Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Launches Atom D2560 processor

By - Source: Intel | B 34 comments

Intel has quietly added a new flagship model to its Atom processor family.

The new D2560 dual core is positioned above the D2550, which was launched in the first quarter of this year. The D2500 continues to be available as an entry-level model.

The new CPU is also built using the 32 nm Saltwell architecture with a Cedarview processor core. It runs at 2.0 GHz, which is faster than the D2550's 1.86 GHz but 133 MHz slower than the previously canceled D2700 Cedarview chip. Intel did not provide any information on why the D2700 was shelved, other than noting that market demand had shifted when it was dropped not even three quarters after its introduction in Q3 2011.

Like the other Cedarview processors, the D2560 is rated at a maximum power consumption of 10 watts. Like the D2550, it can run four threads in parallel and is priced at $47 (tray). The D2500 runs at 1.86 GHz just like the D2550, but supports only two threads.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback           

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 18 Hide
    amuffin , October 27, 2012 8:00 PM
    obsama1Intel should just replace the atoms with low-voltage i3's sans-hyperthreading.

    You mean the sb/ib pentiums?
Other Comments
  • 4 Hide
    daswilhelm , October 27, 2012 7:05 PM
    exciting!
  • -8 Hide
    esrever , October 27, 2012 7:07 PM
    Intel isn't even trying with atoms any more.
  • Display all 34 comments.
  • -9 Hide
    samuelspark , October 27, 2012 7:08 PM
    GPU performance?
  • 8 Hide
    damianrobertjones , October 27, 2012 7:18 PM
    esreverIntel isn't even trying with atoms any more.


    ? They're increasing performance. Did you even READ the article
  • 3 Hide
    ethaniel , October 27, 2012 7:34 PM
    140 Mhz won't do much. The Atoms need to become out-of-order processors, period. And if Intel can't keep the TDP down, well, that's their problem.
  • -7 Hide
    bak0n , October 27, 2012 7:37 PM
    New Asus EEE PC plz. This would play borderlands 2 with a nice gpu config setup! Make it easy to multibox :) 
  • -5 Hide
    ivanto , October 27, 2012 7:50 PM
    PC platform's market is shrinking, Intel is the king there but they need new markets.
    -IvanTO
  • 1 Hide
    esrever , October 27, 2012 7:51 PM
    damianrobertjones? They're increasing performance. Did you even READ the article
    did you even read the article? they canceled the top end model and release one that gives a <10% clock boost. Atoms are slow as crap without OoO. Even the 2700 running at 2133mhz is slow as crap. Not to mention can't even properly decode 1080p video without lag spikes.

    If they made atoms as well as the core. the 10w atoms can have i3 performance but right now they are at 1/4 of that. The in order execution also make the cpu lag when doing the most basic things.
  • 1 Hide
    obsama1 , October 27, 2012 7:53 PM
    Intel should just replace the atoms with low-voltage i3's sans-hyperthreading.
  • 18 Hide
    amuffin , October 27, 2012 8:00 PM
    obsama1Intel should just replace the atoms with low-voltage i3's sans-hyperthreading.

    You mean the sb/ib pentiums?
  • 1 Hide
    damianrobertjones , October 27, 2012 8:42 PM
    esreverdid you even read the article? they canceled the top end model and release one that gives a <10% clock boost. Atoms are slow as crap without OoO. Even the 2700 running at 2133mhz is slow as crap. Not to mention can't even properly decode 1080p video without lag spikes. If they made atoms as well as the core. the 10w atoms can have i3 performance but right now they are at 1/4 of that. The in order execution also make the cpu lag when doing the most basic things.


    They've increased performance and a previously canceled cpu doesn't change that. You took what I said and made it something to get at me with. Thanks for that. Did you read the post that i was replying to? Nah just attack, attack, attack.
  • -3 Hide
    damianrobertjones , October 27, 2012 8:43 PM
    As long as the current crop run at the same level as the older core 2 duo parts it'll be more than acceptable and early reports confirm this. The single core AToms, however, really were terrible
  • 2 Hide
    yorgos , October 27, 2012 10:34 PM
    obsama1Intel should just replace the atoms with low-voltage i3's sans-hyperthreading.

    or they should just replace atom with an low-low voltage xeon, this is even better don't you think?

    there is a reason why atom is in that area of the marketplace and i3 is not.
    both cpus have different microarchitecture. They are not only different in the cache section, or the frequency, or the die size or anything that is obvious from a chart or the specs.
    They have alus, they shutdown chip components to preserve power, they have way less transistor count than i3 or even pentiums. they might share e.g. the same verilog code, or the same functionality in some components but they use EDAs and many other technics to make a chip like atom completely different than i3 but with the same architecture, not microarchitecture.
    cpus are not like buckets in which companies shovel ingridients in there. If you have designed something for a desktop cpu then you have to completely modify it to use it in the laptop or low power market.
  • 7 Hide
    vider , October 27, 2012 10:44 PM
    I always wanted a small portable personal computer at a mainstream price, lightweight and with just enough power to HD content (either from the web or from a local storage source).

    When the Intel ATOM was released, (it was clear that) reviews were not that positive (the idea behind the new form factor was great, don't get me wrong here) when it was it came to performance.


    HD video content could not be run on an ATOM powered unit nor could gaming be done one either. The whole idea behind it was to let people enjoy entertainment on the go, without the excessive weight that a mainstream laptop (note book) would come up with.

    Yet, it was not powerfull enough to run the basics without the slow down kicking in (any one remembers the Windows XP models with 1 GB of ram? They were garbage, unless you'd use it as small linux backup, in which case it was more then enough for that matter).

    I was waiting and waiting for an alternative (from either VIA or AMD), until one day AMD came up with the C-50/60.

    So one day I went to the local Futureshop store and conducted a small test, I ran a few trailers from youtube and a few videos from Vimeo.

    Every single unit that was powered by an Intel solution, couldn't play video content (at 720p) without a moderate/major lag.

    AMD on the other hand, blew my socks off. A few months later I got an ACER Aspire with an AMD C-60 for a mere 200$ and I was not wrong.

    Amazing battery life, amazing video playback capability and best of all, I can still enjoy Oblivion on this unit (Yes the graphics are low, the resolution is low, but the frame rate is there and the game works better then on an Intel equivalent solution).

    Now, I'm not saying that AMD is better, or that the new generation of ATOM's (2k series) are not good (I haven't had the chance to test them at the store and see if I could get the same results as with the unit I am using now) is garbage, but I can say that AMD outdid itself with their alternative.

    I hope that for my next purchase, Intel will step up a bit and get it right (by figuring out what the chip would be used for mostly among the different demographic groups and provide a solution that would go hand in hand with what's IN and what's OUT), otherwise, I'm back to AMD.

    PS:
    I am not an AMD fan (I've had chips from both sides) for me it's just about performance per buck, per what I really need it for.
  • 0 Hide
    daswilhelm , October 27, 2012 10:47 PM
    i ran WOW on my netbook with the original atom in it, so i dont see whats so bad about them.

    you know, cuz 5-8 fps was cool back then.
  • 2 Hide
    JeTJL , October 27, 2012 11:00 PM
    Oh Please have 64-bit drivers video drivers or a new NorthBridge, or PCI-e x16 or something for that matter, and make it somewhat worthwhile to build a really nice HTPC or thin client pc.
  • 2 Hide
    mightymaxio , October 28, 2012 12:01 AM
    Honestly for a file-server this is the best option for power/performance. You don't need much to run shares just a basic processor and it runs which is why Atom's being 10w are fricken amazing when it comes to that.
  • 3 Hide
    CaedenV , October 28, 2012 12:02 AM
    esreverIntel isn't even trying with atoms any more.

    on the contrary, the 2xxx series really stepped up performance on the GPU side where they can now do HD content fairly reliably, plus they have put the entire line on an accelerated release date to get the manufacturing process down to the same as the Core line of products, which ought to help considerably.
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , October 28, 2012 12:11 AM
    AMD has better graphics, and cost less! Let us stop Intel from being in everything! Go ARM go AMD or go broke trying to buy Intel CPUs if they control too much of the market!
  • 2 Hide
    apache_lives , October 28, 2012 12:29 AM
    ethaniel140 Mhz won't do much. The Atoms need to become out-of-order processors, period. And if Intel can't keep the TDP down, well, that's their problem.


    There designed to be cheap which means small die size which usually translates to low TDP, the design was picked for a reason.

    If they wanted high end with lower TDP's they would take the ultrabook series CPUs and drop them to 1ghz, there already sub 25w chips to start with.
Display more comments