New quad-core Intel Atom SoCs targets PCs, servers, and tablets
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Happy to see Out-of-Order, interested to see if HTT makes it in, kind of sad a more robust SIMD unit like AVX doesn't appear to have made the cut. Nice to see ATOM advancing, though.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Windows RT's reason to exist isn't just to have Windows on ARM. If that was the case, there wouldn't be all the restrictions to it. Windows RT exists to have an 'appliance' version of Windows, where users can't f the thing up like they do to their desktops. Also Windows RT has lots of restrictions on what applications can and can't do, unlike the non-RT version.
There will probably be non-ARM RT machines. (Like a Lenovo...)
That said, it's nice to see x86 coming along, and hopefully will crack the halo around ARM that so many techies believe exists. There's never been any secret sauce to why ARM was lower power, it was because it was slower. As ARM gets faster, and x86 gets smaller, we'll see what really matters, and it's not processor ISA, it's fabs and processes. And the article sums it up correctly that Intel absolutely kills everyone else in that area.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I hope these are better than the Atom N270, I really did my best to make it useable but I finally gave up. Today the netbook is a lunix minecraft server (yeah, not recommended I know). I find that I can get a reasnable windows experience with a P3, but not with an N270. I'd been wondering if the out of order execution unit was the reason, but with 4 cores I don't see any meaningful comparisons in this regard.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Acert93":3ijavtlu said:
Since it's not mentioned I assume HTT isn't going to be in. At the same time in most of the markets it's targeting hyper-threading won't be of much value. The phone/tablet and netbook models are exclusively 4 core designs as is the plausible desktop variant (without a major price advantage I expect the 2 core desktop part to be DOA). For most consumer tasks adding cores rapidly hits diminishing returns, and dropping HT for power/die size targets is an IMO completely reasonable tradeoff.
Don't forget that this is where Intel moves the atom platform onto the same tick-tock progression as their core series, so they can add HT back fairly quickly if work loads (or marketing stat races) require.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
HTT is probably more useful in the in-order chips anyway. It might be more likely to have a thread to feed the pipeline so it isn't just wasting cycles.
Windows RT is ARM-only.Miwa":1z9d1r65 said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
AnonymousRich":rrhewdrp said:
An Atom with a decent GPU does surprisingly well with Win7. Of course the main problem is always going to be stuff that's inherently computational like Games and Flash.
Adding more slow cores won't help Flash though.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
While I don't know about Android, iOS is just a subset of OS X. I would think just re-compiling would be fine for just about anything.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Seems like they will be a step ahead of the AMD variant of low power CPUs...
For example, I have a netbook with the AMD "APU" combo, and it is nothing like the earlier Atom based ones... My current AMD based unit doesn't break a sweat with HD video, amongst other things.
These new Atoms seem like they will make for some interesting little chips, in some interesting little devices (HTPC use? ...one of the slides only mentioned blu ray support for vehicles though???)
Gotta love competition.
Good to see Intel adding some goodness to these little low end things.
For example, I have a netbook with the AMD "APU" combo, and it is nothing like the earlier Atom based ones... My current AMD based unit doesn't break a sweat with HD video, amongst other things.
These new Atoms seem like they will make for some interesting little chips, in some interesting little devices (HTPC use? ...one of the slides only mentioned blu ray support for vehicles though???)
Gotta love competition.
Good to see Intel adding some goodness to these little low end things.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
JEDIDIAH":1ro0fte9 said:
Flash is all but done... Abode's basically throwing in the towel with it. That said, an N270 still makes a decent Linux netbook. It can handle a Compiz 3D desktop, with web browsing, and light Open/LibreOffice word processing & spreadsheeting... It makes an OK light use file/print server as well. The newer Atom's (those with true Intel, not PowerVR graphics, that is) are better, obviously... The D550 is a decent example of that. They're fine for light general use computing...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Smeghead":1ke2emhm said:
According to the leaked slides, Bay Trail supports ECC but only in single-channel mode. Better than nothing, right?
Eidt: Also, IIRC there were rumors last year that Cedar Trail was being delayed because of issues getting the Windows drivers certified, so obviously Intel stands to benefit from using its own GPU in more ways than one.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
How can it be an aggressive push into ARM territory when they don't target phones?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Assuming that Microsoft isn't in fact ruined after Windows 8 (as some people would certainly love), then I think that there will be no need for ARM support in Windows 9. (That segment can be handled for Microsoft by Windows Phone.)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I think Intel's success with these is heavily tied to Windows 8.
No-one in the phone/tablet/embedded industry wants Intel to be the top dog, they all prefer to roll their own Arm solutions and the choice that gives them. I don't believe Intel will ever get any traction with Android, iOS or Windows Phone 8.
No-one in the phone/tablet/embedded industry wants Intel to be the top dog, they all prefer to roll their own Arm solutions and the choice that gives them. I don't believe Intel will ever get any traction with Android, iOS or Windows Phone 8.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Miwa":ko9un1af said:
Yes Windows RT is for ARM only. Devices like the Lenovo tablet get to run full Windows 8. This is going to be a big benefit especially at launch since there are not going to be many Windows 8 Style apps yet.
What an exciting time to follow tech!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
This is what I'm hoping for in eventual tablets. Been waiting on the details, adding OOE should put them head and shoulders above comparable ARM solutions...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't know. Consumers don't mind what processor is used as long as it's fast and battery friendly. If Intel gives them that, then device manufacturers will use it. Don't know if the GPU's are what Apple needs.Red Herring":c4zvwcsp said:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Pretty much price is what drives OEM adoption, so it all depends on how much margin Intel wants to give up... (which was the whole point in restricting where atom could be used also)drfisheye":2msty7vk said:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Red Herring":24057jxw said:
Tell that to Apple when they dumped PowerPC.
I would say most of these companies would take the Intel solution if it was better and cost less. Designing and fabrication of your own CPU costs a heck of a lot. So much in fact that most companies already buy off the shelf components from Qualcomm, etc. Samsung is the big example of course of a company that can roll their own chip but if it's not competetive then I am not sure why they would.
I'm not sure about iPhone, but Windows Phone 8 would likely be the place it would be easiest for Intel to get going in because they likely won't need the binary translation.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Agreed. But we have already seen Apple reducing their profit a bit for the New iPad so they could use an expensive screen. They could do the same for a better processor.Miwa":3uiicm38 said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Apple would be the least likely to switch, as they are more invested in 'native' apps. And whatever they do is not interesting anyway. What Windows and maybe Android can run is more interesting, as there are vastly more different products being developed.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Miwa":2ammpg2q said:
It really does help to know what you're talking about. iOS is a subset of OS X, which is already native on x86. And running existing apps through a recompile for x86 is no big deal.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Miwa":aclz0tzy said:
The iOS simulator is already native x86; and Apple is good at making fat binaries, so assuming most developers don't test exclusively on devices, all the apps probably already works if they switch to an x86 device platform.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
toast0":hmksc75f said:
With storage at a premium, I'd guess that they wouldn't use fat binaries. But, since the apps are all delivered via the app store it would be easy enough to deliver the version your phone or tablet needs.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
jwcalla":38ops5yu said:
They can
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5685/appl ... still-45nm
The real question is: are they willing to?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Scannall":qv0zuhj9 said:
I doubt code resources are a significant part of the footprint of most iOS apps. The retina-optimized bitmapped UI resources, on the other hand, are, and even there, most of the space on most people's iPhones and iPad's is probably taken up by media (video, audio, photos).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
YourOldBuddy":3qlsuzly said:
What do you think "small form factor devices" are? My assumption is phones and tablets. Intel's gotten a few wins with their current atom in the phone market. Anandtech reviewed one; and found it a middle level performer as an android phone.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yeah, this. Intel can get a LOT of atoms on a wafer with the 22nm process. They have enough fab capacity and enough of a process lead that they could undercut everyone and still make a profit.Jon Ghast":3ssx8m6p said:
It's all about how much they want to eat into their margins selling Core-series CPUs.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The title specifically says "PCs, servers, and tablets", but you are right. I just don't believe it and Ars reads more and more like a place to go to read press announcements.DanNeely":3j6hz0ae said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
YourOldBuddy":37eml9yr said:
These slides talk specifically about non-phone SoCs, but Intel still has the smartphone-oriented Medfield and I'm sure that platform will continue to be developed.
To my mind, Bay Trail is about getting beefier SoCs available for tablets (the current Cedar Trail and Oak Trail platforms still need both a CPU and a separate chipset, which is just too many chips to be viable vs. ARM SoCs in a tablet) and the high-density low-power server market, which are markets where ARM already is. I also see this as a pre-emptive strike of sorts against Cortex A15 chips that might try to worm their way into low-power consumer laptops/netbooks and desktops. Definitely an aggressive push.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Braumin":dcxjmgl8 said:
Well, specifically WP8 is allowing native code, so unless Intel has WP8 phones as x86 exclusive (is there even an x86 port of WP?), there isn't much of a window to establish an install base there.
There's a huge difference there. While I sure Jobs switched for price/performance on chips, the reason Apple's PCs are finally gaining traction is software compatibility (windows, office, itunes, browsers). Right now, there is no mobile software that Intel chips can run well. They're great at benchmarks, but their Android phones aren't fully compatible with Android and don't even run Windows afaict. At best, they can succeed in niches.
The key deciding factor won't be performance. Performance of ARM on client devices is 'good enough' given competent software. The days of killer apps pushing hardware speeds I think is over. Itunes is (partly) server based, Siri was server based, Google, Facebook, xbox, etc. Hardware will always get faster, that's a given. But as a feature, well, just look at what most consumers consider the best smartphone: the iphone, not the fastest.
Apple will stick to ARM, MS will stick to ARM, it's more control, control=money, screw performance, Apple did for years.
Intel really needs a RIM or Firefox or a Meego to become viable (indeed that was the whole point of Meego), and that seems like a long shot right now. Firefox will be so low end I doubt they would go Intel. Even Windows RT is a bit of a gamble right now. It's hard to see their mobile chips succeeding outside the server. Ironic.
Intel is fighting with MS over a shrinking Wintel pie, Surface makes that clear. They'll both continue to do great in enterprises, obviously.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
How efficient is 22nm? Atom has always been at a power disadvantage vs ARM, and it was in-order to save transistors and energy. If the Atom can do OOE at 22nm and use the same power as ARM's RISC at 32nm it will have a chance in the tablet market, but if the power consumption is much higher it won't matter how much faster the thing is. The baseline for tablet battery life is currently a full day, or 6-8 hours. If an Atom device has 3-4 hour life it won't sell, and if it has to have a much larger battery with $100 higher price and 5mm added thickness it won't sell.
The next question is, can Intel stay a full manufacturing step ahead forever? They've done so at every step since 65nm, but if other manufacturers start to catch up then a design with twice the transistors for the same speed will dead.
The next question is, can Intel stay a full manufacturing step ahead forever? They've done so at every step since 65nm, but if other manufacturers start to catch up then a design with twice the transistors for the same speed will dead.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I have built several nice little servers out of Atom dual core motherboards, and they hold up well, but the lack of support for virtualizing 64bit machines is going to hurt viability for servers; unless this is addressed in the new generation. I hope that this is included in their "virtualization" feature.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status