what exactly do you mean by "only the first"? what exactly are you waiting for?
I think the problem is Ion or lack thereof. Atom 330 has the Ion option, Pine Trail does not. Ion 2 is supposed to show in a few months, so I suspect the non-Intel MB makers are waiting for Ion 2.
which according to intel is illegal for nvidia to make. The pinetrail platform:
1. Slightly reduce manufacturing cost (yet it costs more to buy)
2. slightly reduce power consumption (justification for higher cost)
3. Made it incompatible with ION.
intel shot themselves in the foot with pinetrail, i mean the made it incompatable with ION on purpose, what were they thinking. And its barley faster than the original. I had high hopes for it but not now, i think its junk.
I couldn't be happier with how Intel is executing its business model.!
Absolutely, it's about profit. Intel should be very profitable. Stock holders love profitable companies. Simply read Anand's latest Atom article to understand Pine Trail's upgrades or lack thereof. Mostly about lower cost and power, almost no performance increase.So you're okay with them basically making the most minimal improvements to Atom, locking out competitor's chipsets for it, and using shady business tactics to keep manufacturers from using competing CPUs? The Via Nano actually outperforms the Atom by a large margin, and the newest models have nearly the same power envelope.
You'll have to prove that statement. But even if it were true it wouldn't matter. If AMD is a marginal player in x86, Via is 0ne-tenth of AMD and couldn't produce the 2+M CPU's/mo the Netbook space will consume. I remember HP having a Via Netbook, where is it today?The Via Nano actually outperforms the Atom by a large margin,
It's an industry tread, in two generations from now chipsets will disappear, on AMD too. All the chipset functionality will be on die, Atom is just one of the first. Get on board the train or get run over.locking out competitor's chipsets
intel shot themselves in the foot with pinetrail, i mean the made it incompatable with ION on purpose, what were they thinking. And its barley faster than the original. I had high hopes for it but not now, i think its junk.
You are confusing integration with induced incompatibility... the sandy bridge works via integration, the current ATOM did not INTEGRATE anything, it is a die with two separate chips and it is meant to break compatibility. They COULD have designed it to be a genuine integration (which would still cut out nvidia, but do so legitimately)It's an industry tread, in two generations from now chipsets will disappear, on AMD too. All the chipset functionality will be on die, Atom is just one of the first. Get on board the train or get run over.
You'll have to prove that statement. But even if it were true it wouldn't matter. If AMD is a marginal player in x86, Via is 0ne-tenth of AMD and couldn't produce the 2+M CPU's/mo the Netbook space will consume. I remember HP having a Via Netbook, where is it today?
From your link:Easy enough to prove, first hit on a Google search for 'Via Nano benchmarks'.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/10/193205
You don't see many Nano based netbooks on the market because of Intel's shady tactics, locking out competitors, induced incompatibilities, having programs check CPUIDs for Intel and running slower if non-Intel is detected, etc.
What good is a faster Nano if the battery is dead? All you Intel bashers overlook the competitors "little" flaws. How convenient. The fact that 50-million Atom netbooks have been sold is clear evidence that the market has voted . . . decisively. Clearly the Atom was fast enough for those folks and BTW it was still running at the end of the day. Cheers.Power consumption
Next to performance, the issue that most preoccupies netbook manufacturers is power consumption. For power economy, Intel's Atom has a clear advantage. The 1.8GHz VIA Nano needs a hefty 20W more under full load than the Atom.
From your link:
What good is a faster Nano if the battery is dead? All you Intel bashers overlook the competitors "little" flaws. How convenient. The fact that 50-million Atom netbooks have been sold is clear evidence that the market has voted . . . decisively. Clearly the Atom was fast enough for those folks and BTW it was still running at the end of the day. Cheers.
What good is a faster Nano if the battery is dead? All you Intel bashers overlook the competitors "little" flaws. How convenient. The fact that 50-million Atom netbooks have been sold is clear evidence that the market has voted . . . decisively. Clearly the Atom was fast enough for those folks and BTW it was still running at the end of the day. Cheers.
When the entire paragraph is quoted the meaning changes. If battery is the most important to you, then the samsung NC20 netbook with VIA's 1.3ghz CPU matches the atom's power consumption while being faster across the board.Power consumption
Next to performance, the issue that most preoccupies netbook manufacturers is power consumption. For power economy, Intel's Atom has a clear advantage. The 1.8GHz VIA Nano needs a hefty 20W more under full load than the Atom. Here, the Atom's 45nm feature size pays off. But VIA can compete in this area with its power-efficient 1.3GHz variant, which is used in Samsung's new NC20 netbook. Despite this chip's lower clock speed, it should still be able to beat the higher-clocked Atom in important benchmarks, such as the internet tests.