Printable View
Just posted this news on CHW.net
Resume:
AMD will fight Atom with 2 low power CPUs and chipset AMD 740 or AMD 690, this wont have a TDP as low as Atom, but AMD states that it will give normal PC user experience.
http://www.chw.net/images/breves/200...D_UVC_logo.jpg
Google Translate of the souce
Very nice. Are those Griffins?
Power draw for the whole system would still be lower than Atoms, the terrible chipset intel insist on using it with is killing Atoms great TDP.
This would make a great ITX FF HTPC.
Acordgin to my last week info they arent.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
http://www.chw.net/images/breves/200...admap_Logo.JPG
Source
The TDP in the slides is actually only the CPU TDP so overall Atoms platform should still consume less, not a lot less, but AMD solution has way better performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis
10x for info Metro :toast: Can you tell us more please? :D
Whoa, Athlon X2 only using 22W. Pretty nice.
I think it's a nice market spot as well. Those low power CPU's are nice but some of them might eventually have a few hic ups. With just a tad more power and Mhz you counter this, pretty nice. Curious what the price would be though.
needs more 1.0Ghz dual core version.
Its abit like combating a 95W CPU with a 500W.
It would be nice to know the price to see where it fits. Atom or Core/Core2.
3250e + 780G = Ideal for HTPC.
I wouldn't even feel bad about leaving it on 24/7.
Nice, TDP more than what my whole system consumes 90% of the time. :( (I am aware that my whole systems combined TDP is more like 40-50W, but still, not fun.:()
WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
The 945 chipset that the atom is combined with consumes up to 22W of power at full load.
While the AMD 780G (not even the more energy efficient740G chipset, couldn't find power consumption figures:shrug:) consumes 11.4W at full load and .94W idle.
When you take into account the northbridges the power consumptions are more or less equal:
Single Core:
Intel N270+945= 2.4W+22W= 24.4W
AMD 2650e+780G = 15W+11.4W= 26.4W
Dual Core:
Intel 330+945= 8W+22W= 30W
AMD 3250e+780G= 22W+11.4W= 33.4W
AMD seems to have the advantage here with better performance over the intel counterparts. Intel should pair their atoms with better northbridges to see a "real" low power solution.
How dare you use facts to counter the great Shintai! :cord:
I think you got confused somewhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaivan
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35553
Max TDP 6 Watts. And 11.8W for the entire platform with 1.6Ghz CPU for a total price of 79$
Maybe you used some generic 945 one? So ye...WTF? :rofl:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15400Quote:
There's no mistaking that Intel's Atom is where the ultra-portable action is, and VIA's impressive Nano has done little to impact Intel's netbook dominance.
Intel's other big-name rival, AMD, may have more luck with the launch of its Ultra-Value Client (UVC) solutions. According to the following leaked slides from CHW.net, AMD is lining up its Atom-offensive with a series of low-power, low-cost chips aimed at delivering a desktop-like experience in an el-cheapo system.
http://img.hexus.net/v2/news/amd/amd-uvc-slide1.jpg
The two UVC processors revealed are the 22W 1.5GHz AMD Athlon X2 3250e and the 15W 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e. The chips use the familiar AM2 socket for desktop use, but the slide reveals that similar models for AMD's mobile S1G1 socket are also available.
The chips will be OEM-only, and reports suggest that they'll reach the market as soon as December in systems from ASUS, Acer and Shuttle.
According to the slide, the chips will be paired with AMD's 65nm 740 chipset - so we can expect a single PCI-E slot in desktop configurations, or a DirectX 9 IGP in portable systems.
http://img.hexus.net/v2/news/amd/amd-uvc-slide2.jpg
A second slide hints at AMD's marketing strategy; Intel's Atom provides a sub-traditional PC experience, and AMD hopes to rectify that with its more-capable UVC solutions.
AMD Roadmap Sheds Light on Cheap UVC Processors
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12917Quote:
AMD is aiming for markets looking for more performance than the Intel Atom
AMD is hard at work introducing new processors to try to capture market share from Intel. Earlier this week, slides showing some new AMD processors coming this year surfaced. Among the new processors on the slide was a line AMD is calling Ultra-Value Client (UVC).
The UVC processors will be available through OEMs only. More information on the line of UVC processors has now surfaced at CHW.net. The new slides show that the UVC processors are intended to allow OEMs to produce new computers in form factors optimized for emerging markets and basic PC usage.
AMD does specify that the UVC products are aimed at more than the netbook market and can deliver traditional PC performance. The UVC processors are intended to be paired with AMD's 690 and 740 chipsets for high-quality visuals.
All UVC parts will use AMD's standard socket AM2 and S1g1 notebook infrastructures. The UVC processors include the AMD Athlon X2 3250e with a 22W TDP and operating at 1.5GHz. It features a 1MB L2 cache and is planned to be available in Q4 2008.
The AMD Athlon 2650e has a 15W TDP and operates at 1.6GHz with 512MB cache. The 2650e is available now. According to AMD slides, it is positioning both the Athlon X2 3250e and Athlon 2650e above the Intel Atom DT 230 processor in performance.
These processors may become attractive to netbook makers looking for an alternative to Intel's Atom parts because of the current shortages of Atom parts from Intel. It is important to note that the AMD processors use more power than Intel's Atom. AMD is betting some users and OEMs will be willing to sacrifice battery life for improved performance.
Cheap Athlons, 740 chipset to fight Atom in desktops
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15486Quote:
We've learned much about AMD's low-cost PC strategy these past few days. A leaked roadmap gave us a glimpse at a pair of "Ultra-Value Client" Athlon processors last week, then a couple of days later, DigiTimes reported that those CPUs would soon hit Acer, Asus, and Shuttle systems.
Now, Chile Hardware has posted a couple of new slides that shed even more light on the subject. The slides mention the same Athlon X2 3250e and Athlon 2650e chips we already heard about, and they quote the same specs: 1.5GHz and a 22W TDP for the former, 1.6GHz and 15W for the latter. To that information, they add two new tidbits: cache sizes will be 1MB and 512KB, respectively, and AMD will pair both CPUs with its low-end 740 chipset.
The 740G already exists, and it's a lot less stripped-down than the Intel 945GC that powers desktop Atom systems. AMD outfits the 740G with Radeon 2100 graphics, DVI and DisplayPort support, PCI Express, RAID capabilities, and accommodation for plenty of USB and Serial ATA devices. Couple that with a proper, out-of-order CPU, and AMD could outrun Atom platforms from both the processing and graphics standpoints.
That said, Intel offers an all-in-one Mini-ITX motherboard and Atom CPU bundle for just $70, whereas the cheapest 740G mobo on Newegg today costs around $50. To really give Intel a run for its money, AMD might need some even cheaper 740G mobos with Mini-ITX form factors, and it may have to price the Athlon 2650e in the $30-40 range. Feasible? Probably so: the cheapest single-core Athlon at Newegg costs only $24.99 right now. (Thanks to TR reader Phil for the link.)
linkyQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
So, these new cpus are about 22W TDP, but way more powerful than Atom. If you look at the tests you will see, that a dualcore 4850e (45W TDP) consumes at idle 4W more than Atom, but at full load 50W - should be a pretty good indicator that the 945 chipset is the main reason Atom uses so much power (at full load atom draws only 3,7W more).
A low power dualcore should then be about 60-65W full load. If you then make a energy efficient ITX motherboard based on 740 chipset i think you could cut 10W from it. And then you should have a ITX based system with full load draw of about 50-55W and that can play all the movies (DivX,x264,720p,1080p,BR) in the world AND be silent.
MD dont rate TDP they rate advrage use TDP so its not the same as intels, add 30% to amds number, but if it offers full speed thats great, but via will still have it beat in TDP and speed
If you note the Toms link. They use another chipset than specified on the ECS board. Most likely to save a few $. Secondly its also about price. Else you could pair it with a G45M and a 1.33ghz Core 2 Duo at 10W.Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis
Cut 10W? So the 740G would use what...1-2W?
And I also have a feeling Toms is using a rather large PSU that is massively different efficiency at small loads.(Coolermaster RS850-EMBA, ATX 2.2, 850 W)
I think you got confused somewhere in the TDP numbers man..AMD rates its desktop chips as maximum TDP,unlike intel(not to say that 45nm 65W consumes 65W though,it is just for cooling reference).Next time more facts,less imagination,please :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Shintai , sorry but I have to add a few things :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
What you're describing is the desktop Atom.
For embedded and mobile they use the System Controller Hub ( which integrated the NB and SB ) with a TDP of 1.6 to 2.3w .
Page 423 http://download.intel.com/design/chi...hts/319537.pdf
and page 2 here http://download.intel.com/design/chi...brf/319545.pdf
Umm..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Okay so I did a little research and turns out that both of us are right kinda.
There are two chipsets that intel use with the atom the 945GSE which you posted and the 945CG which is the one with the 22W TDP.
http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?fa...994&code=945gc
Turns out the the 945gse is the ones in the eeePC and other such nettops while the 945GC is used for the Mini ITX motherboard that is available through places like newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...21342&Tpk=atom
ATOM spend less energy.
But with AMD you can make a laptop with strong performance, low price, and good batery. Not so good as Atom, but AMD platform is better in other ways.
In the end both are diferent and both have their strenghs.
We can only hope that more builders bring this toy from AMD.Quote:
The chips will be OEM-only, and reports suggest that they'll reach the market as soon as December in systems from ASUS, Acer and Shuttle.
Get a 3250e X2 + 780G + 10600mAh battery on a 9" netbook and I'll fap to it.
Ok, I won't fap to it, but I'll still think it's cool.
And heeeeere comes the "oh noes, the TDP is so higher, they can't compare!!!" crew.
Ehm...no. And its been proven wrong over and over again. So many times its not even funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Then you are up in some Celeron M range. They should have stayed in the first rumoured 8W range.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
well if it was you might as well post any prove here too. Cos it's a surprise for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
CeleronM + 945G - now that's a performance king :rolleyes:Quote:
Then you are up in some Celeron M range. They should have stayed in the first rumoured 8W range.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...lfdale_11.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
SURPRISE SURPRISE COOPER! Abit far from 65W aint it? Both 65 and 45nm.
Oh, and compared to teh above. Yes a Celeron M would be a performance king. But then again, so would a 1.33Ghz 10W C2D.
you comparing power consumption of 65W Vs 125W chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
that's not what i was asking for nor what is discussed in this topic.
Early morning for you there?
Let's see:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
AMD does rate and use max. TDP for its desktop lineup(unlike ACP for server parts).Next i said it is unlike intel since we are not sure,even today,how intel does come up with their numbers(they use that internal burn-in tool i suppose).Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I also said :"not to say that 45nm 65W consumes 65W though" which means intel's 45nm parts usually use less power than rated,which is also known for a while.Hence i said the rating on the box is for "cooling reference".
So please tell me what was wrong or incorrect in my post.And please don't skip an answer or just say "Ehmm no" when you are cornered,you do this "Hit&run" too many times it is not even funny.
Ignore the AMD CPU. it doesnt matter and its just some poor excuse on your part. Now tell me instead. How are those 4 Intel CPUs vs their TDP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
The same applies for 65nm CPUs. Try read the link I gave. 115W for a 125W AMD CPU, 50W tops for a 65W Intel CPU. It doesnt take much math skills to see who is closest to their max TDP value. Both in raw W and in percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Cant wait for the reviews. Im looking for a low watt system for a router/NAS/Print/whatever setup.
You just love the AMD threads huh Shintai?
why are we comparing TDP anyway... 99% worthless determining how much power a system uses.
My initial question was about the methods of measuring TDP, not relevance to actual power consumption which is pointless as irev mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
The method AMD is using to determine TDP is unknown:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/33954.pdf, page 10Quote:
TDP. Thermal Design Power. The thermal design power is the maximum power a processor can
draw for a thermally significant period while running commercially useful software. The
constraining conditions for TDP are specified in the notes in the thermal and power tables.
In order to know their method we need to know the following two variables:
1) thermally significant period
2) commercially useful software
Basically AMD adopted Intels way of measuring TDP.
Second, I posted this more (getting tired of repeating it), we had this TDP vs ACP discussion a while back and I posted quite some interesting links there where as everyone went silent on. And yet you dare to continue posting about it stating you're right... I might have missed something epicly here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Re-reading the links I posted shows Intel's TDP is not the max. Actually it seems they pull their numbers out of 'nowhere'. Sometimes being spot on (which is still higher percentage wise then AMD's real TDP), also they've a lower TDP than they'll ever pull as in your example... But as well, actually rate the TDP too low. So Im really wondering what your point exactly was.
Rammsteiner
if you do not know poeple at xbitlabs and how they work you have no rights to judge their credibility. Secondly TDP numbers don't come from nowhere cos motherboard and heatsinks vendors must know these numbers to design their products and Intel must know these numbers to design packaging. As for the Intel's methods some details can be found in the tech docs:
I'm sure AMD will provide more in depth details on their methodology upon business request.Quote:
This specification is the Thermal Design Power and is the estimated maximum possible
expected power generated in a component by a realistic application. It is based on
extrapolations in both hardware and software technology over the life of the component. It
does not represent the expected power generated by a power virus. Studies by Intel
indicate that no application will cause thermally significant power dissipation exceeding
this specification, although it is possible to concoct higher power synthetic workloads that
write but never read. Under realistic read/write conditions, this higher power workload can
only be transient and is accounted in the AC (max) specification.
It's just the way AMD works.
look the phenoms are all rated the same TDP business or not
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...&id=405&id=406
its not really a big deal this is VIA's space no1 should be able to encroach on it, especially with a desk top derivative
but then again tdp dosnt mean much u dont fold on a battery
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
From the same documentQuote:
Thermal Design Power (TDP) and IDD max are the limits at the highest Tcase max in the specified range for the
corresponding OPN. Products conform to the TDP and IDD Max limits at all valid nominal voltages. The relationship
of Tcase max and Thermal Profile to TDP for a specific device is defined in
Table 26.
By no means I tried to down play Xbit labs. I more meant that I think it's funny Xbit labs got screwed over a 180 degree after their Deneb FX posts but the same people (group) of people use XBit labs as link for their back up. I think that's quite, well, weird:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
I know TDP numbers after all come from somewhere, but IMO it's also strange if they rate a TDP for a certain CPU it actually doesnt match. It's like 'Oh, this core uses this much, we rate all the CPU's for that number', that's what I meant for 'nowhere'.
I mean, for lower end CPU's it would be quite stupid, to say the least, to rate it way higher than its actual TDP, but also it's a stupid under rate a high end CPU.
It's still ambiguous.... you are quoting conditions under which it is derived which is bascially a load line, gODJO is quoting the definition (i.e. what it means by AMD's standards).Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
You could put the max voltage and clock on the CPU and run something as simple as solitare and call it a commercially relevant software. That would give you a completely different number than running say Prime95.
He is correct, unless it is specified what the thermally significant period is (is it one second, 10 seconds, 5 days??) and the load they are actually running (super pi 1M, solitaire, prime 95, spec FP rate?) there is no really understanding what AMD's methods were to establish their spec on TDP.
Another way of putting it... would you, BrowncoatGR, please repeat AMD's measurement to verify TDP and show the data to the forum? You can't, you don't have enough information.
This is not to say Intel is any better, they are just as vague....
This is because you don't understand what TDP actually is or how it is used in the industry. That's ok, neither does Fuad Abazovic of FUDzilla, he sorta fuels the fire of ignorance on this topic as do many 'tech' sites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
jack
Cookie award!!! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by irev210
I do understand thus far TDP stands for the amount of Watt to be cooled down (not specially the actual amount of Watt used). Dont know if it's close though. How it's used in industry, no idea actually. How do you mean that actually? For motherboard manufacturers to build their products? Or should I look into a complete other direction? No need for an epic large book work, more like a quick explanation what you meant with that will do;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Watts used=Watts to cool on a CPU..well maybe besides 0.0001W in radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
TDP= thermal DESIGN power.
In short, nomatter what the CPU uses. the cooling solution can cool 130W of heat. (Thats also equal to 130W used by a CPU).
But thats the reason things are specced as it is. So you dont have to have 117 different cooling solutions. But can do with 3 example.
You are correct of course. Neither company specifies how they actually calculate TDP(and i can't see why really. I don't see how this is sensitive data). Initially i interpreted that max to mean that while the conditions are met the CPU will never exceed the TDP. After reading it again i dont think that is correct. If you apply the first definition to the part that i quoted it makes the second statement a lot more ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
As for Intel i've been thinking that their high TDP rating of 45nm CPUs might be due to cooling needs of those CPUs and not that they lumped all their CPUs together like some ppl suggest. Couldn't a hotspot on the cpu cause Intel to conclude that the CPU needs better cooling than the chips actual thermal dissipation would suggest? Granted that's what heatspreaders are for but how effective are they really?
Well sorta but not quite... it is not the amount of watts the processor must be cooled down, it is the rate that the cooler must dissipate energy... TDP references the cooling solution for the CPU that is necessary to keep the CPU at normal operating temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
While not trivial, the dynamic flow of energy through solids (to the fins), and via convection to air, is doable, it is classic thermal physics to model heat transfer from a high energy source to a lower energy sink -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is trivial for a mechanical engineer to design a chunk of metal, a fan with a certain air flow, that will remove x amount of energy per unit time.
So both Intel and AMD provide to their customers a spec for the thermal solution, which if met, guarantees the processor will work -- so there you are correct. The repercussions of not getting that spec right puts ownership on who is responsible. If AMD or Intel under spec the solution and the processor fails, then they are liable... if the system designer OEM fails to meet the spec, then they have no recourse but to eat the costs.
nVidia is feeling this problem now and took a 200 million dollar charge for not ensuring they provided the adequate cooling specification (or designing the product to fall within an acceptable margin below the cooling specification).
For Joe enthusiast, the TDP is actually meaningless -- we typically outfit our systems with 3rd party fans anyway, most all reputable HSF makers well exceed even the highest end TDP criteria.
Jack
This is not a bad reason I suspect, perhaps another reason would be that of new gate materials and different transistors. While one can design and test a transistor ad nauseam in the lab, how it will fair in the field is another question. They may have decided best to force an extreme cooling solution which would mean, on average, the temps would run lower than typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
In terms of the IHS, another good point. They help, but they never completely eliminate any particular hot spot. There are some good 'thermal imaging' papers out there, I can try to dig one up and post it... I have seen on the net studies for both Athlon and C2D.
Jack
as far as i know Intel has a more realistic TDP than AMD so when you analyse those figures take it with a grain of saltQuote:
Originally Posted by Jaivan
For desktop (nettop) AMD will have a good solution, ultimately Intel is pushing Atom into way more form factors than nettops, in netbooks AMD will be hindered with the higher power consumption, but will be helped with better IGP (assuming people want to use an Internet device as a gaming device).Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
AMD should push their nettop initiatives with Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Granted for now the offerings' only for desktops, but in the future when the mobile version comes they definitely have bragging rights.
Intel seems to want a big separation between the 2 markets. Which means whatever Atom's gonna be coupled to (be it 945GC or Moorestown) it won't nab even basic 3D graphics for that matter. Their loss I guess.
I think you kinda nailed it here. What intel wanted to design was a processor with ultra low power, ultra low costs but acceptable enough to do silly routine stuff ... i.e. net browsing, emailing, may watch a dvd.... and they did not want to put up too much performance that might stress the ASP of the higher end product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I don't have a nano board yet (plan on swiping one when they appear), and I will probably see if I can pick up the new AMD just to put them on the bench and check them out.
My personal take on the whole Atom thing is this ... the first incarnation is good enough for netbooks, and because of the low manufacturing costs, into the essential line of desktop boards. In this area, Via and AMD can offer compelling (certainly better) alternatives. However, Intel has been clear that they want to move this product down into much smaller form factors ... as it goes, every Watt counts, and even at the top bin of 2-4 W, this is too much for those apps. Atom 2.0 will go sub 1 W I suspect.
Overall, Via and AMD will offer up great alternatives, but the overlap in market for AMD, Via against Atom will ultimately be very small, and focused to nettops. Atom will dominate the smaller form factors just based on power and costs.
No, the smaller form factors make little sense for x86. The baseline we're seeing is UMPC (which is already dubbed pointless and thrown away as trash)
I believe that ARM's Cortex marchitecture for the same wattages as future Atoms, will still lead in performance and compatibility on its hometurf. Plus, nobody will cooperate with Intel to make joint mobile SOCs, or the numbers will be minuscule compared to ARM licensed designs.
Regardless, this is where Intel is headed with Atom ... it will most likely wind up in some smart phone within the next 2-3 years I expect. Lot's of rumors of it going into the iPhone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Intel's argument for going into this space is to solidify a common software stack, what will work on your PC will work on your cell phone. It simplifies the life of product developers. It is precisely compatibility why Intel is pushing this down the ladder and looking for consumer electronic penetration.'
It was plastered all over the first 1/3 of the IDF technology keynote this past IDF: http://download.intel.com/pressroom/...inger_day1.pdf
Will they be successful? Time will tell I suppose.
Moorestown is one year away and directly targets smartphones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Don't underestimate Intel's influence in the industry; Moorestown has all the ingredients needed to succeed and if the price is right there will be plenty of phones based on it.
Maybe, if its competitors dont get some epic improvements. I think it's too far away to say it's good or anything near that.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Everything... besides an OS. That is actually x86 and phone-loving.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Linux. That is an OS which will run on it ... Linux has embedded builds all over the place, heck -- Toshiba's first HD DVD player ran off Linux. Best part, it's free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Step 1 to failure IMHO. You need to get attached to a major OS and actually run most of the apps on it already. This isn't Wintel turf; even WinMo7 or 8 will probably still be ARM exclusive because of its sheer scalability.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Even at this stage, nVidia's Tegra already beats Moorestown by a simple reason- it actually has a GUI (OS?), and the ARM architecture can run most of the current cellular OSes.
Linux... let's say I'm very unkeen on it popularizing any form of personal computing. A major platform cannot tolerate 2 architectures at once- there will be no compatibility benefits and it would be a definite pain in the behind to even accommodate for the other architecture's code. That's actually disregarding the fracturedness of Linux/OSS development already!
Intel is rich, but I have a feeling that their hands are tied on this one. Moorestown can get itself into a lot of embedded devices that all have custom/non-mainstream OSes, but a real cellular OS? Literally zero light at end of tunnel.
You could very well be right ... ARM may be so entrenched it doesn't happen... but you can expect to see Atom in smart phones in the not to distant future. That I am pretty certain will happen, how many and how successful, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
It is troubling that you seem to think Linux is not a major OS, for embedded applications through to server, Linux is very successful. It has an enormous library base, and can be tailored down for low power applications. It doesn't matter if you, personally, do not like it or are not keen on it -- your opinion will not be the make or break of linux success. It has been well recieved, supported, and distributed throughout the industry.
It's odd -- so you think the OS is everything, but application development, writting, and porting are constant irrelevant of the OS? Hmmmmm... who knows, maybe your right ... Atom will be a failure. Personally, I don't think so... borrowing from a standard software stack is a compelling reason. Besides, ARM -- as low power as it is, is computationally very slow for the devices it serves. Atom will beat it, I have no doubts, just in responsiveness if anything.
What if Atom makes it into iPhone 3.0... that almost guarantees success. :)
x86 was too entrenched; That was why RISC derivatives all failed.
I'm good with Linux as a workstation platform and definitely rooting for it as a server platform, but its nature makes it hard to grow in the personal computing and below segments. Unless someone comes up with the ability like NT4.0 to run on Alphas and x86 at the same time (and on a phone?), the Atom's pretty much in need of blue oceans.
And although Apple loves Intel, I'm pretty sure that they've settled down on ARM and the respective software ecosystems. I think that Tegra's the next logical progression for them- Cortex still needs more solutions with it in before it's that ready for mass deployment. I'd get one of those Archos internet tablets to see how it is in general, though.
Tegra has the best shot at stopping that atomic march :) ... make no mistake, this is where Intel is headed with it.... you think it will fail, I think succeed. let's check in 3 years :) ... and when it happens, think "Jack was right" . :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia