Atom processor to cost Intel just $6 to $8?
By Darren Murph 
posted March 30th 2008 5:46AM
posted March 30th 2008 5:46AM
Ever since Intel compared the criticality of its (still) forthcoming Silverthorne (which now goes by Atom, if you couldn't guess) processor to the original Pentium last June, we've all wondered just how fantasmical our worlds would become when this thing finally dropped. Now, however, Tom's Hardware has discovered that the release may actually do more for Intel than we geeks. After consulting a source it believes to be quite credible, it found that the CPU -- which will likely sell for upwards of $30 at the low-end -- will cost Intel just "$6 to $8, including production, packaging and shipping." Without busting out the abacus, it's still fairly easy to see how profitable said chips could be if Intel can move these at even a snail's pace, but of course, we'd take the dollars and cents estimates with a grain of salt until they actually hit the market.[Via Digg]
I don't think people have a real appreciation for not just the R&D cost but also the capital costs that goes into chip-making. Cutting edge processes that make these smaller and smaller processors and memory modules often require new processing tools or conversion of existing resources. I am an engineer in an R&D fab and I can tell you that development of these future technologies doesn't just happen by accident or cheaply at all. Meeting the customer demands of reliability and consistent performance is extremely difficult and the technology these days just isn't keeping up with market demands. Add to that the diminishing margins per Mbit DRAM and NAND products and you get a perfect storm for semi companies. I bet Intel will spend ~$20/chip and make a 30% return on a per-wafer basis for the ATOM processor. That doesn't even factor in volume discounts the customers will demand, or additional in-production development to boost yield.
Up and at dem!
Yum 20 Atom chips are powering my next server.
if this brings 8+ hours to subnotebooks, I'm all for it.
if Intel doesn't' start making desktop chips with TDP's below 30 watts that idle at 1 or 2 watts (without the need for speed step or extended halt obviously) , why would they deserve to sell processors? because they don't really!, who wants to pay 150$ a year more on the power bill just for having a 95w power drainer processor running java apps..Via can make a 500MHZ cpu that has a TDP' of 1 watt. 4 of these in parallel on a 4 sockets board takes 4 watts at full load and give you 2GHZ of true parallel power. frankly this kind of power and efficiency is hard to beat. Unless quad-cores become quad oscillators with 4 processors on one chip with a 25w TDP. Anyways people shouldn't support processors that aren't energy efficient (at least 35 watts and below), because they require fans as loud as hair dryers, they drain your power bills, and are bad for the environment - Intel making performance desktop processors with a TDP factor below 20 watts would be.... well, quite revolutionary to say the least