or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel details next-generation low-cost Atom processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel details next-generation low-cost Atom processors

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Intel Monday revealed its new line of low-cost, low-power Atom processors that will be found inside inexpensive netbooks and computers starting in 2010.

Intel publicly revealed the new processors, due to arrive Jan. 4, which employ 45nm manufacturing. The company said the new process enables "significant" power reduction along with faster speeds in a smaller size. Average power consumption has been reduced by 20 percent over the previous generation.

The new processors integrate both the CPU and graphics core onto one chip -- something that previously required two chips. The new line includes the N450 for netbooks, the D410 for low-end desktops, and the dual-core D510 for desktops. All are paired with the Intel NM10 Express Chipset.

Intel said it has shipped over 40 million Atom chips since the processor debuted in 2008, and noted that netbook sales exceeded that of Apple's iPhone and the Nintendo Wii. Total shipments are predicted to grow into the hundreds of millions by 2011.

"The Intel Atom processor has fueled an entirely new category of computing over the last year and a half and we think the growth will continue for devices like netbooks and entry-level PCs built around basic computing and Internet usage models," said Mooly Eden, Intel corporate vice president and general manager of Intel's PC Client Group.

"We're excited to be delivering the next-generation Atom platform and working across the industry as we head into a second phase of growth, powering innovative new system designs with better performance, smaller footprints and better battery life."

The new Atom processors are also smaller, which will translate into more compact systems and longer battery life. Intel said that the netbook footprint has decreased by 60 percent and the size for entry-level desktop PCs has decreased by 70 percent over the previous generation.



The N450 for netbooks includes 512k of L2 cache and a 7 watt total kit TDP, including the chipset. The D410 for desktops also has 512k of L2 cache and has a 12-watt total kit TDP with chipset. The dual-core desktop D510 has 1MB of L2 cache and 15-watt total kit TDP, including chipset. All run at 1.66GHz. Prices were not made available.



Intel also intends to launch an application download store much like Apple's own App Store for the iPhone and iPod touch. The service will come preinstalled on Atom netbooks and computers and is said to employ the same revenue split used by Apple for the iPhone: 70 percent for developers, while Intel will take a 30 percent cut. The Atom Developer Program SDK allows developers to build software for netbooks powered by Intel's Atom chip, whether they are running Windows or Intel's Moblin operating system.

Last week, Intel announced that its new "Arrandale" dual-core processors would be unveiled at CES in January 2010. The new processors, which are already in production and shipping to vendors, are widely expected to be a part of Apple's future MacBook Pro line.

Though at first rumors existed that Apple would embrace the Atom platform, it never came to be. It is believed that Apple's long-rumored, still-unannounced tablet device was at one point based around Intel's first Atom processor, dubbed Silverthorn. In 2008, speculation was rampant that Apple would create an ultra-mobile device based on the chip.

But sources have hinted to AppleInsider that Apple was not satisfied with battery life on Atom-powered devices it tested in pre-production. It was around the same time when Apple completed a $278 million buyout of fabless chip designer P.A. Semi, which is expected to lead to custom-built chips based on the ARM architecture in future iPhones and perhaps other devices, like the rumored tablet.

The Atom chip has of late had a relationship with Apple products, but in an unofficial capacity. Headlines were made when the latest update to Snow Leopard, Mac OS X 10.6.2, made it incompatible with Intel's low-cost chip on hacked machines. However a workaround was quickly discovered for those who run unauthorized "Hackintosh" machines without Apple hardware.

Last week Intel was sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over alleged anticompetitive tactics. The commission has accused Intel of engaging in practices to stifle competition and innovation in the chip-making market. Intel has denied those claims.
post #2 of 28
And in other hackintosh-related news . . .




post #3 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Intel Monday revealed its new line of low-cost, low-power Atom processors ...

Is it just me, or does it seem like between the lines of every statement in this release is a none to subtle, dig at ARM chips?

I think Apple throwing off Atom for ARM really got under their skin.
post #4 of 28
I like the lights she has under her shelves - I wonder if they're LED.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #5 of 28
Intel should jump directly to the 11 nm process and offer Apple an impressive 0.5 W TDP Atom processor that runs Mac OS X. That would make a real killer Apple Mac iTablet.
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Is it just me, or does it seem like between the lines of every statement in this release is a none to subtle, dig at ARM chips?

I think Apple throwing off Atom for ARM really got under their skin.

Yep nothing worst than somebody pointing out how bad your new baby is.

In any event this release from Intel highlights in my mind a total lack of commitment on Intels part in this market place. Intel has a leading edge low power process, but failed to transition Atom to 32nm. Even worst this is far from a Systen on Chip solution, so no matter what Intel Atom based devices need more PC board space to go along with that extra power. Basically to little to late.

Dave
post #7 of 28
your best choice for a netbook right now is an amd athlon neo.

your best choice for anything more mobile is ARM.

somehow i doubt this next atom will change that.
post #8 of 28
So, that's how Intel will play the game. Kill off ION by putting your own GPU onboard with the CPU die... very sneaky! (How's that for anti-competitive.) Intel has sucked hard core when it comes to graphics. My only hope is that they pair this chip with something that can handle full HD video, and that the chipset they pair it with doesn't blow out the power savings like the current ones. Still, I'll stick with the current Atom lineup.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #9 of 28
Do not want!

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Do not want!



post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

So, that's how Intel will play the game. Kill off ION by putting your own GPU onboard with the CPU die... very sneaky! (How's that for anti-competitive.) Intel has sucked hard core when it comes to graphics. My only hope is that they pair this chip with something that can handle full HD video, and that the chipset they pair it with doesn't blow out the power savings like the current ones. Still, I'll stick with the current Atom lineup.

Sad times. Nvidia is so f***d right now.
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Yep nothing worst than somebody pointing out how bad your new baby is.

In any event this release from Intel highlights in my mind a total lack of commitment on Intels part in this market place. Intel has a leading edge low power process, but failed to transition Atom to 32nm. Even worst this is far from a Systen on Chip solution, so no matter what Intel Atom based devices need more PC board space to go along with that extra power. Basically to little to late.

Dave

Any reason why Intel didn't put this out on 32nm? And why they still don't have a SoC solution? Not surprising even this latest Atom stuff from Intel will be rejected by Apple.

Intel will still sell lots of this Atom thingys though, netbooks will still be around in 2010 and 2011. If Apple comes out with a Tablet during this time, then everyone will try to make touch-tablet-esque netbooks...

I was tempted to buy a netbook this Christmas. Then I thought, WTF??? WHY???
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Is it just me, or does it seem like between the lines of every statement in this release is a none to subtle, dig at ARM chips?

I think Apple throwing off Atom for ARM really got under their skin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Intel should jump directly to the 11 nm process and offer Apple an impressive 0.5 W TDP Atom processor that runs Mac OS X. That would make a real killer Apple Mac iTablet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Yep nothing worst than somebody pointing out how bad your new baby is...



(Sorry for the bad Photochop, doing this at work and trying to avoid people seeing what I am doing...)
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Intel should jump directly to the 11 nm process and offer Apple an impressive 0.5 W TDP Atom processor that runs Mac OS X. That would make a real killer Apple Mac iTablet.

11 nm would be nanotec, the atom is such a shitty architecture that even it it went 1 nm it would be crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

And in other hackintosh-related news . . .

hahahha

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

your best choice for a netbook right now is an amd athlon neo.

your best choice for anything more mobile is ARM.

somehow i doubt this next atom will change that.

Exactly. Spot on!
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Any reason why Intel didn't put this out on 32nm? And why they still don't have a SoC solution? Not surprising even this latest Atom stuff from Intel will be rejected by Apple.

Intel will still sell lots of this Atom thingys though, netbooks will still be around in 2010 and 2011. If Apple comes out with a Tablet during this time, then everyone will try to make touch-tablet-esque netbooks...

And if they try to copy the mac tablet with atom (which they will) it will be crap because atom can't handle it powerwise or peformancewise
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Any reason why Intel didn't put this out on 32nm? And why they still don't have a SoC solution? Not surprising even this latest Atom stuff from Intel will be rejected by Apple.

Intel will still sell lots of this Atom thingys though, netbooks will still be around in 2010 and 2011. If Apple comes out with a Tablet during this time, then everyone will try to make touch-tablet-esque netbooks...

I was tempted to buy a netbook this Christmas. Then I thought, WTF??? WHY???


Intel is an expert at manufacturing, which is why they beat AMD. the way intel makes CPU's is every CPU is made on the same production line and is a Xeon when it's made. then Intel disables features by cutting circuitry to rebrand a CPU as a cheaper one. the clock speed is determined by another test where the best results mean a higher clock speed. but it also depends on the market. if there is demand for lower clocked CPU's then Intel will just mark a CPU with a lower clock speed.

the way it works at Intel is the newest and highest margin CPU's are made on the most advanced production process. the chipsets and lower end CPU's are made on the previous generation machines
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post



(Sorry for the bad Photochop, doing this at work and trying to avoid people seeing what I am doing...)

Priceless!
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Any reason why Intel didn't put this out on 32nm? And why they still don't have a SoC solution? Not surprising even this latest Atom stuff from Intel will be rejected by Apple.

There's a lot of reasons you don't transition to 32nm this quickly, but the best reason is price. Intel sells these things for a couple bucks profit. They spent billions on their 32nm process, and have limited fabrication lines capable of producing 32nm chips. Each new fab can cost billions to bring online, so if they're going to produce a chip on it, that chips has to be damn profitable to recoup the physical facilities investment and R&D investment that went into making the fab. Quite simply, Intel can make more money selling Core 2 based chips on their 32 nm process than they can the Atom.

Quote:
Intel will still sell lots of this Atom thingys though, netbooks will still be around in 2010 and 2011. If Apple comes out with a Tablet during this time, then everyone will try to make touch-tablet-esque netbooks...

You're assuming Apple will target the same space. They won't. I don't see Apple trying to compete in the sub-$300 space since that would kill sales of the iPhone, iPod and iPod touch all at once. But a $400 netbook is passe; you can get a $400 laptop nowadays. The sole reason netbooks are selling so well is because of price. I know a lot of college students who got netbooks for Christmas last year because it was a cheap wow gift that is actually useful to that segment, even if they already had a laptop. An Apple tablet on the other hand would never fit in to the cheap category, and therefore won't have the volume. People won't want to copy Apple's rumored touch tablet if they can't get the volume.

Quote:
I was tempted to buy a netbook this Christmas. Then I thought, WTF??? WHY???

I like mine. My MacBook is too heavy and klunky nowadays compared to my netbook. I can take it anyware and use it for my email/Web browsing machine, which my MacBook previously did. I had to use virtualization to run Office on my MacBook, since our company requires the latest Office, but VMWare brought my Mac to its knees. Office on the netbook ain't great but it's faster than my MacBook was and it cost $700 less than a new MacBook.
post #19 of 28
I hate netbooks as much as the next guy, but 5.5 Watts is pretty nice, and going fan less would increase battery life astronomically. All in one actually looked pretty good, while the mini tower is maybe 10% smaller then zino HD, max, running Athlon CPUs.

A fun observation: when she was showing off "cool sleek and slim netbooks, it looked like they were all fatter then MBA, and about as fat as MBP13. And much uglier too. .
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #20 of 28
I've used the atom since new, installed it at clients when it was warranted, and have used or worked with pretty much everything they base it on from 8.9" netbooks, to 13.3" thin and light and even the Nettops and 20" touchscreen pc's. Made a hackintosh out of one, HTPC and then some.

Intel Atom's are JUNK! Plain and simple, JUNK. Amd's NEO is 2x's better for many reasons. Yea it has a higher TDP of 11watts but it powers through things in seconds that take atom way too long. Compare the L110 to the N280. I can see why Apple dumped atom support (suedo) in OS X. Sad though as OS X ran really brisk on the atom but that's more of a credit to the OS developers at Apple and BSD than the CPU.

The can't list on an atom is longer than the can list. These newer units seem to help with netbook buyers, trouble is most netbook owners are pretty soured (at least the ones I talk to, then have to explain my Gateway LT3103u and why it being a NETBOOK can do things like flash in full screen (11.6" 1366x768 BTW) and play HD movies without breaking a sweat and why my fan doesn't run all the time) from thier purchase and will continue to be soured by the name "Atom".

Thier useless. You get GREAT battery life, but you need it because it takes twice as long to do anything useful.

You know the problem with the Atom? The AMD Lx10 series.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

There's a lot of reasons you don't transition to 32nm this quickly, but the best reason is price. Intel sells these things for a couple bucks profit. They spent billions on their 32nm process, and have limited fabrication lines capable of producing 32nm chips. Each new fab can cost billions to bring online, so if they're going to produce a chip on it, that chips has to be damn profitable to recoup the physical facilities investment and R&D investment that went into making the fab. Quite simply, Intel can make more money selling Core 2 based chips on their 32 nm process than they can the Atom.


You're assuming Apple will target the same space. They won't. I don't see Apple trying to compete in the sub-$300 space since that would kill sales of the iPhone, iPod and iPod touch all at once. But a $400 netbook is passe; you can get a $400 laptop nowadays. The sole reason netbooks are selling so well is because of price. I know a lot of college students who got netbooks for Christmas last year because it was a cheap wow gift that is actually useful to that segment, even if they already had a laptop. An Apple tablet on the other hand would never fit in to the cheap category, and therefore won't have the volume. People won't want to copy Apple's rumored touch tablet if they can't get the volume.


I like mine. My MacBook is too heavy and klunky nowadays compared to my netbook. I can take it anyware and use it for my email/Web browsing machine, which my MacBook previously did. I had to use virtualization to run Office on my MacBook, since our company requires the latest Office, but VMWare brought my Mac to its knees. Office on the netbook ain't great but it's faster than my MacBook was and it cost $700 less than a new MacBook.

There's something wrong with your macbook.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

Intel Atom's are JUNK! Plain and simple, JUNK. Amd's NEO is 2x's better for many reasons. Yea it has a higher TDP of 11watts but it powers through things in seconds that take atom way too long. Compare the L110 to the N280. I can see why Apple dumped atom support (suedo) in OS X. Sad though as OS X ran really brisk on the atom but that's more of a credit to the OS developers at Apple and BSD than the CPU...

...You know the problem with the Atom? The AMD Lx10 series.

Until this thread, do you realise I haven't even heard about the AMD Neo? And I've been following PC (not just Mac) news for the past few months quite intently, on CPUs, GPUs, Anandtech, Tom's, Fudzilla.

I got to check out this Neo thing, but sounds like AMD has some big time marketing and branding issues, Intel is really "shock and awe" slamming the media with their Atom marketing arsenal.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

There's a lot of reasons you don't transition to 32nm this quickly, but the best reason is price. Intel sells these things for a couple bucks profit. They spent billions on their 32nm process, and have limited fabrication lines capable of producing 32nm chips. Each new fab can cost billions to bring online, so if they're going to produce a chip on it, that chips has to be damn profitable to recoup the physical facilities investment and R&D investment that went into making the fab. Quite simply, Intel can make more money selling Core 2 based chips on their 32 nm process than they can the Atom.

Fair enough. BTW, as I understand Intel's main target for making money off their 32nm is not Core 2 at 32nm but Arrandale and Clarkdale... Which will be the bulk of their 32nm chips in the 1st half of 2010. That and the sexy high-end, high-profit-margin Gulftown sixcore. 12 threads. Dual socket and you've got 12 cores, 24 threads. Pretty mindblowing, though apps optimised for 24 threads are few and far between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

You're assuming Apple will target the same space. They won't. I don't see Apple trying to compete in the sub-$300 space since that would kill sales of the iPhone, iPod and iPod touch all at once. But a $400 netbook is passe; you can get a $400 laptop nowadays. The sole reason netbooks are selling so well is because of price. I know a lot of college students who got netbooks for Christmas last year because it was a cheap wow gift that is actually useful to that segment, even if they already had a laptop. An Apple tablet on the other hand would never fit in to the cheap category, and therefore won't have the volume. People won't want to copy Apple's rumored touch tablet if they can't get the volume.

Actually, I was saying the reverse. Not that Apple will copy netbooks, but that Apple could develop a tablet, and then everyone else is going to try and copy that. I agree that sales of iPhone and iPod touch should not be cannibalised. That leaves the $400 to $700 window of opportunity for an Apple tablet. Remember, it's Apple, so it should be something pretty stunning that people are willing to pay for that and enjoy it instead of a netbook or laptop at similar or lower prices. Now, once Apple makes it, then a whole bunch of other brands are going to try and jump in with their own multi-touch tablets (sometimes even if they don't get volume, they just like copying Apple -- see various smartphones), probably based on Atom. The trick is that the tablet is unlikely to be a full Mac OS X running on Intel but perhaps iPhone OS on steroids with ARM ~ meaning juicy profit margins for Apple to feast on in 2010... coupled with 3G on the tablet and deals with telcos, tablet App Store, etc.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Until this thread, do you realise I haven't even heard about the AMD Neo? And I've been following PC (not just Mac) news for the past few months quite intently, on CPUs, GPUs, Anandtech, Tom's, Fudzilla.

I got to check out this Neo thing, but sounds like AMD has some big time marketing and branding issues, Intel is really "shock and awe" slamming the media with their Atom marketing arsenal.

Search around for AMD L330. It's still K8 based but the K10's are coming in 2010 on 45 or 32nm. Fusion will show up soon (hopefully) and have an integrated HD GPU. The Neo's are usually paired with the 7xx series chipset which is stellar! In typical AMD fashion overclocking is a breeze and stable to a point. Underclocking is even better. Can run the L110 at .7v and not drop core speed. Powernow is deactivated it seems but on a 5200mah battery, ATI X1270 with 384mb, LED 11.6" I can get 5hrs on the OEM HD, 6hrs on the Hitachi Eco-Drive... Haven't played with the SSD yet, need more space at this time.
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post


I like mine. My MacBook is too heavy and klunky nowadays compared to my netbook. I can take it anyware and use it for my email/Web browsing machine, which my MacBook previously did..

I got one, it is called iPhone

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

I like mine. My MacBook is too heavy and klunky nowadays compared to my netbook. I can take it anyware and use it for my email/Web browsing machine, which my MacBook previously did. I had to use virtualization to run Office on my MacBook, since our company requires the latest Office, but VMWare brought my Mac to its knees. Office on the netbook ain't great but it's faster than my MacBook was and it cost $700 less than a new MacBook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I got one, it is called iPhone

Yeah, between the iPhone 3GS and my MacBook 13" Aluminium I'm covered. Skittlebrau, do you have a 7200rpm drive and 4GB of RAM? That usually does fine in VMWare Fusion... Along with a 2ghz Core 2 Duo.

I do understand though, some people will still like and need a netbook... That market may evolve, but will still be around over the next few years. Like I said though, I'm waiting for the real innovation to take us away from the [physical keyboard-screen-foldable] paradigm.
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

Search around for AMD L330. It's still K8 based but the K10's are coming in 2010 on 45 or 32nm. Fusion will show up soon (hopefully) and have an integrated HD GPU. The Neo's are usually paired with the 7xx series chipset which is stellar! In typical AMD fashion overclocking is a breeze and stable to a point. Underclocking is even better. Can run the L110 at .7v and not drop core speed. Powernow is deactivated it seems but on a 5200mah battery, ATI X1270 with 384mb, LED 11.6" I can get 5hrs on the OEM HD, 6hrs on the Hitachi Eco-Drive... Haven't played with the SSD yet, need more space at this time.

Cool. I'll do some research. Christmas is just a few days away.

Edit: What brand is your netbook? I see mainly MSI and HP netbooks...
post #28 of 28
The MSI Wind series doesn't look too impressive though. Damn you Apple, and your ultra-desirable design!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel details next-generation low-cost Atom processors