nVidia + Via confirmed!

[aurionix]

Originally Posted by SLATYE

...it seems likely that the 1.8GHz Atom will perform about as fast as the 1GHz Pentium-M...

Got a source for this? Seems highly *unlikely* to me as the atoms have pretty woeful performance per clock cycle, but have a high clock speed to compensate for this. They're also designed primarilly as a high clockspeed, but low power solution (which keeps the widest range of consumers possible satisfied)

[goatman]

you musta dug right through to china to find this one

[porridge]

Originally Posted by aurionix

Got a source for this? Seems highly *unlikely* to me as the atoms have pretty woeful performance per clock cycle, but have a high clock speed to compensate for this. They're also designed primarilly as a high clockspeed, but low power solution (which keeps the widest range of consumers possible satisfied)

I knew the VIA Hardware forums were a bit slow but asking for someone to dig out a source for something two years old is a bit much.

[SLATYE]

Originally Posted by porridge

I knew the VIA Hardware forums were a bit slow but asking for someone to dig out a source for something two years old is a bit much.

Yes.

That post was (if I remember correctly) just speculation, since the entry-level Atom chips hadn't even been released. However, even now Wikipedia states that the Atom (single-core) is about half as fast as a Pentium-M at the same clock speed, so that'd largely agree with my post.

Edit: as you've said, Atoms do have woeful performance per clock cycle. That was the whole point of my original post. The Pentium-M has excellent performance per clock cycle (far, far better than the P4 - probably close to the original Core 2 CPUs in many things). As such, the Atom requires a much higher clock speed (eg. the 1.8GHz I stated) to match a much lower clocked Pentium-M (1GHz).

[mtma]

You'd be right, the original Core Duo series CPU's were exclusively mobile CPU's which was a dual core based off the old Pentium M architecture.

The Core 2 had a few tweaks (nm downsize? I forgot) and a desktop realisation. This was around the time of Presshots and Intel finally ceded that they had reached the end of the line with the netburst architecture.

[SLATYE]

Originally Posted by mtma

The Core 2 had a few tweaks (nm downsize? I forgot) and a desktop realisation. This was around the time of Presshots and Intel finally ceded that they had reached the end of the line with the netburst architecture.

The big tweak in Core 2 compared to the original Core was that it's got 64-bit support. If I remember correctly, they also added a pipeline stage (which reduced performance per clock cycle) but doubled the cache (which made up for the extra pipeline stage). In terms of performance, a low-end desktop Conroe-L chip like a Celeron-M 4xx shouldn't be much faster than a Pentium-M at the same clock speed. It would, of course, be much faster than an Atom or a P4 at the same clock speed.

[stmok]

Originally Posted by NTBlowz

http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA+Prom...ticle11452.htm

Looks like there will be 3 horse race for platform (Intel vs AMD/Ati vs nVidia + VIA)

Its amazing how much has changed in almost 3 years since this article aired.

* Nvidia jumped into bed with Intel. But it appears to be a short term thing. I don't think ION series is going to be around forever with the Atom. The era of the APU is gonna kill the budget-end GPU over time. (Atom's default IGP sucks ass; Intel needs to address this by incorporating Sandy/Ivy Bridge's IGP technology in a future version of the Atom.)

* Nvidia closes down their x86 chipset department, and turns to ARM-based market as a long term strategy.

They have become a factor in pushing ARM rivals like Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, and ST-Ericsson to ramp up their designs and announce next generation Cortex A15 based solutions...Nvidia is repeating their GPU strategy in the ARM market with their Tegra line. (Its good news for us, as it will serious push ARM up in performance. Although, it will likely to kill any rival who can't keep pace.) ...Nvidia has the long term goal of eventually bringing ARM to the desktop, server, and supercomputing markets with their Project Denver. (Cortex A15 based)

* AMD releases their E- and C-series (Zacate/Ontario)...OEMs love these Bobcat-based APUs, and they've had to call on TSMC to manufacture more due to overwhelming demand! AMD is going after the tablet market next with Wichita/Krishna in 2012. This APU is popular because it addresses areas where Intel's Atom currently fails.

* VIA ended up using S3 GPU technology with their Nano in some of their solutions. They still haven't addressed their support issues. (Developer, driver, etc). Interestingly, they have an ARM-based processor: VIA VT8500
Its often bundled in a super-cheap netbook form using Windows CE 6.0 or older versions of Android...VIA goes after the cheap, niche markets in China with such solutions.

Personally, I think VIA should follow Nvidia's path. Dump x86 and switch to ARM. (ARM Holdings is far more friendlier in licensing their architecture than Intel is with x86.) ...There's also the fact that Microsoft is offering an ARM port in their next Windows version.

Oh hell, even the "One Laptop Per Child" project is dumping x86 to ARM as of XO-1.75 onwards.

XO-1 => AMD Geode (x86)
XO-1.5 => VIA C7 (x86)
XO-1.75 => Marvell Armada 610 (ARM)
XO-2 => Cancelled. Was to use Marvell Armada 610 (ARM)
XO-3 => Marvell Armada 610 (ARM)