...... A 2-3 year old 900mhz Celeron M has 2-3X the performance!
.
Not exactly. A 1.6 ghz Atom has performance as good as an 800 mhz Pent M and in some instances as good as a 1.2 ghz Pent M. It has 60% of the performance of a 1.6 ghz Celeron. See here. A 900 mhz Celeron is probably faster than 1.6ghz (single cpu) Atom but not 2-3x. A dual core Atom is probably faster than a 900 mhz Celeron.
Apple says it is going to spend a lot of money on a big product that pays for itself in volume. For a company that is rich enough to forget to invest five billion they had left under the mattress, that's a big call.
Apple uses 3 types of products that pay for themselves in volume, software, chips, and web services. All three cost a fortune to design. Chips cost a fortune to ramp up manufacturing. I doubt Apple has a lot of secret software in the works (Snow Leopard is no secret). Mobile Me just came out.
Apple must be making chips. iTablet, iTouch 2 (all the previously expensive insides now on a $50 chip). MacPro with a big iron Intel, and a dozen multi-core PA co-processors (for parallel things like image work - Jobs told us to write for thousands of cores, right?). Or maybe I just want this to happen.
Not suitable for OS X Leopard, since a dual-core Atom doesn't even equal the performance of today's Intel Celeron line up. (which is much slower than the Pentium dual core, which is way slower than a core 2 duo)
Ever try Leopard on an Atom? The Hackintosh folks have run Leopard on the Intel D945GCLF board (ATOM 1.6 GHz, single core, hyperthreaded).
I actually built one with 2gb of memory and an old slow hard drive to try it out. It's a sub $250 computer.
Leopard is quite responsive. Boot time is about 40 seconds from power on to desktop (including 4-5 seconds waiting in the boot loader). Safari and iTunes are responsive. I wouldn't try to cut video or work manage a photo library, but the Atom is no slouch.
I have plenty of Intel Macs and the slowest of them is a 1.66GHz Core Duo Mini which is certainly more capable, but for iTunes, web surfing, email and instant messaging I think the Atom would do great. I would like to buy another mini, but it's about $200 more than what I'm willing to spend on a toy to sit at work to have a mac for web browsing and terminal access without having to bring my laptop every day. Even the used market for the mini is still hot (which was nice when I sold my G4 mini).
I'm glad several other people have pointed out how wrong you are about Atom. It's not a particularly powerful CPU, but it can run Leopard quite nicely.
I'm glad several other people have pointed out how wrong you are about Atom. It's not a particularly powerful CPU, but it can run Leopard quite nicely.
And there's the attraction. For a lot of people like me, an iPod touch or iPhone just isn't enough. And I'm not just guessing. I had an iPod touch, but it was quite limited even though I jailbroke it and loaded it up with lots of third party applications. I want the full OS X to run most of the same applications that I run on my desktop Mac and even on my current (aging) laptop -- Firefox, Camino, Pages, TextWrangler, Illustrator, occasionally Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. But I also want more battery life than what my Powerbook provides, which is where Atom comes in rather than just another power-hungry Core 2 Duo. Otherwise, I'd just buy a Macbook. (Well, that and I want a portable that's not as clumsy as a traditional clamshell laptop when you're trying to use it without putting it down on something like a desk or your lap.)
[QUOTE=Kolchak;1285105]And there's the attraction. For a lot of people like me, an iPod touch or iPhone just isn't enough. And I'm not just guessing. I had an iPod touch, but it was quite limited even though I jailbroke it and loaded it up with lots of third party applications. I want the full OS X to run most of the same applications that I run on my desktop Mac and even on my current (aging) laptop -- Firefox, Camino, Pages, TextWrangler, Illustrator, occasionally Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver.
[\\quote]
Problem is those sorts of application will not run reliably on a tablet, especially a smaller one. By reliably I mean in a manner that people can leverage in the same way as a desktop machine.
In any event if you are comparing running full bore desktop apps like Dreamweaver or whatever to any sort of app running on Touch or iPhone then you just don't get it. The whole point of these devices is to support a better environment for app on small devices. They simply are not a platform for large scale apps so shouldn't be compared to such.
Quote:
But I also want more battery life than what my Powerbook provides, which is where Atom comes in rather than just another power-hungry Core 2 Duo. Otherwise, I'd just buy a Macbook. (Well, that and I want a portable that's not as clumsy as a traditional clamshell laptop when you're trying to use it without putting it down on something like a desk or your lap.)
Now I understand what you want by I don't see Atom as being there yet. The problem is still power usage though that may be addressed very soon. Even so it looks like ARM would be the superior platfom for hand held for the foreseeable future.
I dont agree Celeron M has 3x performance of Atom. That is simply not true. Atom is about the same as Celeron M, only it has much lower power usage.
But i agree with the Cortex A9...
*snip*
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Not exactly. A 1.6 ghz Atom has performance as good as an 800 mhz Pent M and in some instances as good as a 1.2 ghz Pent M.... *snip*
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
I'm glad several other people have pointed out how wrong you are about Atom. It's not a particularly powerful CPU, but it can run Leopard quite nicely.
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK, and although I admit I've only seen a few different app benchmarks, they seemed to be pretty consistent. And yes I may have exaggerated it a bit, but NOT by very much.:
the reduced power envelope of Intel Atom will no doubt be good for small MID devices, especially when they get it to a system-on-a-chip, but when I am comparing Atom to a Celeron M or Core 2 ULV, I'm referring to the use of them in EEPC type subnotebooks or what I guess they are calling netbooks. In those cases, I don't think Atom is worth it just to save a bit of money and battery life versus the power of a decent Pentium M chip. And what is important to note is that the power consumption figures of Celeron M usually are coming from the 90nm Dothan core implementation. Now I believe there are newer Celeron M units out there using the 65nm merom core, but I don't believe they are used in these cheap netbooks. So It's not fair to compare 90nm Celeron M to 45nm Atom. It would be interesting to see the Celeron M "Dothan" core produced on a 45nm process. It would no doubt have good power efficiency for a netbook.
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK, and although I admit I've only seen a few different app benchmarks, they seemed to be pretty consistent. And yes I may have exaggerated it a bit, but NOT by very much
Who cares what the per-clock performance is compared to 30W notebook processors, the competition is to ultra-low-voltage processors currently (or previously, I guess I should say) used by small devices. You use the Eee PC as an example, but it moved from the 900MHz (630MHz, actually) ULV Celeron to the 1.6GHz Atom. Not a 1.73GHz Core 2 Duo.
Oh, and I hate pointing this out, but people don't sit at their little laptop and calculate PI to the nth decimal. They surf the web. Got a chart comparing that performance?
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK,.....
Sure I won't argue against that.
But the Atom is meant to be 'good enough' not the fastest chip out there. Its main use will be for surfing the internet and light desktop apps. Its not meant for gaming, video editing and photo editing. But its low power envelope should provide devices with it as its cpu with outstanding battery life. There it'll really shine.
I never wrote that the iPhone/iPod touch platform should handle desktop apps. I never expected that of them. They just don't have enough power and screen real estate. But there are lots of apps that don't demand a lot of power that just won't run on the iPhone. I feel the same way with my desktop compared to my laptop. Horses for courses.
It'd be great if someone could write something that would let the tablet run iPhone apps as well, considering the variety that's available there. After all, the iPhone uses a subset of OS X. It would be easier for a full computer to run its apps than for it to try to run regular OS X apps.
I never wrote that the iPhone/iPod touch platform should handle desktop apps. I never expected that of them. They just don't have enough power and screen real estate. But there are lots of apps that don't demand a lot of power that just won't run on the iPhone. I feel the same way with my desktop compared to my laptop. Horses for courses.
It'd be great if someone could write something that would let the tablet run iPhone apps as well, considering the variety that's available there. After all, the iPhone uses a subset of OS X. It would be easier for a full computer to run its apps than for it to try to run regular OS X apps.
I wasn't addressing you. Sorry if it appeared so.
I do agree with you about a device between the iPhone/Touch and full laptop. I've used a touch for surfing the web while out of town when I didn't feel like luging my MBP with me. It works ok but I wouldn't mind a small EEE pc type device or Apple style tablet.
But with all things the price is critical. If its around $500 then I'm interested. Anything over that and I would probably pass.
Actually, I was responding to Wizard69. I wouldn't mind that such applications wouldn't run at the same speed as my desktop machine, but it'd be nice to have the option of running them at all if I have to, even if they run slowly. This isn't video editing or encoding where I need maximum performance. And I'd be willing to go as high as $1000 depending on the features.
Still, even if they do introduce it by the end of the year, I may decide to wait for the 2009 model featuring Moorestown. Lower power, integrated GPU -- what's not to like? Even better if Apple skipped Menlow and just debuted with Moorestown.
Comments
...... A 2-3 year old 900mhz Celeron M has 2-3X the performance!
.
Not exactly. A 1.6 ghz Atom has performance as good as an 800 mhz Pent M and in some instances as good as a 1.2 ghz Pent M. It has 60% of the performance of a 1.6 ghz Celeron. See here. A 900 mhz Celeron is probably faster than 1.6ghz (single cpu) Atom but not 2-3x. A dual core Atom is probably faster than a 900 mhz Celeron.
Apple uses 3 types of products that pay for themselves in volume, software, chips, and web services. All three cost a fortune to design. Chips cost a fortune to ramp up manufacturing. I doubt Apple has a lot of secret software in the works (Snow Leopard is no secret). Mobile Me just came out.
Apple must be making chips. iTablet, iTouch 2 (all the previously expensive insides now on a $50 chip). MacPro with a big iron Intel, and a dozen multi-core PA co-processors (for parallel things like image work - Jobs told us to write for thousands of cores, right?). Or maybe I just want this to happen.
Not suitable for OS X Leopard, since a dual-core Atom doesn't even equal the performance of today's Intel Celeron line up. (which is much slower than the Pentium dual core, which is way slower than a core 2 duo)
Ever try Leopard on an Atom? The Hackintosh folks have run Leopard on the Intel D945GCLF board (ATOM 1.6 GHz, single core, hyperthreaded).
I actually built one with 2gb of memory and an old slow hard drive to try it out. It's a sub $250 computer.
Leopard is quite responsive. Boot time is about 40 seconds from power on to desktop (including 4-5 seconds waiting in the boot loader). Safari and iTunes are responsive. I wouldn't try to cut video or work manage a photo library, but the Atom is no slouch.
I have plenty of Intel Macs and the slowest of them is a 1.66GHz Core Duo Mini which is certainly more capable, but for iTunes, web surfing, email and instant messaging I think the Atom would do great. I would like to buy another mini, but it's about $200 more than what I'm willing to spend on a toy to sit at work to have a mac for web browsing and terminal access without having to bring my laptop every day. Even the used market for the mini is still hot (which was nice when I sold my G4 mini).
To my knowledge Apple doesn't have an ARM license, so they can't legally be designing ARM chips.
They can just buy one. ARM is quite promiscuous about licensing.
http://www.arm.com/products/licensing/licencees.html
I'm glad several other people have pointed out how wrong you are about Atom. It's not a particularly powerful CPU, but it can run Leopard quite nicely.
And there's the attraction. For a lot of people like me, an iPod touch or iPhone just isn't enough. And I'm not just guessing. I had an iPod touch, but it was quite limited even though I jailbroke it and loaded it up with lots of third party applications. I want the full OS X to run most of the same applications that I run on my desktop Mac and even on my current (aging) laptop -- Firefox, Camino, Pages, TextWrangler, Illustrator, occasionally Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. But I also want more battery life than what my Powerbook provides, which is where Atom comes in rather than just another power-hungry Core 2 Duo. Otherwise, I'd just buy a Macbook. (Well, that and I want a portable that's not as clumsy as a traditional clamshell laptop when you're trying to use it without putting it down on something like a desk or your lap.)
[\\quote]
Problem is those sorts of application will not run reliably on a tablet, especially a smaller one. By reliably I mean in a manner that people can leverage in the same way as a desktop machine.
In any event if you are comparing running full bore desktop apps like Dreamweaver or whatever to any sort of app running on Touch or iPhone then you just don't get it. The whole point of these devices is to support a better environment for app on small devices. They simply are not a platform for large scale apps so shouldn't be compared to such.
But I also want more battery life than what my Powerbook provides, which is where Atom comes in rather than just another power-hungry Core 2 Duo. Otherwise, I'd just buy a Macbook. (Well, that and I want a portable that's not as clumsy as a traditional clamshell laptop when you're trying to use it without putting it down on something like a desk or your lap.)
Now I understand what you want by I don't see Atom as being there yet. The problem is still power usage though that may be addressed very soon. Even so it looks like ARM would be the superior platfom for hand held for the foreseeable future.
Dave
I dont agree Celeron M has 3x performance of Atom. That is simply not true. Atom is about the same as Celeron M, only it has much lower power usage.
But i agree with the Cortex A9...
*snip*
Not exactly. A 1.6 ghz Atom has performance as good as an 800 mhz Pent M and in some instances as good as a 1.2 ghz Pent M.... *snip*
I'm glad several other people have pointed out how wrong you are about Atom. It's not a particularly powerful CPU, but it can run Leopard quite nicely.
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK, and although I admit I've only seen a few different app benchmarks, they seemed to be pretty consistent. And yes I may have exaggerated it a bit, but NOT by very much.:
the reduced power envelope of Intel Atom will no doubt be good for small MID devices, especially when they get it to a system-on-a-chip, but when I am comparing Atom to a Celeron M or Core 2 ULV, I'm referring to the use of them in EEPC type subnotebooks or what I guess they are calling netbooks. In those cases, I don't think Atom is worth it just to save a bit of money and battery life versus the power of a decent Pentium M chip. And what is important to note is that the power consumption figures of Celeron M usually are coming from the 90nm Dothan core implementation. Now I believe there are newer Celeron M units out there using the 65nm merom core, but I don't believe they are used in these cheap netbooks. So It's not fair to compare 90nm Celeron M to 45nm Atom. It would be interesting to see the Celeron M "Dothan" core produced on a 45nm process. It would no doubt have good power efficiency for a netbook.
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK, and although I admit I've only seen a few different app benchmarks, they seemed to be pretty consistent. And yes I may have exaggerated it a bit, but NOT by very much
Who cares what the per-clock performance is compared to 30W notebook processors, the competition is to ultra-low-voltage processors currently (or previously, I guess I should say) used by small devices. You use the Eee PC as an example, but it moved from the 900MHz (630MHz, actually) ULV Celeron to the 1.6GHz Atom. Not a 1.73GHz Core 2 Duo.
Oh, and I hate pointing this out, but people don't sit at their little laptop and calculate PI to the nth decimal. They surf the web. Got a chart comparing that performance?
What I meant was Celeron M/Pentium M has 2-3x the performance PER CLOCK,.....
Sure I won't argue against that.
But the Atom is meant to be 'good enough' not the fastest chip out there. Its main use will be for surfing the internet and light desktop apps. Its not meant for gaming, video editing and photo editing. But its low power envelope should provide devices with it as its cpu with outstanding battery life. There it'll really shine.
For what it tries to do it'll do it pretty well.
It'd be great if someone could write something that would let the tablet run iPhone apps as well, considering the variety that's available there. After all, the iPhone uses a subset of OS X. It would be easier for a full computer to run its apps than for it to try to run regular OS X apps.
I never wrote that the iPhone/iPod touch platform should handle desktop apps. I never expected that of them. They just don't have enough power and screen real estate. But there are lots of apps that don't demand a lot of power that just won't run on the iPhone. I feel the same way with my desktop compared to my laptop. Horses for courses.
It'd be great if someone could write something that would let the tablet run iPhone apps as well, considering the variety that's available there. After all, the iPhone uses a subset of OS X. It would be easier for a full computer to run its apps than for it to try to run regular OS X apps.
I wasn't addressing you. Sorry if it appeared so.
I do agree with you about a device between the iPhone/Touch and full laptop. I've used a touch for surfing the web while out of town when I didn't feel like luging my MBP with me. It works ok but I wouldn't mind a small EEE pc type device or Apple style tablet.
But with all things the price is critical. If its around $500 then I'm interested. Anything over that and I would probably pass.
Still, even if they do introduce it by the end of the year, I may decide to wait for the 2009 model featuring Moorestown. Lower power, integrated GPU -- what's not to like? Even better if Apple skipped Menlow and just debuted with Moorestown.