cedar trail is a mutt

[piesquared]

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/01/03/intel-thinks-cedar-trail-is-a-dog-reading-between-bullet-points/

Edit: must add this.

Edit 2: already posted

Wow intel dx9??? That's the best you can do?? Thanks for the continueous disrespect and disregard for a market that YOU lead in marketshare. Are you hurting game development by keeping such ancient specs alive, and robbing consumers at the same time???


I think you are, now what does that remind of again??
Ah yes I hear sounds of Vista where you killed development by buying a lower minimum spec. Is that how consumers want market leaders to act??

Pretty shameful, if you can't keep up with competition, just force it on consumers.

/not just a rant

 

[Gigantopithecus]

E-350.

/thread

 

[RU482]

yeah, they screwed the pooch. originally they had dx10 and 64bit driver support spec'd, but dropped it

then again, who's gaming on a netbook, and why would you need 64bit with a 4GB max

 

[VirtualLarry]

If Intel compared Cedar Trail graphics to a 3rd grader with a crayon, the graphics would lose, even if it was an exceptionally slow 3rd grader with multiple closed head wounds. An enhanced turd that doesn’t work is hardly a performance milestone.

Wow, sad.

 

[piesquared]

yeah, they screwed the pooch. originally they had dx10 and 64bit driver support spec'd, but dropped it

then again, who's gaming on a netbook, and why would you need 64bit with a 4GB max

Guess we'll never know if intel controls the market.

 

[frostedflakes]

Think he's being more than a little harsh...

Are these parts dual core with HT? If so they should be pretty competitive with Brazos on the CPU side, IIRC the current 2C/4T Atom chips offer comparable performance to E-350. I think the Atom is a bit faster in heavily threaded stuff thanks to HT and the E-350 tends to offer a little better single threaded performance.

GPU side seems to be pretty weak, but that was never really Atom's strong suit and it doesn't look like Intel cares much about fixing that. Nice to see they finally got around to adding HD video acceleration, though, this is a welcome feature that should have been added years ago.

Looks like it might be a good option if you just want decent CPU performance and don't need the more capable GPU that a product like Zacate would offer. Power consumption should be a lot lower than a Zacate product with comparable CPU performance.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Atom is a bit faster in heavily threaded stuff

Well, I don't know about you, but when I want to encode video, I pull out my netbook.

Power consumption should be a lot lower than a Zacate product with comparable CPU performance.

Not if Intel is still saddling the CPU to a horrible, ancient chipset...

Sorry, Zacate made Atom irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to buy an Atom-based solution for anything aside from ephemeral clearances or other really enticingly low prices on Atom gear.

 

[Vesku]

It seems they aren't willing to spend much money on atom development. Atom is just something for them to keep their fabs at full blast while they transition nodes.

 

[frostedflakes]

Point was the 2C/4T Atoms offer comparable performance, it's a bit better for heavily threaded stuff and a bit worse in single threaded. If this new Atom has any IPC improvements it might pull ahead of the E-350 in that as well.

Also I don't think the chipset killing power efficiency of Atom has been an issue since the 945GC days. Since Pineview northbridge functions have been integrated on the CPU and Atom has only used a low power FCH southbridge like the AMD Brazos platform does. N570 (1.66GHz dual core w/HT) based netbooks offer better battery life and decent CPU performance compared to Zacate. If you don't need a competent GPU, Atom is still a good option IMO.

 

[Vesku]

Even the high-end ARM SoCs try to have decent graphics to go with the CPU. Not much compiling or rendering will be done on these sub 10W compute units.

 

[Riek]

Point was the 2C/4T Atoms offer comparable performance, it's a bit better for heavily threaded stuff and a bit worse in single threaded. If this new Atom has any IPC improvements it might pull ahead of the E-350 in that as well.

Also I don't think the chipset killing power efficiency of Atom has been an issue since the 945GC days. Since Pineview northbridge functions have been integrated on the CPU and Atom has only used a low power FCH southbridge like the AMD Brazos platform does. N570 (1.66GHz dual core w/HT) based netbooks offer better battery life and decent CPU performance compared to Zacate. If you don't need a competent GPU, Atom is still a good option IMO.

In multithreading test its within 5% of eachother (which i can agree give comparable performance), whereass single threaded is >40% performance better for Brazos (which is absolutely not just a bit faster). So your use of bit better and a bit worse seems to have a rather big range.
The difference between Atom and brazos are bigger than Fx8150 vs i7 2600. Close in high threaded applications far away in low threaded applications.

But at least on 32nm is will have a power advantage (which it didn't really had with the prevous generation either).

 

[Arkaign]

Zacate is shit, and so is Atom in all forms. Still waiting on something with at least the performance of a C2D E6600 from what, 6 freaking years ago? Is that too much to ask?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

How much PPD would this thing get?

 

[opethfan]

Zacate is shit, and so is Atom in all forms. Still waiting on something with at least the performance of a C2D E6600 from what, 6 freaking years ago? Is that too much to ask?

If you can do it, I challenge you to. But I did a little research (not much, it's late) on the E6600 and this is the data I found comparing it to the E-350 and chipset:

Conroe E6600: 143mm^2 die, 65nm, 65w, $224
945GC chipset: 22.2w

Brazos E-350: 75mm^2, 40nm, 18w
FCH: 28mm^2

The chipset used for the E6600 uses more power than the entire E-350 CPU and DX11 graphics. Of course a low power, low cost chip isn't going to beat out a processor that many would still deem "good enough" for everyday use.

 

[p3ngwin]

....N570 (1.66GHz dual core w/HT) based netbooks offer better battery life and decent CPU performance compared to Zacate. If you don't need a competent GPU, Atom is still a good option IMO.

those atoms are not better in most performance metrics, and the GPU IS important these days as everything from OS interfaces, office applications, browsers, etc are all hardware GPU accelerated. heck even Google maps is OpenGL accelerated now.

GPU's are no longer for just gaming.

intel can't rely on x86 to power people's lives anymore, that's the point: their GPU hardware and software drivers suck.

AMD have a much better product with their Fusion chips. the balance of battery life, CPU/GPU performance makes Atom a loser.

 

[Idontcare]

Welcome to the forums p3ngwin1! :thumbsup:

Sorry, Zacate made Atom irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to buy an Atom-based solution for anything aside from ephemeral clearances or other really enticingly low prices on Atom gear.

This.

It seems they aren't willing to spend much money on atom development.

And this.

The fact that it took this long just for Intel to get their 32nm-based atom derivative to the market tells us all we need to know in terms of the internal priority this entire affair holds for Intel.

It doesn't merit enough internal priority to be resourced such that its market introduction date is aggressive, and it should come as no surprise that this lack of prioritization and resourcing also results in a completely bare-bones minimum effort put into the graphics side of it.

22nm and 14nm Atom may currently have higher priority though, so taking a pulse today doesn't really tell us much about tomorrow. But taking a pulse today certainly tells us what Intel thought of this market segment yesterday.

But...will someone remind me why Dirk was fired? (rhetorical question)

 

[p3ngwin]

Welcome to the forums p3ngwin1!

heh, thanks dude.

i was registered before, but under a similar username and different Email address.

since Lycos.co.uk died a long time ago, i guess i haven't posted much, and today when this thread warranted my input i couldn't reply because although i remembered my username, i couldn't remember the password i used. with Lycos Email dead, this site couldn't send me any help to reset password...Doh! hence my new account today.

so, i've been here a while, just had to change credentials because of some red tape nonsense

now, on with the Intel/Atom debacle. i demand to be entertained

 

[Idontcare]

heh, thanks dude.

i was registered before, but under a similar username and different Email address.

since Lycos.co.uk died a long time ago, i guess i haven't posted much, and today when this thread warranted my input i couldn't reply because although i remembered my username, i couldn't remember the password i used. with Lycos Email dead, this site couldn't send me any help to reset password...Doh! hence my new account today.

so, i've been here a while, just had to change credentials because of some red tape nonsense

Understandable.

I'll post this here at the risk of it being off-topic, but to serve as a public service announcement, if you wish to recover your past account you can post about it in the Moderator Discussions subforum and we can attempt to track your account down for you.

The same happened to me, so I am totally sympathetic/empathetic to members who find themselves in this situation.

 

[KompuKare]

It seems they aren't willing to spend much money on atom development. Atom is just something for them to keep their fabs at full blast while they transition nodes.

Fully agree. Despite Intel's vast budget, it seems Atom and Intel's chipsets are mainly there to give the old fabs something to do during transitions. And Charlie does have a point when he says that the press have been too lenient on Intel with the Atom: I never saw the point of a 2.5W CPU paired to a chipset which used almost 10W.

In fact I'd question the value of most of Intels chipsets but these days there is no choice. Is the Z58 really worth $48 or the X79 $73?

Strange how now that almost everything is integrated on the CPU, Intels chipset prices have gone through the roof. You'd almost think that due to the lack of competition (due to the questionable patenting of the interface between the CPU and motherboard), Intel's chipsets are more profitable than some of their CPUs.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It's an Atom...what use is there for DX9+ on an Atom?

 

[IonusX]

It's an Atom...what use is there for DX9+ on an Atom?

not sucking at netbook mode torchlight at finally being able to INSTALL CSS without it detonating your netbook haha. cedar trail is a misfit and it shouldnt have been released.. just let netbooks die so we can all move on.

 

[CHADBOGA]

So Intel delivered a Bulldozer like turd with their latest Atom, huh?

 

[Lonbjerg]

not sucking at netbook mode torchlight at finally being able to INSTALL CSS without it detonating your netbook haha. cedar trail is a misfit and it shouldnt have been released.. just let netbooks die so we can all move on.

I have an Atom.
I use it for one thing...media center.
I would not make Atom into something it's not.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So Intel delivered a Bulldozer like turd with their latest Atom, huh?

If the gauge is comparing motorcycles to chickens...then..perhaps.
Otherwise your post makes no sense.

 

[blckgrffn]

I think that Intel wants us to buy IVB based notebooks in the ~$400 range, not netbooks.

Either that, or this is an "emerging market" sort of thing where people have low incomes/poor exchange rates and Intel still wants x86 to be "the thing."

During the week of Thanksgiving I bought a DM1Z for my wife and a T410s for me - and I installed a fancy pants Samsung SSD into the DM1Z. It is crazy how much faster the first gen i5 in my Thinkpad is versus Fusion, even springing for the 1.65 ghz part... I can't imagine using anything slower (atom.)