Intel *consumer* octo-core Atom... where is it?

[cbn]

Edit: I wonder how much of Bay Trail Atom's slow web browser scrolling is due to the CPU, and how much is due to the anemic GPU? (Something that I believe was improved in CHT and Braswell.)

Not sure about Bay Trail, but when I was doing my informal Steam game streaming testing I coupled a GT730 GDDR5 to a Sempron 2650 (This in order to get hardware decode working in the Linux Mint Steam Client). When not streaming games and browing the web with that machine I noticed scrolling smoothness did not improve with the dGPU.

So from my experience with Sempron 2650, it is definitely something other than iGPU (probably CPU) that is the cause for rough scrolling on certain webpages when using Firefox.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I'm not sure that I can see the point, of this part.

Since one can get an I3-4130 (and similar), dual core at 54 Watts TDP.
Passmark of 4793 for about $120/£91.44, what is the point.

The above part will have a similar multi-threaded speed (maybe a bit faster, for some things).

Probably a lot faster for single threaded.

The soon to be released Broadwell/Skylake parts, are likely to be at least as fast/cheap (or not too much more) and probably will use less power. My guess would be 25W/35W or 45W TDP.

The I3-4130 (or similar), will plug into socketed currently available motherboards.

I get the impression, that the idea (of this thread) is to sucker some people into thinking that an 8 core Atom chip, is better/faster than an equivalently priced/speed I3/I5 or whatever. E.g. A dual core version.

If the device is powered up all the time, the 20W Atom TDP, may still beat the Broadwell/Skylake, speed equivalent part (power consumption wise). But I doubt that would create a significant market for this hypothetical (in the consumer space) part. They might as well use the currently available J1800/J1900/Etc ones.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Avoton is getting long in the tooth. If Intel really wanted an octocore AiO/tablet processor, they'd be better off using something a little bit more modern.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I get the impression, that the idea (of this thread) is to sucker some people into thinking that an 8 core Atom chip, is better/faster than an equivalently priced/speed I3/I5 or whatever. E.g. A dual core version.

If the device is powered up all the time, the 20W Atom TDP, may still beat the Broadwell/Skylake, speed equivalent part (power consumption wise). But I doubt that would create a significant market for this hypothetical (in the consumer space) part. They might as well use the currently available J1800/J1900/Etc ones.

I'm saying, Intel may well be missing a marketing opportunity here with the Walmart PC-buying crowd. Then again, to them, a quad-core is a new thing, so maybe Intel wants to hold off a few years, before offering them an 8-core Atom at the high-end.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I'm saying, Intel may well be missing a marketing opportunity here with the Walmart PC-buying crowd. Then again, to them, a quad-core is a new thing, so maybe Intel wants to hold off a few years, before offering them an 8-core Atom at the high-end.

You could also say that AMD are missing the same opportunity.

They sell the very low cost Quad core AM1 5350 (AMD) for about £40/$60, which could have the 8 core version of a similar chip (Xbox One/PS4 cpus).

I would have thought the sensible market (consumer) for an 8 core Atom/kabini/Similar would be consumer Home-Micro-servers(NAS etc)/HTPCs/Similar applications, which really could usefully use low-power consumption, low cost 8 core cpus, usefully, software/usage permitting.

Arguably Intel were aiming for the Walmart PC-buying crowd, when they named/sold the "Atoms", as Celeron/Pentiums, which seems to be a marketing move, to confuse less well informed buyers, into believing that they are buying something good, when it can actually be worse (slower), than a PC cpu, from a number of years ago.

 

[dealcorn]

Forum post fantasies are important, but I see no evidence of consumer demand for 8 core Atom class solutions on the desktop. Even for video transcoding, consumer preferences likely favor Intel Quick Sync for it's combination of superior speed and low cost. Video professionals are quite willing to pay for the superior performance of multiple big cores and Intel has Xeons specifically targeted at that niche. For better performance in the applications consumers use, the step up to big cores gives a better bang for the buck than more cores.

I love my C2558 (Rangerly quad core) petite file server, but if a lower cost dual core Rangerly motherboard without a BMC was marketed, I would have bought that instead. Based on what you see in the marketplace, no motherboard manufacturer thinks there is sufficient consumer demand to justify the production of any Avoton or Rangerly motherboard without a BMC. Maybe that will change with Goldmont, but I would not bet on it. Motherboard manufacturers are convinced that consumers are too stupid to buy an affordable home server motherboard without an IGD and a BMC is required to access the data center market. I find it depressing to say so, but they are likely correct.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Forum post fantasies are important, but I see no evidence of consumer demand for 8 core Atom class solutions on the desktop.

There is a fad among mobile CPU companies causing them to cram multicore solutions into mobile products (admittedly, these are usually big.LITTLE arrangements that only use one cluster of cores at a time). Theoretically, a desktop OEM could ride the hype train, if enough people really cared enough to understand what was the source of all the hype.

 

[dark zero]

The 1007U is noticeably faster. Especially scrolling AT forums in Waterfox 38.1.0, even with more tabs open in the background. Edit: The N2830 is still pretty usable though.

If they were the same price, then the 1007U would win, hands-down. But the base price for that laptop was ~$350, and the N2830 was ~$184. Not counting RAM upgrades or SSDs. (Both have SSDs.)

And a Celeron 1000M is even better than the rest despite the higher comsumption... The best thing is that you can upgrade it to a Pentium or a Core i3!

 

[myocardia]

Even for video transcoding, consumer preferences likely favor Intel Quick Sync for it's combination of superior speed and low cost.

Agreed, which I'm pretty sure is the reason that Intel now includes Quick Sync on their lowest-cost 'desktop' parts, the J1800/J1900/J2900s.