So it works well and costs less than the Intel parts. It's business as usual, it seems.
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
Not quite Neil. Not only does it work well and cost less, it actually equals or excedes the performance at lower peak power and much lower idle power draw. This thing is going to be a monster if AMD can get system builders on board.
What I would really like to see is a low end market chip made by fusing two Zacate's together and turning up the clocks a bit. This would be =<38mm. Heck, they could squeeze some more IO into the chip, maybe move the PCIe controller on chip if not on die.
I'm sure they should be able to squeeze 4@ 2Ghz core and 320@ 500Mhz video with dual channel memory into a 45 watt power envelope with PCIe on die/chip. Pulling that off, 4@ 2.8Ghz core and 320@ 750Mhz video with dual channel memory into a 65 watt power envelope with PCIe on die/chip is not out of the question. I think this would be an interesting chip to slot between Zacate and Llano.
Smooth Creations LANShark "Blue Flame" + ASUS G73JH-A2 + ASUS EeePC S101HYes it's the original InfinityzeN
I meant business as usual pertaining to AMD's usual bang for the buck offerings.
Ah, true that. More bang for the buck without any of the drawbacks (more power draw, less overclocking headroom, etc) normally found in AMD CPUs the last couple of years.
I want to see AMD succed well with this. They have been hurting the last few years and we really need them to push Intel and keep prices low. If AMD dies, VIA sure won't be challenging Intel.
I agree with everything said so far on this product for sure. i find it interesting as AMD seems to be focusing on a more general usage area which I find ti be very smart. Across the board except for productivity platforms they beat themselves as well as Intel. The intelligent thing here is where we seem to be at in computers right now. The computer is becoming more and more of a do everything tool. This is especially true in the smaller lower power device's and of course the system in a box (IE: monitor/computer/touch screen in one). When they become more of a general device which can be used in multiple platforms like this the lowest price wins. AMD seems to have that in spades with this specific implementation.
As we all know us hardware junkies are one of the lowest in number in the market as users. This makes general consumers the highest along with general business usage. One thing I see here specifically is INTEL has almost no choice except for on total enthusiast part to lower there price point. That is on everything besides enthusiast parts. The great thing here is as a number of units sold the enthusiast products are pretty much also items with low impact on a whole business picture, except of course the performance crown.
Nice "pre" review. Congrats.
However you should have included in the review performance results from a regular 1.6GHz atom. Without Nvidia graphics. Like the ones most people have? :-)
I love amd chips. Great performance and at a low price for those who dont need some 1000$ cpu. Going to need a new laptop soon and it would be cool to get one of those chips with it.
I like to support AMD because of their ability to throttle Intel's prices down a little. They work great, and one can afford better peripherals when you buy CPU's that cost less.
do bobcat cores have that trippy dual integer pipeline thingy (HyperThreading on steroids) going on? where it's hard to tell what they mean by "core"?
BTW, what does intel call a dual core with HT?
answer: "a dual core with HT", but some people (who are confused or are intending to confuse) have been known to call it a quadcore because it can do four threads....
and AMD is going to blur that distinction even more.... so i apologize for not knowing the answer to my original question
No Bobcat does not have those tripply dual integer pipeline thingy. You won't see that until Bulldozer cores show up.
amd has challenge intel and do a better job performance wise!!!! they are trying to improve but it always seems that they want to be in second spot!!!
I sometimes feel like Intel is holding back graphics-wise? Just makes no sense with all that dough they've got stashed that AMD only dreams of. It's no research fund limitation.
If they should ever fuse with nVidia like AMD with ATi... well, bummer for AMD.
Phenom x4 965 BE/ M4A89TD Pro/ 4GB RIPJAWS 1600/ XFX 5770/ Corsair 550VX/ WD Caviar Black 640GB
AMD wins with 1.5 - 2.8 ghz E350 processors with 15 - 35 watts, with 80 radeon cores (230 - 450mhz) ; which beats the INTEL's Atom, Celeron, and the pentium (released until 2006 editions)...
AMD is popular to provide the majority of people with a technology gadget. In my opinion that is a successful enterpreneurship - to market and sell processors, and survive even through they are pitted against an INTEL conglomerate. AMD wins.
Can you guys please post benchmark comparisons between Win 7 64bit and Win 8 64bit on the e350?
This was originally posted on November 16, 2010.
Win-8 was only a ~Metro~ colorful dream of Microsoft's at that time.
I wouldn't expect to see your request happen, though it is not in my control.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms