Intel unveils Atom chips
Summary
Topics
The new chips, described by the company as entirely Core 2 Duo-compatible but with a tenth of the power requirements, will first reach the market in a fleet of partner mobile internet devices (MIDs) in late May or early June.
"This is as important to Intel as the launch of the Pentium in the mid-1990s", Intel chief executive Paul Otellini said in a video played during an IDF keynote.
Previously code-named Silverthorne, the Atom processor initially comes in five variants ranging from 800MHz to 1.86GHz, taking average power from 160mW to 220mW, and will typically be coupled with the Intel System Controller Hub to make the Centrino Atom platform. The MIDs, coming from companies such as Lenovo, Asus and Panasonic, will run Windows or Linux and are being promoted as the functional equivalent of a wireless-connected PC in pocket format.
The Atom is also behind two new product niches: netbooks and nettops. These are cost-reduced designs for more conventional notebook and desktop uses; Intel says a nettop motherboard should cost between 20 and 25 percent less than a standard desktop equivalent.
Other announcements included Intel anti-theft technology hardware and software designed to encrypt and protect data. Due for launch in late 2008 and initially intended for laptops, this is being developed in partnership with Fujistu Siemens, Macafee, Phoenix Technologies and others. The heavily-trailed solid state drives were officially detailed for the first time, coming in 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch form factors, 32 to 160GB capacities and with 1,500G shock protection.
Talkback Most Recent of 9 Talkback(s)
-
atom chip
I can't figure out why a slow chip with low power is any good. How about a fast chip with low power. If all this is intended to do is to save a few minutes of laptop time on the battery, how about when it take longer to proccess?
iec950cb@...2nd Apr 2008 -
Slow chip?
I can usually tell someone who is still stuck with the MHz
(now GHz) myth ingrained. The article stated these are Core2
Duo compatible. That means the CPU is doing more at a
lower speed than the 4GHz behemoths of the past. Also, the
mobile market doesn't always need to be running power apps
the whole time, just in batches.
Mr_Dave2nd Apr 2008 -
slow is slow
I don't care how many cores you put in an 800 MHz cpu it's only doing more if the O/S will allow it!!!!!!!
byter_z2nd Apr 2008 -
How slow can you go?
'Tis true, it is limited by what the OS (and the application) will allow & how the OS processes the information. Perhaps the next step will be a truely parallel processing OS that allow many "slow" processors in parallel to get more done (without all that terrible heat & energy consumption) in less time than an overclocked x86 toaster.
Peace.
Haight&Ashbury2nd Apr 2008 -
RE: Intel unveils Atom chips
I have trouble understanding Intel and us as consumers. Am I to believe that gamers and "Enthusiasts" are buying up the countless dual core and quad-core (and soon Core Octa Dual Double Quad Core if Intel names it, Double Decathlon if AMD does). They made processors a year ago that are far better than what many if not most PC's run today. A story I saw about an "old" Intel E6300, dual core at 1.87 GHZ, when easily over-clocked to around 2.7 GHZ chewed up the AMD Athlon FX 62. That was considered the ultimate processor just a few short years back. Something seems way out of sync. And passing by these great, and inexpensive CPU's just to buy newer ones that do us no good in the end? I'm a layman what do the guys that know something about this say?
Williepr2nd Apr 2008 -
RE: Intel unveils Atom chips
There will always be a need to increase cpu performance, even if today's processors seem to be already high performing. This is basically because higher CPU performance always increases the potential and ability for ever increasing complex operations and applications. We are by no means reaching the limit of complexity, actually far from it.
At the end of it all, increase cpu performance basically translates to the abilility to create totally new and unique and unforeseen applications to emerge on a computer system for the typical user.
-This is why there is no better occupation for me, we are still in the very beginning of the computer age, I'm here to make sure we all enjoy it.
binarymaster2nd Apr 2008 -
RE: Intel unveils Atom chips
Good news!
JackZhao@...3rd Apr 2008 -
RE: Intel unveils Atom chips
The answer to your question has two parts.
First, the clock speed is irrelevant unless you're comparing two chips of the same design. Long, long ago, it used to make sense, because chips generally processed one instruction per clock cycle -- or less. These days, they process multiple instructions per clock cycle, and what matters are how many of your program's instructions can they process in a given period of time. That includes such things as how much time they have to wait for memory, how many instructions they can process in a single clock cycle, and other factors.
The other part of the answer is the speed/power ratio. A processor that is, perhaps 1/2 of the speed, but consumes 1/4 of the power when running at full speed, is, in many applications, twice as good. Actually, it can be more than that -- it can make the difference between a viable product and something that simply consumes too much power to be practical.
Also, while slower speed does mean it takes longer to accomplish a given bit of work (latency), so long as the latency is low enough for the application (say, if it's fast enough to deliver a frame of video to your phone screen every 1/60 of a second), then more speed often doesn't have much value. And in applications where there's a lot of work to be done (such as servers), often the best strategy is to use LOTS of slower, less power-hungry processors..
Having different options in the space of speed and power is a good thing, because it allows designers to choose a processor that best meets the need of the application.
One way to think about this is that what this processor enables is smaller, lighter devices, because it will allow smaller, lighter batteries. For some people, and some applications, size and weight are the main concern, not performance.
For a laptop, I'll take blisteringly fast, and put up with blistering heat and ponderous weight. My wife, however, makes the opposite trade-off. We each have good reasons for our choices.
bob.kerns23rd Apr 2008 -
RE: Intel unveils Atom chips
Excellent points, Bob.
Yes, I agree. For IED950, as I was saying in my earlier post. You can think of the new Atom Processor as enable a whole new slew of products. For instance, you will now see much much faster performing smart-phones and PDAs. These new series of processor allow very small devices and small mobile device to have much greater performance than is possible with today's small devices.binarymaster4th Apr 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
