when will we see Tegra netbooks

[Damian^]

I was originally planning on buying an MSI netbook for webbrowsing and such until i heard of the tegra based netbooks and how they are far superior in performance and power. Unless its hype.

Anyways, when can we expect to see retail tegra based netbooks on the market?

[Russian]

I heard asus had some coming in their EEEPC's very soon. They're already launching in asia afaik.

[Smartidiot89]

Qualcomms SoC smartbook is what I am waiting for personally ^^

[Frank M]

tegra based netbooks and how they are far superior in performance

... dream on.

Just think about it, how could a RISC (reduced instruction set computer)
processor at 650 / 1000 MHz be "far superior in performance" to a CISC-
based (complex instruction set), 1,33-1,66GHz, much more complex
processor with hyperthreading, etc.

Where Tegra excels is low power consumption and media capabilities; but
in raw power, it looses to the Atom. It will play 720p better and at lower
power; but for browsing, especially for bloated flash content or online
video-sharing sites like Youtube hd, hulu & co., it's worse than the Atom.

Not to mention it's not x86, so it won't run windows xp / vista / 7.

Don't get your hopes too worked up, my $0.02

[mk_dir]

Qualcomms SoC smartbook is what I am waiting for personally ^^


ARM Cortex A9 MP 2Ghz for me..... anyway, the main point is te SO... Google OS? a WM 7 version? Andriod on steroids? Linux ARM variation?

[Smartidiot89]

... dream on.

Just think about it, how could a RISC (reduced instruction set computer)
processor at 650 / 1000 MHz be "far superior in performance" to a CISC-
based (complex instruction set), 1,33-1,66GHz, much more complex
processor with hyperthreading, etc.

Where Tegra excels is low power consumption and media capabilities; but
in raw power, it looses to the Atom. It will play 720p better and at lower
power; but for browsing, especially for bloated flash content or online
video-sharing sites like Youtube hd, hulu & co., it's worse than the Atom.

Not to mention it's not x86, so it won't run windows xp / vista / 7.

Don't get your hopes too worked up, my $0.02
The whole point (for me) is batterylife and that these new "smartbooks" actually can provide acceptable batterylife. I can listen to musik, surf the net, watch a movie... That is all I am asking of one :)

ARM Cortex A9 MP 2Ghz for me..... anyway, the main point is te SO... Google OS? a WM 7 version? Andriod on steroids? Linux ARM variation?
I will most likely use a Linux Distro for mine :)

[mk_dir]

The whole point (for me) is batterylife and that these new "smartbooks" actually can provide acceptable batterylife. I can listen to musik, surf the net, watch a movie... That is all I am asking of one :)

I will most likely use a Linux Distro for mine :)


I think you're right. ARM processors can manage the most of the requirements of a netbook user. I'm not talking about an ARM A8 @ 600Mhz (Iphone 3GS proccesors for example), but a Snapdragon > 1Ghz or a Cortex A9 MP will be nice, want to compare power consumption with a Isaiah/Atom system?.
And if you need more processing power, go for a Penryn CULV core, you'll be glad.

Linux ARM support for Cortex A8/A9 (http://www.arm.com/products/os/linux_download.html) processors it's possible so a plataform like that (Cortex A9/Linux ARM) can be released in the future...

[Damian^]

Where Tegra excels is low power consumption and media capabilities; but
in raw power, it looses to the Atom. It will play 720p better and at lower
power; but for browsing, especially for bloated flash content or online
video-sharing sites like Youtube hd, hulu & co., it's worse than the Atom.
wouldn't that be more of a networking and connection issue rather than power?

[Smartidiot89]

I think you're right. ARM processors can manage the most of the requirements of a netbook user. I'm not talking about an ARM A8 @ 600Mhz (Iphone 3GS proccesors for example), but a Snapdragon > 1Ghz or a Cortex A9 MP will be nice, want to compare power consumption with a Isaiah/Atom system?.
And if you need more processing power, go for a Penryn CULV core, you'll be glad.

Linux ARM support for Cortex A8/A9 (http://www.arm.com/products/os/linux_download.html) processors it's possible so a plataform like that (Cortex A9/Linux ARM) can be released in the future...
I have an Atom 1.6GHz / 945 at home which is my girlfriends I guess I could compare them... I think the one at home has a 3-Cell battery and does a good 2 - 2.5 hours in regular use which basically is MSN, Webbrowsing, Music etc...

I don't need processing power, all I want is music, movies and webbrowsing :) I am not much of a gamer and I don't require much from a laptop except that it needs to have exceptional batterylife. Tried to convince my better half she desperatly needs one so I put her infront of my desktop with Ubuntu installed. Oh boy did she hate it:ROTF:

BTW I heard that Qualcomms solution will use a Snapdragon @ 1.5/1.6GHz and that batterylife will be about 8 hours on a 3-cell which is quite impressive. Also 100% passive without fans.

[mk_dir]

Passive, 8 hours on a 3 cell battery, that's de ARM potential.

BTW, have a look to the new Dell's latitude netbooks (http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/15/dells-latitude-on-instant-os-detailed-screenshooted/) (E4200/E4300), featuring ARM processor and Linux OS (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 adaptation). We were right about our supositions after all. I have no information about the SoC ARM used yet...

[Smartidiot89]

Passive, 8 hours on a 3 cell battery, that's de ARM potential.

BTW, have a look to the new Dell's latitude netbooks (http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/15/dells-latitude-on-instant-os-detailed-screenshooted/) (E4200/E4300), featuring ARM processor and Linux OS (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 adaptation). We were right about our supositions after all. I have no information about the SoC ARM used yet...
Really I thaught it was higher? What I'd would want is atleast 6-8 hours of usage so perhaps something with a 6-cell will fit me better...

And that movie is absolutely amazing, that is a product I would buy for personal usage!

[Frank M]

The whole point (for me) is batterylife and that these new "smartbooks" actually can provide acceptable batterylife. I can listen to musik, surf the net, watch a movie... That is all I am asking of one :)


You may ask for that, but you'll only get a visibly reduced browsing
experience. E.g. I have a Vaio subnotebook with 1.2GHz Core Solo.
On sites with lots of flash banners, the cpu load goes instantly up,
scrolling becomes jerky or even the whole browser gets into a semi-
unresponsive state (takes a second or two to switch or close tabs).
Online higher-quality video content, like youtube hd stutters.


wouldn't that be more of a networking and connection issue rather than power?

No.
I repeat, even a 1.2GHz CS has a hard time coping with youtube hd,
with ethernet cable plugged in. How can you expect a 0.65/1.0GHz,
much less complex and lower performance RISC processor core to
do that?

[Smartidiot89]

You may ask for that, but you'll only get a visibly reduced browsing
experience. E.g. I have a Vaio subnotebook with 1.2GHz Core Solo.
On sites with lots of flash banners, the cpu load goes instantly up,
scrolling becomes jerky or even the whole browser gets into a semi-
unresponsive state (takes a second or two to switch or close tabs).
Online higher-quality video content, like youtube hd stutters.

No.
I repeat, even a 1.2GHz CS has a hard time coping with youtube hd,
with ethernet cable plugged in. How can you expect a 0.65/1.0GHz,
much less complex and lower performance RISC processor core to
do that?
Not meaning to be an ass but your Intel laptop doesn't compare. Let me assume it also has an Intel IGP?

Qualcomms SoC with ARM Snapdragon will be able to do 720p fluently, and later revision 1080p.

[mk_dir]

Web browsing, even with heavy flash/effects loads, shouldn't be a problem for this kind of hardware.

In the other hand, about high res video reproduce/processing, it's a mather of GPU acceleration, if the codec filters are supported or not by de GPU. That's really important because if the workload goes to the CPU, the performance will be awful in all cases.

[Frank M]

Not meaning to be an ass but your Intel laptop doesn't compare. Let me assume it also has an Intel IGP?

Qualcomms SoC with ARM Snapdragon will be able to do 720p fluently, and later revision 1080p.

Web browsing, even with heavy flash/effects loads, shouldn't be a problem for this kind of hardware.

In the other hand, about high res video reproduce/processing, it's a mather of GPU acceleration, if the codec filters are supported or not by de GPU.

The two (flash and video playback) are completely different.
For video, there is hardware acceleration. Tegra, Snapdragon, OMAP4 & co
will all be high on that. Flash, OTOH, is still brute force (Sun now has Jazelle
for hardware Java support and acceleration, but AFAIK there's still no
other way for flash than brute-force). It needs cpu horsepower -- and
that is exactly what these lack. Youtube HD may be videos, but it is Flash,
where video hw acceleration is irrelevant. Even worse, Flash HD videos
need even more power -- normal, offline 720p videos run without a hiccup,
with medium/medium-high processor use; Youtube HD stutters, yet it is
not even 720p. Flash will be the weak spot of these devices.

[mk_dir]

Well i'm not talking about flash video content, witch actually must be handled by the CPU, although flash HD video GPU (Tegra particularly) accelerated can be possible in a near future (http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=29934&catid=3)...

[Calmatory]

... dream on.

Just think about it, how could a RISC (reduced instruction set computer)
processor at 650 / 1000 MHz be "far superior in performance" to a CISC-
based (complex instruction set), 1,33-1,66GHz, much more complex
processor with hyperthreading, etc.

Where Tegra excels is low power consumption and media capabilities; but
in raw power, it looses to the Atom. It will play 720p better and at lower
power; but for browsing, especially for bloated flash content or online
video-sharing sites like Youtube hd, hulu & co., it's worse than the Atom.

Not to mention it's not x86, so it won't run windows xp / vista / 7.

Don't get your hopes too worked up, my $0.02

I have lately learned that ARM aren't much behind Atom in terms of IPC. I'd say that 1.6 GHz single core ARM CPU which uses 2W can outperform 1.6 GHz single core Atom+chipset which use 10 W.

Right now, of course ARM based devices suffer from lower performance because of not so optimized compilers. Compilers for x86 are far superior to those of ARM. The things are changing though.

And yeah. 1.6 GHz Atom is slower than 1.6 GHz Celeron M from 2004... :p:

I am very excited about this kind of news. Within few years we will see more and more of handheld computer systems based on ARM, and notebooks and even full laptops, and as they are based on ARM, their power consumption is fraction of x86 things, battery life 24 hours? ;)

[mk_dir]

I doubt we'll see ARM processors in laptops, for sure a Cortex A9 can do a great job in a netbook, but IMO, can't compete against Intel's CULV platform in the 11"-13" market area.

[Calmatory]

Apart from the fact that the two use different ISA, and hence aren't binary compatible, why couldn't it? Cortex A9 is a SoC, meaning that it does not require a chipset. Chipset alone on x86 based devices uses way more power than Cortex A9. The speed then.. It's the real issue for Cortex A9, even at 1 GHz it can't really compete at all against anything +1 GHz Atoms by Intel, let alone the Core2 based ULV processors.

Power efficiency wise ARM beats Intel hands down.

[Smartidiot89]

I doubt we'll see ARM processors in laptops, for sure a Cortex A9 can do a great job in a netbook, but IMO, can't compete against Intel's CULV platform in the 11"-13" market area.
Qualcomms solution will be released at 5" all the way up to 14" with a ARM CPU.

It will compete with lower prices, but do remember this is a brand new market. It's a market without x86 that is breaking into our homes so it won't directly compete against CULV in that manner.

Again WHY would someone want a ARM based laptop? Alot of people are like me, they don't game much... I am a forumwhore extraordinarie, listen to music and I write ALOT, aswell as watch movies. For this purpose a cheap ARM solution is perfect and blows everything AMD and Intel has out of the water since I am after powerefficiency and long batterylife - I meen I am after a REAL laptop that can actually be used without being sucked dry within 2-3 hours.

[Calmatory]

Just need to get software ported from x86 to ARM. Should not be a big task if the program is written correctly from the ground up. Of course, if the libraries which are being used aren't being ported, great portpotion of the program has to be redone with another library. Then again, it's a bad design decision to use non-portable libraries in the first place, so the developers are to blame once again.

GCC ARM compiler + Qt + OpenGL ES here I come. <3

[mk_dir]

The speed then.. It's the real issue for Cortex A9, even at 1 GHz it can't really compete at all against anything +1 GHz Atoms by Intel, let alone the Core2 based ULV processors.

Power efficiency wise ARM beats Intel hands down.

Of course, I'm talking about performance, and for sure in a clock to clock comparasion betwen Cortex A9 and a weak X86 arch like atom's one, ARM is a great option, moreover, if we talk about power consumption, Cortex wins again.

But, if a 13" netbook user demands more performance, CULV is the best solution, in this market area, mobility/battery length usually are less importante parameters in comparasion with a netbook.

I mean, ARM - CULV (and AMD Neo platform too) can manage the market demands, processors in the middle like Atom or Isaiah (low TDP/performance X86) are the solutions threatened by this ARM deploy.