[Fusion info]Xbitlabs interviews Godfrey Cheng

[dartaz]

Ontario is rated at 9W (max, obviously, and you aren't going to be able to 100% load both CPU and GPU parts of APU all the time). Atom has lower CPU performance, and its TDP does not include GPU, which is vastly inferior to Ontario's, and is quite honestly bad enough to affect usability of netbooks, at least for me.

I think you need to show us a proof for this

The reviews I have seen shows that Atom Dual core was not far behind Zacate dual core in multi-threaded bechmarks

Ontario dual core has significantly lower clock speed than Zacate dual core (1.1Ghz vs 1.6GHz). So I think It is safe to say that Atom N550 Dual core is going to match or even beat Ontario dual core in CPU performance

EDIT: Also, you are wrong about the part were you said that TDP of Atom does not include GPU. Thats not true. Atom N4xx & Atom N5xx series, and Atom D series (like D525) has on-die GPU

[JumpingJack]

I think you need to show us a proof for this

The reviews I have seen shows that Atom Dual core was not far behind Zacate dual core in multi-threaded bechmarks

Ontario dual core has significantly lower clock speed than Zacate dual core (1.1Ghz vs 1.6GHz). So I think It is safe to say that Atom N550 Dual core is going to match or even beat Ontario dual core in CPU performance

EDIT: Also, you are wrong about the part were you said that TDP of Atom does not include GPU. Thats not true. Atom N4xx & Atom N5xx series, and Atom D series (like D525) has on-die GPU

For grins and giggles, I took Anands numbers, scaled based on clock speed you would find in a netbook where they will compete. It is not a great estimate, but it is a bit telling...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

For netbooks, I think Atom will be faster CPU wise but will not be able to match Ontario graphics wise (naturally), Ontario with some video offloading will enable a key usage Atom does not -- HD viewing on a netbook class platform. This is a big advantage if you listen to the desires/wants of people who frequent the enthusiast web sites.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50154
A 1.5 GHz N550 has a similar thermal requirement at 8.5 and it includes the GPU, original atoms (single core) came in at 2 W TPD with some now reaching as low as 0.65 W TDP, of course these are not counting graphics and are slower single cores:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...familyId=29035

Some of the slower, lower wattage with graphics are hitting 3.6 W.

[saaya]

i agree

i wonder how high bobcat could clock too. if the issue there having is that it cant get much more than 2ghz without a major jump in voltage, that would kinda suck.
i also wonder if these prefer voltage or low temps when it comes to OCing. they are built on 40nm, so id assume they would act more like video cards rather than thuban/deneb when it comes to overclocking limits, but thats an uneducated guess at best.

well, would make sense... then again ati and nvidia already have pretty different properties when it comes to clocks... im curious about this as well

and jack, nice!
so it looks like its going to be an amd built atom ion platform... which is over a year old already... and ion is dc and overclocks atom to 2g easily...
so its not going to set perf records but offer what we already have at lower tdps and lower prices...

i hope it ocs well, culv at 2g isnt exactly slow but id love to have some extra perf or at least the same at notably lower power consumption

[Florinmocanu]

For grins and giggles, I took Anands numbers, scaled based on clock speed you would find in a netbook where they will compete. It is not a great estimate, but it is a bit telling...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

For netbooks, I think Atom will be faster CPU wise but will not be able to match Ontario graphics wise (naturally), Ontario with some video offloading will enable a key usage Atom does not -- HD viewing on a netbook class platform. This is a big advantage if you listen to the desires/wants of people who frequent the enthusiast web sites.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50154
A 1.5 GHz N550 has a similar thermal requirement at 8.5 and it includes the GPU, original atoms (single core) came in at 2 W TPD with some now reaching as low as 0.65 W TDP, of course these are not counting graphics and are slower single cores:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...familyId=29035

Some of the slower, lower wattage with graphics are hitting 3.6 W.

Dude, really? You would buy a atom or ontario netbook to run 3dsmax? or cinebench? Neither of these platforms are designed for that, reviewers are idiots when they test atom with 3dsmax, it's a totally crap and irelevant way to review such a product.

But, HD video playback, internet gaming, browsing, maybe some microsoft office etc.. are really what these are meant for.

[JumpingJack]

Dude, really? You would buy a atom or ontario netbook to run 3dsmax? or cinebench? Neither of these platforms are designed for that, reviewers are idiots when they test atom with 3dsmax, it's a totally crap and irelevant way to review such a product.

But, HD video playback, internet gaming, browsing, maybe some microsoft office etc.. are really what these are meant for.

No, I would not.... but apparently many people want to be able to do these type of activities since this is how they are reviewed.

I am totally with you on this point. Atom and Ontario are all about maxumium power effiency with minimalist acceptable performance for a certain usage scenario. I have a netbook but do not use it to run CB or transcode 264 video, I have a netbook because it was a cheap, small portable laptop that will allow me simple internet access and watching movies on the go (it will last me a complete trip from coast to coast and keeps the 4 yr old son settled for 5 hours in a seat).

Unfortunately, when people ask 'is X faster than Y' this is the data that is available.

That is why:

For grins and giggles, I took Anands numbers ....

[Hornet331]

I don't understand the need for HD playback on screen that can't even display it.. why someone wants to play 1080p on a screen with 1024x600... they can't even watch 720p... people would gain much more if youtube would decide to look at there sub 720p quality... its awfull, even when you have very good source material, they dump it down ~300kb/s... and the result is... well lets not talk about it.

If they would increase the 480p playback to at least 600-700kb/s it would give a hell of a quality boost, but youtube always inflated resolution and neglected bitrate. But thats a whole other topic...