Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel: Ion Is Overkill, Don't You Know

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 45 comments

There’s been a lot of talk about Nvidia’s Ion this week and apparently, Intel doesn’t like when the competition gets a couple of days of good press.

Speaking to the Inquirer, Mooly Eden, Vice President and General Manager of Intel’s mobile platforms group, has spoke to the Inquirer in Taipei this week and when asked about Nvidia’s answer to it’s Atom processor, Eden dubbed the Ion platform for netbooks is "overkill" and unnecessary.

According to the INQ, during a recent Questions and Answers session, Eden said he believed in balancing CPU and GPU performance, but claimed Intel's upcoming Pinetrail platform with the next gen Atom will have a stronger graphics core, rendering Nvidia’s Ion pointless and expensive. Harsh words. In the same Q&A, Eden also said that despite being a “great solution” with “brilliant engineers” Atom would be three times better than any current ARM architecture.

There are 20 manufacturers displaying Ion-based products at Computex this year. This includes offerings from Acer, Asus, ECS, Zotac and MSI.

Add your comment Display 45 Comments.
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    cybot_x1024 , June 3, 2009 9:18 PM
    Load of BS from intel. they should make better chips and stop whining!
  • 20 Hide
    grieve , June 3, 2009 9:34 PM
    The ION is overkill so we are going to create an Atom with ""three times better than any current ARM architecture.""
    ** and it won't be overkill because it has the Intel logo....

    Whatever.
  • 19 Hide
    hellwig , June 3, 2009 9:18 PM
    First off, PineVIEW hasn't been released yet, so what is Intel's solution for people wanting upgrades before then? This statement is like Intel saying back in 2003 "the Athlon 64 is overkill, and besides we have the Core 2 coming out in 2006 and it will be even better).

    They say it's overkill today, but 6 months from now when they release their own upgrade with an even faster GPU, it won't be overkill? And am I reading that right, is Intel saying Pineview will be more powerful than Ion? Is there any evidence to support this claim?

    What a jackass.
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    chise1 , June 3, 2009 9:16 PM
    There’s been a lot of talk about NVIDIA’s Ion
  • 26 Hide
    cybot_x1024 , June 3, 2009 9:18 PM
    Load of BS from intel. they should make better chips and stop whining!
  • 19 Hide
    hellwig , June 3, 2009 9:18 PM
    First off, PineVIEW hasn't been released yet, so what is Intel's solution for people wanting upgrades before then? This statement is like Intel saying back in 2003 "the Athlon 64 is overkill, and besides we have the Core 2 coming out in 2006 and it will be even better).

    They say it's overkill today, but 6 months from now when they release their own upgrade with an even faster GPU, it won't be overkill? And am I reading that right, is Intel saying Pineview will be more powerful than Ion? Is there any evidence to support this claim?

    What a jackass.
  • 19 Hide
    apache_lives , June 3, 2009 9:20 PM
    Nothing beats Intels Extreme(ly poor) video performance! Wooooo
  • -1 Hide
    apache_lives , June 3, 2009 9:21 PM
    cybot_x1024Load of BS from intel. they should make better chips and stop whining!


    sadly ATM i dont thing they care
  • 5 Hide
    dman3k , June 3, 2009 9:34 PM
    This is why Intel sucks. They talk way too much trash against competition who can't even put a dent in their business.
  • 20 Hide
    grieve , June 3, 2009 9:34 PM
    The ION is overkill so we are going to create an Atom with ""three times better than any current ARM architecture.""
    ** and it won't be overkill because it has the Intel logo....

    Whatever.
  • 9 Hide
    Raidur , June 3, 2009 9:36 PM
    Lol how can intel say the Ion is overkill, and then move to say that they will be making upgraded/stronger parts rendering it useless...
  • 13 Hide
    megamanx00 , June 3, 2009 9:45 PM
    Oh yeah, because who would want smooth frame rates while watching video on their net top. That's just silly.
  • -1 Hide
    Tindytim , June 3, 2009 9:46 PM
    I actually agree with Intel here, the 9400 is so powerful compared to the Atom, the processor is the bottleneck on the system.

    If intel produced a more powerful mobile processor (the SU2700 has potential), the Ion platform would be quite a bit more worthwhile.
  • 1 Hide
    computabug , June 3, 2009 9:57 PM
    Way to piss off Nvidia. That's nice, Intel said this after Larrabee was confirmed to become a success.
  • 1 Hide
    JMcEntegart , June 3, 2009 10:08 PM
    chise1There’s been a lot of talk about NVIDIA’s Ion


    Sorry, Computex coverage turning my brain to goo. Fixing it now. :) 
  • 13 Hide
    judeh101 , June 3, 2009 10:11 PM
    Note to Intel:
    We don't give a f*ck! We need a good performance/power ratio. Plus, the Ion Platform uses a bit less power, thus helping netbooks with longer battery life. So what if it's an overkill? We don't have to upgrade as often. I'm sorry Intel, but I think the 945GSE and 945GC is simply couldn't catch up with Nvidia's "less power, more performance" Ion chipset.

    Go ahead, if you wanna give me thumbs up or down, I don't care, this is my point of view.
  • 0 Hide
    scarywoody , June 3, 2009 10:15 PM
    Intel and Nvidia have been trading blows for years when they are competing in the same market. Nothing new.
  • 3 Hide
    ta152h , June 3, 2009 10:21 PM
    It seems pretty silly, since the Ion has lower power characteristics, but what Intel is saying is being taken out of context too.

    They are saying the Ion with the current Atom is overkill, since the processor can be a bottleneck. They will be increasing the processor speed as well as the video core with Pinetrail, which is why he points to balance.

    I'm not saying I agree with them about Ion, although I won't buy Nvidia stuff. If I did though, and had to buy an Atom based solution for whatever reason, I certainly would not consider the performance or low energy use "overkill" by any means. Intel has a crappy chipset for the processors, and Nvidia took advantage of the opening. They needed something better, and still do. This nonsense only makes them look small.
  • 0 Hide
    sloth2004 , June 3, 2009 10:23 PM
    somehow, i guess we need to have a smarter operating system which can help to use CUDA so even atom cannot match the power of 9400, the extra juice can be used.
  • 0 Hide
    viewwin , June 3, 2009 10:59 PM
    Hey Intel, come up with a better low powered, silent HTPC solution then.
  • 0 Hide
    joefriday , June 3, 2009 11:00 PM
    You guys are all wrong. The ION platform DOES NOT have less power consumption than Intel's 945GSE, which has a TDP of just 6 watts max. The I/O Hub paired with it consumes only 3.3 watts. The 9400M chipset has a TDP of 15 watts. It only beats Intel's desktop reference design with the 945GC with it's massive 22 watt max TDP. So it's okay if you want an HTPC or the like, but for a netbook, you're burning more energy. For those very few people who demand HD capability out of a netbook, it is something to look into, but for 99% of the buyers out there, it makes very little sense. Also, I don't want to hear anyone talk about Flash video acceleration. It simply doesn't exist. There is little to no GPU-accelerated flash in today's products. Perhaps sometime in the future, but not now. So, when you go to Hulu.com with your ION platform netbook, you're just as screwed as that guy with the 945GSE chipset; the Atom is the sole factor for smooth playback. To the guys above me, sometimes it pays to actually KNOW something about a product instead of spouting off unsubstantiated perceptions as fact.
  • 4 Hide
    matt87_50 , June 3, 2009 11:30 PM
    wait, so its overkill, but when we release a MORE powerful one soon, that won't be overkill????? stop confusing us intel, just say what you really mean: everything everyone else makes is shit, only we, intel, make good stuff!!1!
  • 11 Hide
    fonzy , June 3, 2009 11:36 PM
    Intel (Jealous Inside)
Display more comments
React To This Article