Intel roadmap reveals 1.87GHz, dual-core Atom processors

Intel certainly hasn't been holding back on its near term plans for its MID-powering Atom processors, but the company has been a considerably more coy about anything beyond the initial 1.6GHz Atom 230 series processor. We now have a slightly better idea of what to expect from future MIDs, however, thanks to one of those always handy roadmaps that Notebook Italia has turned up. According to it, following Atom 230, Intel will dishing out two separate 1.87GHz processors, one of which will be a dual-core model, while the other will follow in the 230s footsteps with a 533MHz bus and 512KB of Level 2 cache memory. Unfortunately, there's no word as to when those processors will ship or how much they'll cost, but the roadmap does drop the tidbit that the 1.6GHz Atom 230 will cost just $29 in 1,000-unit quantities, which isn't too shabby at all.

[Via Electronista]

[AlphaTeam @ Mar 11th 2008 11:32AM]

Impressive. 1.87GHz Atom processors. I'm ready for a better and more reliable slate (more battery that is).

[erik @ Mar 11th 2008 11:35AM]

Sex in the halls, niagra falls, local shopping malls recieve anonymous calls

[aka_gus @ Mar 11th 2008 12:14PM]

Sex like a cheetah, neon mamasita?

[robofatty @ Mar 11th 2008 2:37PM]

Shop at Old Navy?

[Mark @ Mar 11th 2008 11:36AM]

Up and ATOM!

[Leo @ Mar 11th 2008 2:40PM]

Producer Guy: One more time...

Radioactive man: Up and at them!

Producer Guy: *sigh*

classic.

[dvdivx @ Mar 11th 2008 11:38AM]

Considering it's an in order chip and not an out of order chip I don't think computers with the atom brand chip will be all that great. It would be fine for smartphones or other low cpu intensive tasks. The only benchmark so far of the Atom line has been the PI test and it is around a Pentium III in performance. The only other CPU with in order execution is Via's powerhouse the C7. Via's next chip will have out of order execution just like the core duo's but considering their track record who knows how well it will perform.

[craig @ Mar 11th 2008 12:38PM]

Via's intention was to design simple, low power, modest performing processors. In that, their track record is good. Just because they are going superscalar and out of order doesn't mean that they are going after Intel's performance market. Atom is nothing more than what Via has been doing for a while now, so I don't know why you are suggesting that Via hasn't been successful. Unlike AMD, Via is not trying to take on Intel.

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Mar 11th 2008 11:38AM]

yeah def need one of these puppies for a low watt version of my current home server

[Ian @ Mar 11th 2008 11:42AM]

dvdivx,

Since I understand that Asus's eeepc is moving to an Atom CPU and likely so will other OEMs for small laptops, then the Atom will likely sell in millions and millions... IMHO of course.

[Liam @ Mar 11th 2008 12:22PM]

I am holding off on a purchase for a HTC Shift until they start putting a decent Atom chip in there as well as a SSD drive. £800+ is way too much atm.

[sinjinn @ Mar 11th 2008 12:38PM]

yeah , great looking device and seems very functional but it also seems to be about a year late for the price .

[dvdivx @ Mar 11th 2008 12:21PM]

At $29 per chip I'm not doubting that they will sell. I'm also not doubting that the first people who benchmark their Atom EEEPCs will be upset when the 900MHz Celeron outperforms it.

[Dave B @ Mar 11th 2008 12:30PM]

No offense Donald, but perhaps you (and you're not alone on this) can PROOFREAD a little before posting? I'm getting tired of filling in the words or changing wrong ones in order to read your posts. Kinda annoying.

[LondonConsultant @ Mar 11th 2008 2:11PM]

You had to mentally delete an "a" and insert a "be". I hope you recover from your suffering, it must have been terrible.

[Corwin @ Mar 11th 2008 2:48PM]

Not to mention removing an "ing" and adding an apostrophe...... it was the apostrophe that killed him.....

[Dave B @ Mar 11th 2008 4:08PM]

Right, because my point had to so much to do with how many times my brain farted on adding and subtracting letters. Go ahead and defend the 'professional' writers that can't proofread their work and do a better job of writing. It not only invalidates the professionalism of the site, but make readers like you realize it's ok to have a fifth grade knowledge of English when you try to get a job in the workforce.

[craig @ Mar 11th 2008 7:34PM]

Now Dave, you know there's no professionalism here. ;-)

I agree, Donald could use some improvement. I gave up sorting out all the commas.

[LondonConsultant @ Mar 11th 2008 8:18PM]

"It ... make readers like you realize it's ok to have a fifth grade knowledge of English".

Well, it makes (that's with an "s", because it's third-person singular) me realise (that's with an "s", in English) that there's more to life than playing grammar police...

[Anon @ Mar 11th 2008 3:33PM]

This is nothing compared to what is coming next. Intel has been working with actual atom processors for years, However this has not been stable to go to the market. The future that lies ahead is truly out there!

[Zach @ Mar 11th 2008 4:42PM]

source?

although i do agree that they have done extensive testing on them to get them stable (and the market really is just now starting to open up bigtime for things like the eeepc and even MIDs such as the nokia 80x) i disagree that they've been working with "actual atom processors for years" simply because if they were, we more then likely would have heard about ANYTHING beforehand... correct me if i'm wrong but the first reports of them at all came out a few weeks ago with the 'brand new atom processor'

[Zach @ Mar 11th 2008 4:45PM]

god damn engadget, can't you fix the comment system? you deleted half my comment!

basically i said:

i hadn't heard the atom name ever since about two weeks ago when the first said anything about them, and that it's very hard for large corporations (such as intel.) to get every employee that knows about them to shut their collective mouths.

[will @ Mar 11th 2008 8:42PM]

Of course, naming a dual core processor 'indivisible' isn't that bright. But then I suppose they were wrong about the original atoms too.

[Mike @ Apr 1st 2008 8:42PM]

Hmm, okay so can anyone who has the least bit of intelligence on the subject explain what exactly an atom processor is? I'm guessing it's just smaller?