously not made for desktop apps. Netbook yes but desktop not so much.