backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by crystal clear.. on Jul 22 at 2:25 AM

Intel's CEO talks about the Atom processor

Intel's Atom processor has been labeled as the Holy Grail of small-scale mobile computing. Now, however, Intel CEO Paul Otellini has changed his tune a bit with regards to Intel's Atom processor. Otellini was asked by reporters during the company’s quarterly conference call to expound upon his thoughts on the diminutive, 45nm processor and how its place in Intel's product lineup would affect other low-end processors like the Celeron.

"We do not see [Atom] replacing Celeron," said Otellini. "If you look at the netbook products being built around Atom, they’re all lower-priced, lower features, smaller screen size notebooks aimed at first-time buyers or the second, third or fourth machine in a household. We don’t see any cannibalization."

When pressed further, Otellini went into further detail with regards to the performance of Intel's Atom processor. "[Atom] is less than a third of the performance of our Centrino (high-end mobile processor)," added Otellini. "You’re dealing with something that most of us wouldn’t use."

The company first began making rumblings about the processor at last year's IDF in San Francisco and earlier this year officially announced Silverthorne and Diamondville as the Intel Atom.

In early March -- shortly after the official announcement of Atom and Centrino Atom -- Intel Otellini hailed that the chip would help the company tap into $40 billion USD worth of new markets.

"It’s not just the 1 billion people that have access to the Internet now. It’s the next 2 billion people," said Otellini in March. "It’s not just about selling more PCs, but bringing new devices and new price points to bring those people onto the Internet. We are not talking about repurposing old silicon, but designing new silicon for each of these different areas."

It's quite puzzling that such a comment would come from Intel's CEO given the company's insistence on the importance of Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs) based on the Atom platform. There's also the fact that Microsoft even opened up its arms to embrace Windows XP Home a bit longer for "netbooks" – a classification of low-cost notebooks that Intel itself coined.

Small netbooks ranging from the MSI Wind to the Eee PC 901/1000h to the Acer Aspire One all use Intel's new 1.6GHz Atom processors. Companies like Dell and HP aren't that far behind with their own Atom-based offerings at all.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By JasonMick (blog) on 7/17/2008 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 4
It seems to me that this is wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Otellini. Small, cheap computers like the MSI Wind and EeePC have sold great and promise to do even better overseas, where users can't afford a 1,700+ fully loaded quad core gaming machine.

This is bad news for Intel, though. As I discussed in my last article on Intel, the one chink in the giant's armor is poor profit margin growth. Even if Intel sells lots of Atom processors, the price is so much below the Core 2 duo/quad core processors that they make much less profit on them.

Eventually this could become a serious threat to Intel, if most users adopt low cost processors for the majority of their computing. Intel has made a killing by making customers THINK they need a dual/quad core for mundane tasks like word processing or web surfing. There will always be a market for high powered cores, but it seems that consumers will increasingly move to cheaper, more power efficient cores; bad news for Intel.

No wonder Mr. Otellini would wishfully not want the current state of things to change...




By AssassinX on 7/17/2008 2:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wow I'm an idiot, I should read my own post. Please ignore what I said earlier. I just never heard of "chink in the armor". Just sounds so wrong...


By ImSpartacus on 7/17/2008 10:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
No you are very right. Many people understand (including myself) what a "chink in armor" would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_(disambiguation...

quote:
A crevice or crack or other small narrow space, usually involving brick or stone and typically concerning brickwork but also in reference to stonework as well as natural rockfaces and also metalwork such as armour. "A chink in one's armour" refers to a weakness in an otherwise strong presence/defence,; often meaning a flaw in somebody's argument or organization.


By Alpha4 on 7/21/2008 5:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
That is so wrong its almost right.

For shame!


By piroroadkill on 7/17/2008 2:33:32 PM , Rating: 5
No, he means chink, chink means a small gap, "chink in their armour" is a time-old phrase, and has no racist connotations at all, quite the contrary, the racial slur chink is based upon the original meaning, due to people of east asian descent having thin narrow eye openings.. that is to say akin to the apperance of a "chink"

btw, not racist


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/17/2008 2:38:25 PM , Rating: 5
I already made the move.

I previously had a desktop machine with a Pentium Dual Core 2160 processor overclocked to 2.25GHz, 2GB of RAM, a 200GB HDD, and a GeForce 7300 LE graphics processor. I also had an Eee PC 4G to compliment it.

I sold the Eee PC about a month ago on eBay, and I just gave the desktop to friends who wanted a cheap desktop.

I'm now using an MSI Wind as my sole desktop/laptop machine. The Wind of course has a 1.6GHz Atom processor, 80GB HDD, and 1GB of RAM (I today cracked open the case and upgraded it to 2GB).

It works perfectly as a desktop machine. I have my 22" LCD hooked up via the VGA port, a USB keyboard plugged in, a USB hub for various other peripherals, and a 250GB external 2.5" HDD.

I'm running Windows XP Home SP3 just fine and am not really missing my old desktop. Sure, it's a tad bit slower than my old system for some tasks, but for my everyday needs, it fits perfectly.

When I need to use it as a notebook, I just unplug all the extra gear and head out. The larger keyboard (compared to my Eee PC) is a big plus and the LED-backlit screen is brilliant.

I must say, I'm very impressed so far.


By therealnickdanger on 7/17/2008 6:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
I want to be you. But seriously, I wasn't even aware the Wind was available already? That's what I've been waiting for! Time to do some shopping!


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/17/2008 6:45:15 PM , Rating: 3
I got mine of Mwave's eBay store for $499 - $125 (Microsoft Live cashback, see here for details on cashback -- http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=... )

Newegg had them in stock shortly, and I think some other retailers are now getting them finally.


By wrekd on 7/17/2008 11:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Brandon,

Have you by chance tested any games on it? I was wondering if the integrated graphics chip could handle WoW? I have a Mac Mini with a GMA 950 that handles it well enough, but wonder if this little beast could do it too.


By Lianna on 7/18/2008 6:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
I have MSI Wind, too, and I played Lineage II C4 and it is playable on low details and 1024x600 (full screen, native resolution). Try reading http://forums.msiwind.net/gaming/ and http://wiki.msiwind.net/index.php/Windows_Games - they have a list of tested games and a link on the bottom of the page shows video of gameplay, WoW included. Someone at http://blog.laptopmag.com/gaming-on-the-msi-wind tried City of Heroes, another MMO.


By baadcatj on 7/17/2008 10:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
When you check something on Wikipedia, double-check for disambiguation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_(disambiguation... - in case the meaning you found doesn't fit with the meaning of the word the author was intending, or use a dictionary or thesaurus.

....

While the Atom is not a high-end processor, by the sheer smallness in size and decent overall abilities, it definitely does have it's place.

Even reading the article that this DT article is referencing, it is unclear that the CEO is saying that Intel wouldn't use them. I'd like to hear/read the full extent of that conversation as it sounds a little out of context as the CEO does not see cannibalization of the Centrinos or Celerons and is 'enthusiastic' about the 'robust demand' for them.

Looking at the specs of the processor, my recollection is that the Pentium M that the Atom (at twice the core clock speed) beats in performance by about 20%, does so at 2-4 watts TDP while the Pentium M put out 6-25 watts.

So, what we have here is about the performance of a laptop from 2 generations ago, for a lower price, better power efficiency, smaller package size and lower TDP. The only down-side is that there doesn't seem to us that there is nearly as much of a market for them as what Intel thinks.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will they work well in perhaps a new generation of networked-tablet PC, especially for the direction that electronic health-care records is heading. Either Intel is a little ahead of the curve (good for them), a bit behind cell-phone makers or they just came up with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


By baadcatj on 7/17/2008 10:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
wow - with everything going on in my house right now, it took me over an hour to post that - in that time, someone else already brought up the disambiguation - I guess I must be a lot faster next time!


By Icelight on 7/17/2008 2:33:50 PM , Rating: 1
Even with that being the case, does Intel not make the majority of sales from the business computing end of the spectrum? I doubt businesses will ever move to such machines.

Of course, there is the whole "untapped" market thing that was mentioned...but that market was described as being untapped solely due to the previous cost of computers (therefore Intel couldn't hope to sell better-"margined" systems there).


By Marlowe on 7/17/2008 9:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
This story agrees with the commentary posted on The Inquirer yesterday called "Why Intel really hates the Atom". I guess there must be something to it after all then, since both of you post about it. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/0...

I think one of the reasons Intel "hates" the Atom is because if manufacturers and end user find that an Atom is good enough for them, then they also have the VIA cpu's competing in the same marketplace with much the same performance/wattage as the Atom. VIA can't compete with the newest 2,6 GHz Core2Duo mobile processors from Intel, but in the low-power, "low-performance" market, VIA is strong.

A bit on the side but almost in the same market you also have AMD and ARM processors, even tho the latter isn't x86 AFAIK. Also NVIDIA is currently in the works of making a CPU+GPU for this very market if I'm not mistaken.


By mmntech on 7/17/2008 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't need a processor much faster than 1.6ghz for basic tasks. You don't need quad core processors to do a little internet shopping, watch Youtube videos and IM your friends, which is what most people use computers for. I've even coaxed 720p video out of my laptop which runs a 1.33ghz PowerPC G4. (Quicktime with GPU acceleration on a Radeon 9550) Even common dual core processors are more than most people need unless you do a lot of multitasking.

I don't know who he's saying doesn't want an Atom but I certainly do. I've had my eye on the Eee 1000 and the Acer Aspire One as eventual lightweight (physical and software) replacements for my iBook. I think we're eventually going to see the death of big tower desktops as the economy declines and people want cheaper, smaller alternatives. The big hurdle is clearing up all the misconceptions about computers, like your system being obsolete the second you buy it. Who cares if it is if it does what you need it too.


By Oregonian2 on 7/17/2008 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he said nobody would use it. He said "we" wouldn't use it. Who exactly is this "we" (from his perspective and within his meeting's context)? Does "we" mean "all living persons in the world"? Probably not.

I'm waiting for the pink MSI Wind's (with 6-cell battery) to come out so that I can buy one for my wife, it's perfect for her use when she goes portable. But if I tried to use it for my LTspice work, it'd be totally useless (a 3.2 Ghz Pentium IV is proving to be nearly so as well -- I've got a request in for something faster with floating point).


By Mojo the Monkey on 7/17/2008 2:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think the cpu power race may be back on one day... when someone finally makes an operating system that requires (yes, actually requires) massive computing power; one that actually uses it to enhance the user experience and level of interactivity with the computer.

I know I'm hear comparison to Vista now, but Vista was just an embarrassment with how much power it "requires". There isnt anything you cant simulate on XP with a few mods with 1/2 the hardware requirements. Its the same old school 2d model with new paint.

No, I'm talking about a truly 3D interface, set out in such a way that it changes the way you interface and access your computer. I think the concept is still being solidified by various developers. In any case, that's the big jump I've been waiting for all these years.

Sorry for the tangent. But I want my re-invented OS now!


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/17/2008 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 1
How would you propose to have a 3D interface with a 2D monitor?


By Boze on 7/17/2008 6:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
The same way we have 3D games on a 2D monitor, MK. More specifically, I think he means all objects represented in 3-dimensional space. Imagining opening a file container in your OS and you see rows and columns of files in ranks as cubes. You could use the mouse to scroll the y and x axis and use your scroll wheel to forward and backward on the z axis for instance.

That's what he means... I think? Care to clarify for us? :)


By Mojo the Monkey on 7/18/2008 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is basically what I was getting at.

And hey, why not, throw in some power gloves! :)


By DeepBlue1975 on 7/17/2008 7:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean to be rude, but boy, I really think you're having a problem of lack of PERSPECTIVE, which RENDERS your comment senseless. That's just a PROJECTION from my POINT OF VIEW, though. :D


By drebo on 7/17/2008 9:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you seen Hackers?

Sheesh!


By Clauzii on 7/18/2008 3:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
Or "Disclosure". The coolest library ever :)


By Zandros on 7/17/2008 3:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can't say that. A 1.6GHz Atom isn't even comparable to any modern out of order architecture with the same clock frequency. It's a little faster than a 800MHz Dothan at most tasks.

And, well, in a while we will require quad-core processors to watch Youtube.


By winterspan on 7/17/2008 10:37:19 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly...

I can't believe in 2008 I see someone using "1.6 Ghz" as if all processors are the same. The Atom CPU is pretty pathetic actually.

I mean come on guys, even for a "netbook" or lightweight laptops, at least get something like an 1.2-1.6 Core 2 Duo ULV ("Ultra-low voltage").

Where did this obsession with small/cheap/POS laptops with the lowest quality parts as possible come from anyways??


By rudolphna on 7/17/2008 10:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
God forbid! I like my desktop computer that i can open, upgrade, and build myself. Sure im still running a Pentium 4, but i like my tower. Lots of room for ventilation. I dont know about anyone else, but i would like to keep my tower, as opposed to a small, lightweight, namby pamby laptop. Of course, i do lots of gaming, so i need a high end PC. (P4 661 (3.6Ghz, Oced to 4.2 with a Thermalright cooler)


By sonoran on 7/17/2008 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if Intel sells lots of Atom processors, the price is so much below the Core 2 duo/quad core processors that they make much less profit on them

You overlook the fact that you get a lot more ATOM processors from a wafer than you do Core 2 Duo or Quad. Margins on ATOM are, at least today, just fine. Your argument about margin erosion probably does have validity, but for a completely different reason - competition will inexorably drive selling prices, and margins, down.

As for users deciding they don't need powerful machines, someday we'll probably get there. But let me ask you this - as of today, how many people have you ever heard say to you "my computer is too fast, I should have bought a cheaper one"?


By spuddyt on 7/17/2008 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not sure thats neccesarily the case, because how many individual atom chips do you think Intel can squeeze out of any given wafer with such small chips with low transistor counts?


By spuddyt on 7/17/2008 3:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
hmm.. maybe I should read the prior post before posting myself ^^


By skaaman on 7/17/2008 6:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think your missing the point of what Mr Otellini is alluding to. While it's nice to have the equivalent of a Pentium M at a low power draw running a Netbook, it would seem clear the goal would be to continue to shrink and drop the power consumption of the chip to make it feasible for inclusion in smaller CE devices such as smart phones and all kinds of electronic devices. Intel doesn't intend to sell lots of Atom processors... they intend to sell lots and lots and lots of Atom processors. While they won't make as much on each chip, they intend to make it up on the volume. At this point it's real early in the game for them. Lets see where they are at when we get a look at 32nm and 22nm silicon.


By William Gaatjes on 7/18/2008 7:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think Intel want's to flood the market with x86 isa compatible chips.

Intel has in the embedded and the small devices world the competition from ARM. Those ARM chips have everything embedded making them perfect for integrating into ever smaller devices. But they have 1 flaw : Not x86 compatible.
The x86 isa is an industry standard and intel knows it. If intel can make x86 the dominant isa in these markets as well, just because of the sake of patents they will allways have an income.

That is what they want. If everybody uses x86 for everything. Intel can live even more like the guy who invented the paperclip.


By William Gaatjes on 7/18/2008 8:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
ARM is afcourse also an industry standard and widely just not x86 compatible.


By Comdrpopnfresh on 7/17/2008 7:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I think Intel's in a tough spot- trying to sell and promote a product, without it taking away from their other offerings. It makes sense too- if their margins on the atom are lower, why would they want it to become a large portion of their sales?
Also, intel does very well in releasing a bevy of new chips for the desktop and mobile quite often. It seems an undertaking like atom is less likely to see different tiers, and get refreshed as often. So if people began to buy more atom-equipped systems, Intel would have to redirect, and not sell as much of the product they've become good at churning out


By afkrotch on 7/17/2008 11:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think much will change in the way of markets that have already been entrenched by Intel products. Doubtful that many ppl will up and think "I don't need this dual/quad core computer. I can do with a single core 1.6 ghz Atom to do the youtube/myspace/email/other menial tasks." If they can afford the higher end, they'll go for the higher end. If I have $2000 to blow, will I go for that 50" tv or the much cheaper $1000 40" tv.

I see possible problems with the emerging markets that they are trying to hit. If they get use to using low end PCs, will they ever want to move to something higher? I'm thinking Intel is going to need to come up with a good reason to jump up to a higher end offering, when that time comes.

Deceptive advertising should be enough.


By swizeus on 7/18/2008 1:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yup... absolutely right.... the processor is so powerful that all the person who just need surfing and wordprocessing will opt for it. Disaster for intel because the profit there is low


By excelsium on 7/18/2008 2:46:45 AM , Rating: 1
Many more people are using the PC for creative purposes (photoshop, video editing, games etc etc), they need the power.. basically most young people will need and want the power.


By yuhong on 7/20/2008 3:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
It looks like multi-core + more powerful processors has created a "nudge" toward the higher-end. I mean, here is another example. There were once days where dual-Celerons were common. Today's processors don't allow things like this anymore. In fact, since the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64, desktop processors are physically impossible to put on a SMP motherboard. You need Xeons and Opterons for SMP, which are more expensive. But thanks to multi-core processors, SMP is now common on consumer systems, and since 8 cores is overkill even for most enthusiasts because of diminishing returns, the Xeon/Opteron kind of high-end isn't as common as it once are.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00023.htm


By yuhong on 7/20/2008 3:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know that multi-processor offerings targeted at enthusiasts are still sometimes done, such as AMD's 4x4 and Intel's Skulltrail, but still...


By crystal clear on 7/22/2008 2:25:37 AM , Rating: 2
Got to remind you that-

During Intel's second-quarter investor's conference last week, company executives said the Atom has been such a strong seller that the company has had to revise up its production estimates every 40 days. Demand for the chips have not just been in netbooks, they said, but also in embedded devices and consumer electronics.

The Atom N270, the mini-laptop version of the microprocessor, costs $44, compared with $29 for the Atom 230 — the desktop or "nettop" version of the chip — according to Intel Corp.'s latest price list.

Got to remind you that Intel has set up guidlines/preconditions for OEMs about the use of ATOMS in their product lines.
OEMs have to adhere to these guidlines to qualify for the use of ATOM in their products.
These guidlines ensure Intel's sale/use of the CORE 2 DUO processors are NOT affected in a negative way.

Refer to Intel website for more details about the restrictions for the uss of ATOMS.


otenelli is full of it.
By hans007 on 7/17/2008 6:41:19 PM , Rating: 3
a lot of the reasons he says we wouldnt use an atom are intel imposed.

you cant buy an atom board with hdmi or dvi because intel wont let companies build that.

there arent full size laptops with atom onboard, becuase intel probably discourages that as well.

they know that atom will take over some of the celeron sales if they do.




RE: otenelli is full of it.
By strmbkr on 7/17/2008 10:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now I'm hoping more and more that the VIA/Nvidia Alliance will be true/succeed/not a rumor. I would drool if there is a VIA Nano equipped with a Nvidia 8200 or 8300 graphics chipset.


RE: otenelli is full of it.
By sprockkets on 7/17/2008 11:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
No. Check out www.mini-itx.com and see boards with HDMI out on them.


RE: otenelli is full of it.
By sprockkets on 7/17/2008 11:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... if you could find this board...

http://www.jwele.com/motherboard_detail.php?419


Yep - long day ...
By xphile on 7/17/2008 11:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel CEO: Atom is Something "Most of us Wouldn't Use"


"I've changed my mind" Otellini was today reported as saying. "You can't use these things - The Atom is just far too big and cumbersome. Who the hell wants to be dragging around all that bulk all day long."

"We need to work on Sub-Atomic Cpu's and accordingly I am today announcing the immediate availability of "The Electron", "The Proton" and "The Neutron".

"Eat Sh!t AMD - you can't beat that, hell, I had one on my desk today and you can't even FIND it!"




RE: Yep - long day ...
By Segerstein on 7/18/2008 6:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
"You’re dealing with something that most of us wouldn’t use."

That's precisely true, but the reason is because a large majority of people don't have a third or fourth computer!!!

You have:
* a desktop/server
* a 15"/17" laptop/mobile workstation
* a smartphone (Symbian, Windows Mobile, iPhone)
* an EEE

Atom will become more widespread when put into smartphones. Netbooks aren't that widely spread (yet) ;-)


Other CPUs most of us wouldn't use
By flipsu5 on 7/18/2008 7:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
Most of us are not smart enough to build our own systems.

Average joe goes to Best Buy or Circuit City or Fry's and looks for best bargain Centrino or else goes to chic Apple store for one of the fashionable Mac Airs.

These fancy QXXXX's would never be comprehended by average joe. If comprehended, he still wouldn't buy them.




By flipsu5 on 7/18/2008 7:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, "most of us" on the forum are smart enough, but I was referring to "most of us" as Otellini's intended customers/market/audience.


weird
By sprockkets on 7/17/2008 6:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
For about $120 you can get Intel's 1.6ghz atom board, a case, whereas most mini-ITX boards cost $175 for a decent one, and $225 for a Intel board not made by Intel.

Sure, won't have the same performance, but for most, this fits perfectly. So does the cool built in Linux interface in the Asus EEE box.




By Clauzii on 7/18/2008 3:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Clauzii: Atom is something that "Fits most users computational needs."




By psychobriggsy on 7/18/2008 8:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not really that interested in Atom until it comes with a chipset with hardware accelerated video and better 3D (for casual playing of games on the move), which the 945 certainly isn't. Sure, Paulsbo has it, but that's a really cut down chipset otherwise for MIDs. Maybe the new Intel chipset with GMA4500 could be used, that's built on a 65nm process too so won't be too power hungry.

I think a VIA Nano + NVIDIA chipset would be a far better proposition for many people, even if it isn't quite as frugal power-wise (as long as it is in the same ballpark).

Hopefully Atom mini-itx boards will force VIA to drop the prices of its similar boards to reasonable prices. They've been overcharging for these products for far too long.

On the other hand, if Dell's Atom based notebook is as cheap as it has been suggested it will be, I will probably compromise on my desire for certain functions.

Atom is also more than good enough for checking your work email, and using Office. What happens when businesses realise this?




Otellini's product management
By flipsu5 on 7/18/2008 7:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Otellini was supposed to be Intel's top product manager before he became CEO. But recently it seems he has been positioning processors all over the place, without really knowing which ones will succeed. It seems bound to have at least some Intel processors sell poorly compared to others.

Atom has smaller die so would be cheaper to make, but it is essentially a commodity item with no value added (all the key Core 2 Duo stuff taken away so it's slower than 65 nm Centrino). This is in the wrong direction; it is more like manufacturing memory, where no one is doing good business (not even Intel's Flash collaborations). So Otellini suddenly realizes this and has to about-face on the Atom. Since he put the spin "most of us wouldn't use" it would have to be dropped. You either dedicate entire wafers to Atom or to Core 2 Duo, not both.




It would seem to me
By tarpon on 7/20/2008 9:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
People will figure out how much compute they need and buy that. I think that Intel would like things to stay the way they were, not the way they are going to be. Good enough is good enough, You decide.

A cheap CPU will work fine as a home network server, or as a low cost email/browser machine, most of the speed restrictions are comm related, not CPU limited.

If Intel didn't have Atom, then people would use ARM.




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki