AMD Ontario APU pictured,die size ~77mm^2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

You do realize that for Atom the D stands for desktop replacement ? You don't find D parts in mobile, they are for always powered embeded form factors, controllers, telecom,etc.
The Ds are basically the failed Atoms, with the highest leakage and power consumption. Not wanting to throw them away, Intel sells those cheaply in always plugged in systems.

The mobile netbook parts are the Ns, while tablets and MIDs go for Zxx series.
The new Z6xx series target the smartphones, Intel announced they have 2 major wins in this field ( Motorola, Nokia ? ).

---

Not of Bobcat / Ontario / Zacate target market here.
Irrelevant with topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

Not of Bobcat / Ontario / Zacate target market here.
Irrelevant with topic.

---

I don't know whether to yawn or :rotf:,

So you make this comparison

Quote:

---

AMD current gen mobile platform:
x2 L625 (18W), 780G + SB710 (11.5W+4.5W)

AMD next gen mobile platform:
Ontario (9W), Hudson M1 / D1 (~6W)
Zacate (18W), Hudson M1 / D1 (~6W)

Intel Atom mobile platform:
Atom D51x - Pineview (13W), NM10 (2W)

Intel Core ULV platform:
i3-330UM - Clarsdale (18W), Ibex Peak (3.5W)

---

Than draw this conclusion :

Quote:

---

I don't think Atom is competitive at all.

---

I tell you the D series aren't part of the mobile platform

Quote:

---

You do realize that for Atom the D stands for desktop replacement ? You don't find D parts in mobile, they are for always powered embeded form factors, controllers, telecom,etc. ....The mobile netbook parts are the Ns, while tablets and MIDs go for Zxx series.

---

Let me refresh your memory :
N550 - 8.5W, 1.50 GHz, dual core, GPU
N475 - 6.5W, 1.83 GHz, single core, GPU
N450 - 5.5W, 1.66 GHz, single core, GPU

And you reply

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

Not of Bobcat / Ontario / Zacate target market here.
Irrelevant with topic.

---

Do you need any further assistance ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BatteryOperated

Savantu, is he Paul Demone? Because if they are the same person, much would be explained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

I don't know whether to yawn or :rotf:,

So you make this comparison


Than draw this conclusion :



I tell you the D series aren't part of the mobile platform



Let me refresh your memory :
N550 - 8.5W, 1.50 GHz, dual core, GPU
N475 - 6.5W, 1.83 GHz, single core, GPU
N450 - 5.5W, 1.66 GHz, single core, GPU

And you reply


Do you need any further assistance ?

---

But the GPU is not on Die, it's quite important to say that.

Ontario's TDP is CPU + GPU, while Atom is only CPU. So while Ontario is 9W, its CPU + GPU = 9W. While Atom is CPU only.

Let me know the combined TDP of ATOM N550 + integrated GPU from intel and it's level of perf/wat, i cannot find such an info yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Let me refresh your memory :
N550 - 8.5W, 1.50 GHz, dual core, GPU
N475 - 6.5W, 1.83 GHz, single core, GPU
N450 - 5.5W, 1.66 GHz, single core, GPU

And you reply


Do you need any further assistance ?

---

And they shall compete with this one.
T40N - 9W, 1.0 GHz, dual core, GPU, LVDDR3

And the only thing we now about the power draw of T40N is that it's theoretical maximum power draw is somewhere between 5W and 9W.

Saying that it's typical power draw is at 9W is BS, and maximum power draw at 9W is absolute worst case scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Florinmocanu

But the GPU is not on Die, it's quite important to say that.

Ontario's TDP is CPU + GPU, while Atom is only CPU. So while Ontario is 9W, its CPU + GPU = 9W. While Atom is CPU only.

Let me know the combined TDP of ATOM N550 + integrated GPU from intel and it's level of perf/wat, i cannot find such an info yet.

---

Reading comprehension problems ?

N550 - 8.5W, 1.50 GHz, dual core, GPU
N475 - 6.5W, 1.83 GHz, single core, GPU
N450 - 5.5W, 1.66 GHz, single core, GPU


Let me repeat : you're stuck in 2008. We are in 2010. Today's Atom that your find all over the place ( cast a look emag ) integrates on the same die, the CPU+GPU+NB. Clear ?

So total power for the T40N would be 9+6w=15w ( SB ) while for the N550 it would be 8.5+2=10.5w

30% less power at platform level which with the same battery and screen would translate into 30% more endurance. Using the other N models only increases this advantage.

Current Atom : everything on a single die.

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/pineview.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

And they shall compete with this one.
T40N - 9W, 1.0 GHz, dual core, GPU, LVDDR3

And the only thing we now about the power draw of T40N is that it's theoretical maximum power draw is somewhere between 5W and 9W.

Saying that it's typical power draw is at 9W is BS, and maximum power draw at 9W is absolute worst case scenario.

---

You do understand that what you're saying equally applies to Atom chips also ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

IMO, when the players will overlap, AMD could find itself as a collateral victim. Intel has the resources and is willing ( already its marketing machine turned on ARM ) to steam roll ARM on its turf. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel allocated to Atom and other small factor SoC an order of magnitude more resources than ARM has.
Yet, ARM has an aces on its sleeve : it is a pure design house which licenses its designs and other carry the burden to implement them. ARM gets royalties of a few cents for each chip. That's extremely low, but when your designs are produced at a rate of 5m a day it adds up.
Basically ARM brings together Qualcom, Freescale, Samsung,etc. Intel isn't in battle only with ARM, but with those companies also.

Why could AMD end up as a collateral victim ? ARM is so widespread because it is cheap. ARM based CPUs sells for cents and rarely above a few $. It is safe to assume its trust in low power and low end x86 territory will be price driven ( they don't have the SW base ). Who is the low cost king of x86 ? AMD.
Intel doesn't go after every unit in the market for a very simple reason, its margins would crater from the lovely 60%+ it enjoys now. Every time AMD took a beating from Intel it retreated in the low cost part of the market where Intel wasn't willing to enter.
Well, that is about to change since ARM targets specifically that market. ARM won't bother to design the next Nehalem, but it will produce an ARM based Ontario-like CPU ( AR15 ? ).

---

I find your analysis to be flawed. For one thing, exactly the opposite of what you describe is actually happening. Intel is competing with ARM for the low margin parts and AMD is filling the gap in higher margin parts.

ARM might eventually make inroads into the laptop market, but it's already a force in the low power market. Intel might have a lot of disposable income but throwing a bunch of money at it won't necessarily make x86 better than ARM for low-power. I think AMD is smart not to try to enter that segment yet. Their little ontario would get strangled in the crib by ARM. AMD might have to compete with future products from ARM but Intel has to compete with current products from ARM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Intel and AMD are looking for different markets right now. AMD needed a good mobile part for netbooks and above, Intel needs something good below netbooks ( mids, tablets and ultimately smartphones ).

ARM is picking up steam and aiming to go from smartphones to mids/tablets/laptops and ultimately high density servers.

A clash is on the horizon as Intel thrusts in ARM territory and viceversa. AMD at the moment is sitting on the sidelines, but they need to be prepared for this war. Current Ontario landed just above where ARM is trying to go in the next step.

IMO, when the players will overlap, AMD could find itself as a collateral victim. Intel has the resources and is willing ( already its marketing machine turned on ARM ) to steam roll ARM on its turf. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel allocated to Atom and other small factor SoC an order of magnitude more resources than ARM has.
Yet, ARM has an aces on its sleeve : it is a pure design house which licenses its designs and other carry the burden to implement them. ARM gets royalties of a few cents for each chip. That's extremely low, but when your designs are produced at a rate of 5m a day it adds up.
Basically ARM brings together Qualcom, Freescale, Samsung,etc. Intel isn't in battle only with ARM, but with those companies also.

Why could AMD end up as a collateral victim ? ARM is so widespread because it is cheap. ARM based CPUs sells for cents and rarely above a few $. It is safe to assume its trust in low power and low end x86 territory will be price driven ( they don't have the SW base ). Who is the low cost king of x86 ? AMD.
Intel doesn't go after every unit in the market for a very simple reason, its margins would crater from the lovely 60%+ it enjoys now. Every time AMD took a beating from Intel it retreated in the low cost part of the market where Intel wasn't willing to enter.
Well, that is about to change since ARM targets specifically that market. ARM won't bother to design the next Nehalem, but it will produce an ARM based Ontario-like CPU ( AR15 ? ).

---

so much of this i do not agree with
first intel is moving down into a market to fight with ARM that ARM is moving out of.

think for a second, in the 10W market, ontario is going to do great.
in the 2-5W market, atom is kinda by itself
in the 1W market and lower ARM is doing wonders

now how long until ARM moves up to 10W and starts competing with AMD? and what will it take to get there? were not talking about an ipad device thats just a big screen with a weak chip, were talking about full computers that need to be able to do everything.

it seems that in this case, intel gave up on the 10W market cause atom is a pretty weak chip, and decided to do everything to make it use less power and get into cell phones and hand helds. but whats it going to do when it gets there? a good cell phone already has gpus to help out the cpu, is x86 going to fix that aswell? are we going to see an atom based phone with like 5 LRB cores just so it can compete with the next waves of phones that will have graphics better than a PSP or DS.

my opinion is that atom by itself is too weak to do anything worth while, and it will always need the help of something else, primarily a gpu, to let it even do any damage. and i think we all know that intel is not really into the whole gpu thing.

also about the whole market vs margins thing, when i7 first came out, it was less than 1% of the sales. they worked so hard to make their 500$ chips, that almost no one wanted. this is XS and many of us do like the newest stuff, but average joe consumers rarely see any point in buying something 20% faster for 300% the price. there is nothing wrong with making stuff for mainstream

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

You do understand that what you're saying equally applies to Atom chips also ?

---

You can't compare them since intel has more steps, N550 has a power consumption between 6.5W and 8.5W. T40N has a maximum power consumption between 5W and 9W. I think that's enough to say that you don't have enough to say anything about how one compares to the other. Or do you know something I don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

I find your analysis to be flawed. For one thing, exactly the opposite of what you describe is actually happening. Intel is competing with ARM for the low margin parts and AMD is filling the gap in higher margin parts.

---

Allow me to disagree. Here are my reasons :

1. Intel isn't competing for the low margin products. For example, Atom has higher gross margins than Intel's Celeron,single and double core Pentiums. Why ? Because you get 2000 from a wafer and you sell them for $40 in average. With Celeron/Pentium you get 400 and sell them for $60.
Same story is happening at MID/tablet/smartphone level. Intel isn't competing for $15 a pop cellphones, but for those which cost over $200 where they can enjoy high margins. They don't want to get in the price slime that ARM loves.
2. AMD isn't filling any high margin gap. I'm sure they'll price their parts at Atom like level or even lower. Where Ontario is competing you have current single and dual core Atom, superseded at the top by ULV I3/5s,than LV I3/I5s which are going to be replaced by SB very soon. I've heard that Intel has a backup solution a single core SB. Probably it will end up in the 10-20w range and things will be really intersting : 2 small Bobcat cores + large GPU vs. large SB core + medium GPU.
3. ARM targets the netbooks, a market currently worth 30-40m units. That's where Bobcat also tries to reach. Intel is attacked from both sides, true, but hey, if they can't handle the pressure who can ?

Quote:

---

ARM might eventually make inroads into the laptop market, but it's already a force in the low power market. Intel might have a lot of disposable income but throwing a bunch of money at it won't necessarily make x86 better than ARM for low-power. I think AMD is smart not to try to enter that segment yet. Their little ontario would get strangled in the crib by ARM. AMD might have to compete with future products from ARM but Intel has to compete with current products from ARM.

---

The growth is in low power market. That's why Intel is going after it. The traditional PC market is yesterday news.
Intel covers the very top of the low power market with netbooks and Atom. There tablets below, MIDs and smartphone where Intel is a non-player. Their attempt to increase revenue by going into new markets is very logical.

AMD can sit on the sidelines and be confined to the x86 market or try to do what Intel does and go for ARM's throat. It is their choice after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

You can't compare them since intel has more steps, N550 has a power consumption between 6.5W and 8.5W. T40N has a maximum power consumption between 5W and 9W. I think that's enough to say that you don't have enough to say anything about how one compares to the other. Or do you know something I don't?

---

What the :banana::banana::banana::banana: is that ? From where do you pull this ranges ?
Do you understand what TDP is ?

If a chip has a TDP of 10w it means, that's the maximal power it will dissipate running power intensive commercial SW. The cooling solution needs to be able to remove 10w 24/7. The CPU itself can exceed its TDP in certain cases ( thermal virus for example ). Another metric is idle power, when the whole chip or parts of it are in deep power states.

So if T40N has a higher TDP than N550 it means at similar load levels it will burn more power. It should be fairly obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What the :banana::banana::banana::banana: is that ? From where do you pull this ranges ?
Do you understand what TDP is ?

If a chip has a TDP of 10w it means, that's the maximal power it will dissipate running power intensive commercial SW. The cooling solution needs to be able to remove 10w 24/7. The CPU itself can exceed its TDP in certain cases ( thermal virus for example ). Another metric is idle power, when the whole chip or parts of it are in deep power states.

So if T40N has a higher TDP than N550 it means at similar load levels it will burn more power. It should be fairly obvious.

---

:clap:
you completely missed his point, ill wait for him to set you strait though

Humm i have no idea why everyone is comparing Ontario with Atom ?

Instead of Atom comparison should be made between Ontario and Arrandale based Celeron/Pentium "Coming soon" and Core i3-330UM, given that all these are suppose to have 18TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What the :banana::banana::banana::banana: is that ? From where do you pull this ranges ?
Do you understand what TDP is ?

If a chip has a TDP of 10w it means, that's the maximal power it will dissipate running power intensive commercial SW. The cooling solution needs to be able to remove 10w 24/7. The CPU itself can exceed its TDP in certain cases ( thermal virus for example ). Another metric is idle power, when the whole chip or parts of it are in deep power states.

So if T40N has a higher TDP than N550 it means at similar load levels it will burn more power. It should be fairly obvious.

---

Maybe you should chill out a bit. I'm fairly certain he meant the Atom has "maximum" power of 6.5 - 8.5W while the Zacate has 5 - 9W - you won't get closer than that in an average situation on either solution. So while the Zacate TDP is higher, the actual "maximum" power could be lower (maximum being fully loaded 24/7 in a normal app) than Atom - otherwise the Atom part would have been binned <6.5W.

Also the fact that Zacate has the same die size (actually smaller if 77mm² is true) as dual core Pineview Atom should give AMD the same high margins (I'm don't know if the wafer size is similiar though) but you fail to mention this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

What the :banana::banana::banana::banana: is that ? From where do you pull this ranges ?
Do you understand what TDP is ?

If a chip has a TDP of 10w it means, that's the maximal power it will dissipate running power intensive commercial SW. The cooling solution needs to be able to remove 10w 24/7. The CPU itself can exceed its TDP in certain cases ( thermal virus for example ). Another metric is idle power, when the whole chip or parts of it are in deep power states.

So if T40N has a higher TDP than N550 it means at similar load levels it will burn more power. It should be fairly obvious.

---

You don't just have TDP, you have TDP ranges, If you haven't noticed AMD has close to 100 different models rated at 65, 80, 95 or 125W TDP. A coincidence that all these chips has a TDP at these 4 exact numbers? Of course not, if a chip has a maximum power consumption of 69W, it's rated at 80W. And you know this. And for Bobcats AMD has only three TDPs to date, 5, 9, and 18W. That means that a processor rated at one of these can be anywhere between that number and the number below.

A T40N could be 1W away from being rated at 5W, and there is no way you could know if it is. Just as well as it could be at 8.9W.

That's why you can't do your comparisons and expect to get a useful conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Humm i have no idea why everyone is comparing Ontario with Atom ?

Instead of Atom comparison should be made between Ontario and Arrandale based Celeron/Pentium "Coming soon" and Core i3-330UM, given that all these are suppose to have 18TDP.

---

Ontario is lower power version, it competes with high power atom.
Zacate is the 18W version, and it will compete somewhat with "i" intel series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

You don't just have TDP, you have TDP ranges, If you haven't noticed AMD has close to 100 different models rated at 65, 80, 95 or 125W TDP. A coincidence that all these chips has a TDP at these 4 exact numbers? Of course not, if a chip has a maximum power consumption of 69W, it's rated at 80W. And you know this. And for Bobcats AMD has only three TDPs to date, 5, 9, and 18W. That means that a processor rated at one of these can be anywhere between that number and the number below.

A T40N could be 1W away from being rated at 5W, and there is no way you could know if it is. Just as well as it could be at 8.9W.

That's why you can't do your comparisons and expect to get a useful conclusion.

---

Parts distribution based on power is what drives the TDP. If 95% of the parts would be under 7w then they would set that as TDP. The fact that they choose 9w it means most of the parts are closer to 9 than to any other arbitrary figure you've chosen ( the next range at 5w is for a single core no GPU device , hardly relevant ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Parts distribution based on power is what drives the TDP. If 95% of the parts would be under 7w then they would set that as TDP. The fact that they choose 9w it means most of the parts are closer to 9 than to any other arbitrary figure you've chosen ( the next range at 5w is for a single core no GPU device , hardly relevant ).

---

and i think your wrong

they are distributed to the highest in the range where many fall

if the tpd values are as follows per chip:
5
7
8
9
13
14
17
18

the 3 best numbers are 5, 9 and 18,

if their goal was to make things more attractive then it would be like
5, 8, 9, 14, 18. way to many extra things thrown in for a value that really only affects the size of the heatsink and power brick. why have 5 values when the difference is that all ontario netbooks can accept anything 9 and under. imagine looking at one where they choose the 8w tdp to build everything around, all that extra time wasted to build a platform that is almost no different. its a wasted value and serves no real purpose.

its not too hard to keep it simple and be open minded is it? no need to assume a million other things just because they didnt provide as many tdp ranges as intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Parts distribution based on power is what drives the TDP. If 95% of the parts would be under 7w then they would set that as TDP. The fact that they choose 9w it means most of the parts are closer to 9 than to any other arbitrary figure you've chosen ( the next range at 5w is for a single core no GPU device , hardly relevant ).

---

The first two sentences is just plain irrelevant, you don't have to tell me those things. And they don't choose 9W because it's closest only, they choose 9W because it's the closest upwards.

So if AMD have a new bobcat based SOC that isn't listed above, with all parts between 10W and 11.5W. What TDP do you think they would give that product?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

The first two sentences is just plain irrelevant, you don't have to tell me those things. And they don't choose 9W because it's closest only, they choose 9W because it's the closest upwards.

So if AMD have a new bobcat based SOC that isn't listed above, with all parts between 10W and 11.5W. What TDP do you think they would give that product?

---

11.5w

Anyway, your assumption implies the process to be rubbish with power variation of more than 30% between the parts and distribution doesn't follow any pattern. I do not believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

11.5w

Anyway, your assumption implies the process to be rubbish with power variation of more than 30% between the parts and distribution doesn't follow any pattern. I do not believe that.

---

You don't have to believe that.

Most Intel Q9xx0 quad-core CPUs can fit into 65W power envelope, yet they are marked as 95W TDP CPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

11.5w

Anyway, your assumption implies the process to be rubbish with power variation of more than 30% between the parts and distribution doesn't follow any pattern. I do not believe that.

---

So by stating that they would sell this one marked as a 11.5W TDP chip you deny their use of TDP ranges?

My assumption was purely fictional and I didn't even care what it would imply on the process. But if want to bring it up it's 15% and it's completely normal. It's nothing unusual with processors sold at slight different voltages, where some has 1.2V others of the same model can have 1.3V. And that is much more than 15% power difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

So by stating that they would sell this one marked as a 11.5W TDP chip you deny their use of TDP ranges?

My assumption was purely fictional and I didn't even care what it would imply on the process. But if want to bring it up it's 15% and it's completely normal. It's nothing unusual with processors sold at slight different voltages, where some has 1.2V others of the same model can have 1.3V. And that is much more than 15% power difference.

---

I believe we are in a stalemate with the discussion and only reviews done this winter will show how much headroom there is. We'll revisit it then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

I believe we are in a stalemate with the discussion and only reviews done this winter will show how much headroom there is. We'll revisit it then.

---

You couldn't avoid my point forever. :p:
But that is exactly what I've said, you can't do any conclusions based on the numbers we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Allow me to disagree. Here are my reasons :

1. Intel isn't competing for the low margin products. For example, Atom has higher gross margins than Intel's Celeron,single and double core Pentiums. Why ? Because you get 2000 from a wafer and you sell them for $40 in average. With Celeron/Pentium you get 400 and sell them for $60.

---

I'm not talking gross margins, just margins. Your example doesn't disagree with what I said. Atom in this example is still a lower margin product.

Quote:

---

Same story is happening at MID/tablet/smartphone level. Intel isn't competing for $15 a pop cellphones, but for those which cost over $200 where they can enjoy high margins. They don't want to get in the price slime that ARM loves.

---

I think that ARM is likely more suitable for the >$200 cellphone/MID market than x86. Of course, time will tell. For one thing, backwards comparability on those formats isn't as important.
For the tablet/netbook level Atom is too weak for a decent experience, IME. I'm curious to see how ontario fits in those formats. They are just a little too small for CULV.

Quote:

---

2. AMD isn't filling any high margin gap. I'm sure they'll price their parts at Atom like level or even lower. Where Ontario is competing you have current single and dual core Atom, superseded at the top by ULV I3/5s,than LV I3/I5s which are going to be replaced by SB very soon. I've heard that Intel has a backup solution a single core SB. Probably it will end up in the 10-20w range and things will be really intersting : 2 small Bobcat cores + large GPU vs. large SB core + medium GPU.

---

AMD won't get high margins for a few reasons. For one, they have to outsource their chip production. They also can't price as high because they don't have the brand recognition. We will have to see what the margins end up like. Probably not great, but for them some revenue is better then none.

I think Ontario will fit in the gap between Atom and I3/I5/SB. It should be significantly more powerful then Atom. That's good for the formats, like netbooks and tablets, where Atom is weak now. It will overlap with I3/I5/SB at the Zecate end of the range. My bet is that I3/I5/SB will be quite a bit faster, but Zecate will have significantly lower real world power usage. GPU will probably be about the same. So it would depend on your needs as to which one is better.

Quote:

---

3. ARM targets the netbooks, a market currently worth 30-40m units. That's where Bobcat also tries to reach. Intel is attacked from both sides, true, but hey, if they can't handle the pressure who can ?

---

ARM could do some damage in the netbook/tablet sectors if they designed a slightly beefier chip. I hope they do. Though for some people in this range software compatibility is still important.

Of course Intel can handle the pressure. AMD beat on them for years and Intel easily recovered. The real question is if x86 is ever going to be competitive for MIDs and smartphones. Because when Intel demonstrated the capability to take a beating and hardly notice they also demonstrated the capability to stubbornly go down a futile path. Personally I feel that ARM (or other low-power specific architectures) will always have a major advantage in this segment and what Intel has to fight with is process.

Quote:

---

The growth is in low power market. That's why Intel is going after it. The traditional PC market is yesterday news.
Intel covers the very top of the low power market with netbooks and Atom. There tablets below, MIDs and smartphone where Intel is a non-player. Their attempt to increase revenue by going into new markets is very logical.

---

The whole market of nettops/netbooks/tablets/mids/smartphones etc is growing. Traditional desktops are in decline. What could be more logical then for AMD to go after a segment of that market that neither ARM or Intel are filling effectively? At least as a first step.

Quote:

---

AMD can sit on the sidelines and be confined to the x86 market or try to do what Intel does and go for ARM's throat. It is their choice after all.

---

You make it sound like those are the only two options. Personally I'd like to see Intel and AMD both release low-power non-x86 architectures to more effectively compete with ARM in these segments. I think this is where things are going to heat up in the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

I'm not talking gross margins, just margins. Your example doesn't disagree with what I said. Atom in this example is still a lower margin product.

---

True. But it is incremental to current business and it is an opportunity that needs to be pursued.

Quote:

---

For the tablet/netbook level Atom is too weak for a decent experience, IME. I'm curious to see how ontario fits in those formats. They are just a little too small for CULV.

---

If Atom is weak, what about current ARM designs like Ipad and Iphone ? Those CPUs are much slower than Atom. Maybe the whole point is not performance, but power ? Atom has still too much performance per clock to be able to go down to a few hundred milliwats of power. The uarch needs to be simplified or moved aggressively to new processes. Performance is the last issue.

Quote:

---

You make it sound like those are the only two options. Personally I'd like to see Intel and AMD both release low-power non-x86 architectures to more effectively compete with ARM in these segments. I think this is where things are going to heat up in the next few years.

---

Why bother and reinvent the wheel when you already have x86 ? The whole problem is getting it into the right envelope. And from then on, for Intel at least, its process advantage will leave ARM&foundries in the dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Quote:

---

For the tablet/netbook level Atom is too weak for a decent experience, IME. I'm curious to see how ontario fits in those formats. They are just a little too small for CULV.

---

If Atom is weak, what about current ARM designs like Ipad and Iphone ? Those CPUs are much slower than Atom. Maybe the whole point is not performance, but power ? Atom has still too much performance per clock to be able to go down to a few hundred milliwats of power. The uarch needs to be simplified or moved aggressively to new processes. Performance is the last issue.

---

he just said tablet and netbook, and you go right back to phones. do you really have any understand about the market of ontario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

True. But it is incremental to current business and it is an opportunity that needs to be pursued.

---

Yes, and it seems like Ontario is a business opportunity for AMD. Filling a market segment effectively is a good way to generate revenue, despite low margins.

Quote:

---

If Atom is weak, what about current ARM designs like Ipad and Iphone ? Those CPUs are much slower than Atom. Maybe the whole point is not performance, but power ? Atom has still too much performance per clock to be able to go down to a few hundred milliwats of power. The uarch needs to be simplified or moved aggressively to new processes. Performance is the last issue.

---

Power is exactly the reason. They would have much lower battery life with Atom.

Quote:

---

Why bother and reinvent the wheel when you already have x86 ? The whole problem is getting it into the right envelope. And from then on, for Intel at least, its process advantage will leave ARM&foundries in the dust.

---

Why reinvent anything? Maybe because it would be better. ARM is a more effective low-power architecture. A low-power instruction set from Intel plus their process would be more efficient then just their process alone. The MID/smartphone segment software is still an evolving platform at this time so backwards compatibility is not as important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

True. But it is incremental to current business and it is an opportunity that needs to be pursued.



If Atom is weak, what about current ARM designs like Ipad and Iphone ? Those CPUs are much slower than Atom. Maybe the whole point is not performance, but power ? Atom has still too much performance per clock to be able to go down to a few hundred milliwats of power. The uarch needs to be simplified or moved aggressively to new processes. Performance is the last issue.



Why bother and reinvent the wheel when you already have x86 ? The whole problem is getting it into the right envelope. And from then on, for Intel at least, its process advantage will leave ARM&foundries in the dust.

---

The atom IS weak, it can't even decode HD properly. Nor can it handle flash. SoCs for mobile platforms work because they have dedicated silicon for handling tasks or are very well optimized. The atom is just a pathetic all rounder. What's the point of trying to stuff x86 into that segment?

None, except if you're intel and want to make money. But it's not working very well right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

The atom IS weak, it can't even decode HD properly. Nor can it handle flash. SoCs for mobile platforms work because they have dedicated silicon for handling tasks or are very well optimized. The atom is just a pathetic all rounder. What's the point of trying to stuff x86 into that segment?

None, except if you're intel and want to make money. But it's not working very well right now.

---

Are you saying this from experience or just pulling it out of your south pole ?
Besides, what stops Intel to implement dedicated silicon for those tasks ? They are already doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Are you saying this from experience or just pulling it out of your south pole ?
Besides, what stops Intel to implement dedicated silicon for those tasks ? They are already doing it.

---

and where is your south pole to prove it does..... you already acknowledge it can't by stating that they are doing it right now in new silicon....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Are you saying this from experience or just pulling it out of your south pole ?
Besides, what stops Intel to implement dedicated silicon for those tasks ? They are already doing it.

---

Nothing and they already have it in the pipeline:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3929/i...system-on-chip

Granted its for embeded solutions, you see where they are heading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Reading comprehension problems ?

N550 - 8.5W, 1.50 GHz, dual core, GPU
N475 - 6.5W, 1.83 GHz, single core, GPU
N450 - 5.5W, 1.66 GHz, single core, GPU


Let me repeat : you're stuck in 2008. We are in 2010. Today's Atom that your find all over the place ( cast a look emag ) integrates on the same die, the CPU+GPU+NB. Clear ?

So total power for the T40N would be 9+6w=15w ( SB ) while for the N550 it would be 8.5+2=10.5w

30% less power at platform level which with the same battery and screen would translate into 30% more endurance. Using the other N models only increases this advantage.

Current Atom : everything on a single die.

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/pineview.jpg



You do understand that what you're saying equally applies to Atom chips also ?

---

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...codeName=32201

Think this is the link that you were quoting it from. Most of them are single core atoms and well, as far as i'm concerned, priced slightly higher as there was no competition as yet.

Then again TDP is indicative of a thermal design envelope where the rating in W is the maximum temp that the given chip could operate in. AMD quotes TDP as the maximum as allowed by the engineering design. Intel quotes a recommended design point, which is not indicative of a potential maximum draw by that chip.

see the linked articles for reference...
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page4.html

&

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...esign-wins.ars

Also, if you look at their i series chippery, let us take the most popular, i7 920, the Acore is 100(max) and Vcore is 1.37(max)... the formula to calculate TDP is rather simple, multiply both... it comes to 137W, whereas Intel quotes only 130W :P

Also, there's a lovely quote about how Intel measures TDP in the arstechnica article. Now AMD, when it says Bobcat's TDP is 9W, you know maximum drawn will be 9W, which is the worst case scenario and almost never happens. Atoms however, expect them to be running at that maximum allowed in that envelope. Then again, that is not the maximum that an atom chip could draw... I couldn't find Vcore and Acore info on Intel site as well, what could they be hiding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...codeName=32201

Think this is the link that you were quoting it from. Most of them are single core atoms and well, as far as i'm concerned, priced slightly higher as there was no competition as yet.

Then again TDP is indicative of a thermal design envelope where the rating in W is the maximum temp that the given chip could operate in. AMD quotes TDP as the maximum as allowed by the engineering design. Intel quotes a recommended design point, which is not indicative of a potential maximum draw by that chip.

see the linked articles for reference...
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page3.html
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page4.html

&

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...esign-wins.ars

Also, if you look at their i series chippery, let us take the most popular, i7 920, the Acore is 100(max) and Vcore is 1.37(max)... the formula to calculate TDP is rather simple, multiply both... it comes to 137W, whereas Intel quotes only 130W :P

Also, there's a lovely quote about how Intel measures TDP in the arstechnica article. Now AMD, when it says Bobcat's TDP is 9W, you know maximum drawn will be 9W, which is the worst case scenario and almost never happens. Atoms however, expect them to be running at that maximum allowed in that envelope. Then again, that is not the maximum that an atom chip could draw... I couldn't find Vcore and Acore info on Intel site as well, what could they be hiding?

---

TDP =/= max power drawn

See PII 965BE 125W version, P9950BE, x2 6400+

All of them have higher power consumption versus TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

TDP =/= max power drawn

See PII 965BE 125W version, P9950BE, x2 6400+

All of them have higher power consumption versus TDP.

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

TDP =/= max power drawn

See PII 965BE 125W version, P9950BE, x2 6400+

All of them have higher power consumption versus TDP.

---

Which is why AMD came out with ACP... now let us not get into that argument. However, i think i read somewhere that this is how the thermal design envelope is calculated based on which cooling solutions are designed. It is quoted as it is by AMD, but not by Intel... :P

Also...
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...1&limitstart=6

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...e_performance/

in the above links you could see that at load 2 of the 3 chips you quoted draw less power than they quote as TDP... nm, leave this be! :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

Source?

---

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...3_3.html#sect0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...3_3.html#sect0

---

It is not the real power consumption, it is way more:

Quote:

---

In this case we measured the power consumption along the 12 V power line connected to the CPU voltage regulator, which means that the numbers above include the power losses that occur in the mainboard voltage regulator too. Nevertheless, they are quite sufficient for comparative purposes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...3_3.html#sect0

---

You can't compare that to ampere numbers.

In case you haven't noticed, there are heatsinks and heatpipes on the power regulators. Which means that they consume a considerable amount of power.

Quote:

---

In this case we measured the power consumption along the 12 V power line connected to the CPU voltage regulator, which means that the numbers above include the power losses that occur in the mainboard voltage regulator too

---

So that measurement isn't reliable, besides, some of the power in that cable can be used for other stuff, it depends on motherboard design. Compare i7 with Phenom II. i7 often uses less power in load than a Phenom II when measuerd at the 12V, but uses a whole lot more when measured before the PSU. And that is in CPU intensive tasks with otherwise equal hardware. Intel might prefer to use more power from the ATX-connector, and AMD might prefer to use some power from 12v for memory and NB. You can't know that if you isn't involved in the design of those motherboards.
The only things we do know in the matter is that motherboard layout matters, power regulation uses a whole lot of power, and there are some big differences between AMD and Intel on 12v power draw vs PSU draw.

So, with that taken into consideration, It's safe to say that you can't use those numbers to determine actual power usage for the CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qcmadness

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...3_3.html#sect0

---

article says 1.4v and 1.45v for the C2, i thought that was an issue as all retail chips were 1.35v MAX after proper bios was released or something like that. the stock cooling on amd chips is horrible and they have a low maximum temp, and generally have run way under their tdp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

You can't compare that to ampere numbers.

In case you haven't noticed, there are heatsinks and heatpipes on the power regulators. Which means that they consume a considerable amount of power.



So that measurement isn't reliable, besides, some of the power in that cable can be used for other stuff, it depends on motherboard design. Compare i7 with Phenom II. i7 often uses less power in load than a Phenom II when measuerd at the 12V, but uses a whole lot more when measured before the PSU. And that is in CPU intensive tasks with otherwise equal hardware. Intel might prefer to use more power from the ATX-connector, and AMD might prefer to use some power from 12v for memory and NB. You can't know that if you isn't involved in the design of those motherboards.
The only things we do know in the matter is that motherboard layout matters, power regulation uses a whole lot of power, and there are some big differences between AMD and Intel on 12v power draw vs PSU draw.

So, with that taken into consideration, It's safe to say that you can't use those numbers to determine actual power usage for the CPU.

---

I'm pretty sure the 4 or 8pin 12v motherboard connectors are just for the CPU...unless I've been taught incorrectly. The issue here is that the power they're measuring is the power draw BEFORE the VRMs for the CPU. So whatever power is wasted as heat, whatever the VRM effiency is, that is also being added to CPU power in their measurement. SPCR attempts to estimate VRM losses, but it's dynamic, since the efficiencies of the power regulation, like all power circuits, reduce with high temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Are you saying this from experience or just pulling it out of your south pole ?
Besides, what stops Intel to implement dedicated silicon for those tasks ? They are already doing it.

---

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2889/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2889/10

And overall that article in general. What a pathetic, useless chip. Mind you, that's a review of the desktop solution, not a netbook platform.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18167/7

Quote:

---

Netbooks have always been an obvious example of compromise, and the 1005PE is no different. You give up a lot of performance and functionality in exchange for awesome battery life, budget pricing, and a tiny footprint. Intel would probably be quite content to let that compromise remain intact, since netbooks have already eaten into sales of notebooks that carry higher average selling prices.

---

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20100401PD202.html

Quote:

---

Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Dell have both significantly reduced their investments in the 10-inch netbook segment, with HP reportedly even considering quitting the 10-inch netbook market and turning its focus to AMD-based 11.6-inch notebooks because profits from Intel Pine Trail-based netbooks have been lower than expected, according to sources from notebook makers

---

Looks like people are starting to realize it, after getting burned on original netbooks.

Quote:

---

Have you ever tried to open up a couple of pdf's, outlook and maybe word 2007 on an atom netbook? Not very pretty..

---

I guess that precludes anyone with a career in science ever using a netbook.

Quote:

---

I changed to foxit reader, the footprint is smaller however, there really isn't any good substitute for office 2007. I also use chrome and upgraded to 2 gb of ram. Even so called light weight usage can be taxing. Try opening an excel worksheet with a few graphs.. ouch. The single core atom is anemic, its nothing but an expensive toy that will eventually fill up our land fills with more computer garbage. Its not even fast enough to do today's apps. It like using a comp from early 2002 in 2010. I bought into the whole low power, portability thing and bought one of these but I do too much useful work on a computer in a given day to use this. Its such a niche product (in terms performance / watt) but it sells so well because its cheap. You may have bought one of these as a toilet seat computer but many people will get attracted to the price and buy themselves back to the late pentium 3 era in performance.

---

Although the N550 dual core mobile Atom is coming out, it's still probably worthless unless paired with that Broadcom chip (e.g. reference Anandtech's article about the Dxx for dual core performance). I'm open to seeing if it will cut it for a tablet style solution (and therefore netbooks) but fact is people have been screwed for the past two years with nothing but fluff.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/h...rmance-review/

Not bad, getting better, but expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Besides, what stops Intel to implement dedicated silicon for those tasks ? They are already doing it.

---

Nothing, except power consumption. Any additional dedicated circuitry draws additional power. A generalist arch chip + dedicated hardware will still be less efficient the a low-power arch chip + dedicated hardware.

And from Anand:

Quote:

---

On the netbook side of the mobile device booth, they had an array of some of the newer netbooks, all stuff that’s been already released. A couple were running MeeGo v1.0, and most of them had the Atom N450 underhood. The only really interesting ones were the Asus EeePC 1015PEM and the not-sold-in-America LG X140, both of which were fitted with the dual core N550. Intel was showing off the newfound 1080p playback ability for the dual core-equipped netbooks, a feat that previously required the Broadcom Crystal HD chip. Unfortunately, HD Flash video is still a no-go, and even videos playing from the hard drive max out the CPU and still manage to drop a few frames here and there. So dual core Atom netbooks can handle 1080p playback....kind of.

---

Mmmmmyep. Looks like I'll either be waiting a while for a good tablet or purchasing an ARM + Broadcom combo. At least ARM based ones will have optimized software like Android, whereas the neutered x86 Atom will just chop everything to pieces.

The reason why Atom sucks and why I don't think anyone should use one is because the Core 2 Duo really set the standard for modern computing performance (and K8 too). Taking a step back means sacrificing all the speed in loading and multitasking that we've grown to take for granted.

Quote:

---

Moorestown and Oak Trail based tablets running lighter operating systems like MeeGo or Android 3.0 are where the future of Intel internet tablets lie.

---

Apparently Anand agrees with me as well.