Intel's Centrino Atom chips are officially official
By Paul Miller 
posted Apr 2nd 2008 9:21AM
posted Apr 2nd 2008 9:21AM
- Z500 - 800MHz, 0.65W TDP power, 400MHz FSB, 512K L2 cache ($45)
- Z510 - 1.1GHz, 2W TDP power, 400MHz FSB, 512K L2 cache ($45)
- Z520 - 1.33GHz, 2W TDP power, 533MHz FSB, 512K L2 cache ($65)
- Z530 - 1.6GHz, 2W TDP power, 533MHz FSB, 512K L2 cache ($95)
- Z540 - 1.86GHz, 2.4W TDP power, 533MHz FSB, 512K L2 cache ($160)
Bitchin'!
How dose these prices compare to the processors we use nowadays? Can someone explain please. :)
It seems like this is equivalent to having a CPU and motherboard packaged together.
I concour with iofthestorm. It's most of the components found in a computer, minus the storage and RAM. The advandage to Centrino ATOM is it uses a fraction of the power compared to a system where the components are separate or non-integrated.
.65-2.4watts for ATOM vs 20-30watts (or more) for other laptop chips. All of this combined means better battery life with out sacrificing much performance.
READ THIS:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3276
Wow are you telling us that this could be a low power cool HTPC chip?
Probably not, based on the press release. It mentions 720p/1080i support and doesn't get into specifics of what audio levels are supported. Any HTPC that I would consider would have to have 1080p support.
What? HD playback??
So those little suckers can playback 1080p movies without chocking??
HD is 720p.
HD may be 720p to you, but it's 1080p to me.
I'm guessing this chip "has HD" like AppleTV "has HD". Which is it can only play 24fps 720p, 5mbit H.264 streams.
In fact, I will go on record right now and speculate that if Apple revises Apple TV it will have an Atom in it next.
All these companies stretching the term HD isn't doing HD any favors. Apple TV's HD video isn't exactly up to snuff, but Comcast still handily outdoes them.
"HD may be 720p to you, but it's 1080p to me."
Well, HD "to you" is wrong then.
I guess I'm wrong too...
720p is just the first HD resolution (XGA/WXGA/"HD Ready"). 1080p is always labeled "Full HD" and on the bleeding edge is 4k, which as far as I know, doesn't have a standardized label yet.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html
#9
@chebwa
720p is HD, but HD is not just 720p. Anyone saying differently is wrong.
Full HD capability would be capability to drive all HD rez:
720p / 1080i / 1080p
I want my next Eee PC or MID to be able to drive my external 1080p TV and decode 1080p TS files
Why is everyone diging so deep into this shit?
The original comment basically said "wait, if these can do HD that means they can do 1080p," and I just pointed out that to "do HD" all they had to do was 720p.
i'm really diggin that little one, it can run on only .65W, crazy. It's all about battery life baby.
yeah, 8 of the 1.6 GHz is equivalent to Intel's current fastest at only 16 watts (well kinda, since the FSB is much slower). so why do desktop processors draw so much power?
wow pretty expensive. the duo-core celeron is cheaper than this. But I guess it's far more energy efficient. I'd still prefer the duo-core celeron in a UMPC.
...you wouldn't think so if the battery life is double that on the Atom-equipped device.
As for those that say this is expensive, you have to remember, this a complete-package, whereas if a device was to use a celeron chip for the same $45, the manufacturer would also have to spring for a graphics controller, among other things....
But mainly, people always underestimate the power (or lack-thereof!) issue in these portable-oriented processors.
"As for those that say this is expensive, you have to remember, this a complete-package, whereas if a device was to use a celeron chip for the same $45, the manufacturer would also have to spring for a graphics controller, among other things...."
Sadly, you're not correct on this fact - the Atom is not a complete package, it's a CPU, just like a Celeron.
Buy 1000 Atom Z500s from Intel and you'll need to buy 1000 chipsets to go with them, US15W being the most likely candidate.
So it's not cheap but, as you say, it should be low power. Or should it? The US15W, like any other Intel chipset, completely negates the power benefits of their fantastically-designed frugal CPUs...
At 2.3W TDP (with not much less typical power) it's a massive decrease over their desktop chipsets, but it's a crazy amount of juice for a mobile chipset to take. AMD's 690G takes about the same amount of power and has an integrated Radeon X700. SiS have made desktop chipsets for A64 X2s that consume much less than 2W.
What happens is you see the nice headline figure for the 800MHz CPU of 0.65W (which is only that low when you disable hyperthreading) but the HALT state is still 0.6W so you'll rarely dip below that when you're in Windows, and then you have to add on the 2.3W of power for the chipset - net result is that you're constantly using 3W of power just for CPU + chipset whenever it's switched on!!!!
And the 800MHz CPU performs way, way below what the eeePC's processor does. So bye bye, battery and for no decent performance. ARM honestly haven't got anything to worry about in this round. I wanted to love Silverthorne / Atom, but it's a dog. A few die shrinks down the line and that may well change.
Edit: I've just re-read the original article and it claims that the $45 includes the chipset. D'oh. Blame the wine.
Still, you can get a low end Celeron plus chipset for less than this, easily, which will handily outperform it and take a not dissimilar amount of power.
Kool
iPhone 2 ?!!!?
No.
I've decided, end of debate.
I am pretty sure these processors are for handheld devices like MP4 players, Cell Phones, PDA's, and portable devices like car DVD daskboard players, etc. I am sure it will find its way into the Ultra Portable Laptops, but that will be it. Like the man said, it is not in the same class as a Celeron or laptop processors.
already going in the Eee
I knew about that, but I was talking about the slue of other Eee clones that are due to be released soon.
Those processors are Silverthorne, which are meant for MIDs, portable media players, etc. This processor is tiny.
The processor meant for laptops is Diamondville, which has substantially lower prices. The 1.6 GHz one is $44.
As mentioned by a poster above, these chips are supposed to be "the complete package". As such, why do they have an FSB rating? Why do they have an FSB at all? If it has an FSB, that means it has a separate northbridge too. That's a lot of wasted balls (what you call pins now that BGA reigns). This chip has to have something like 66 balls just to connect to the northbridge and the northbridge then has to have 66 balls of FSB interface plus 36 or something of SDRAM (DDR2) interface. Putting the northbridge on-chip or even just on-package would save a lot of space and presumably money.
I enjoy thinking up the perfect Smartphone/pda/phone+extra:
Full browser/ Flash capable.
5MP camera
GPS
Integrated 8-16GB Flash or
MicroSDHC or SDHC
EVDO internet or equivalent
2 days of battery life under heavy usage
form factor of iPhone.
I think I pretty much described iPhone minus 5MP camera, 3G, GPS, battery life and Flash...
Oh this article is about Centrino Atom? oops..
"Thinking up the perfect" anything is easy; actually producing it, however, is a different story.
You listed nine items you'd want in your perfect device (splitting the first one) and then proceed to comment that you "pretty much" described the iPhone. Oh, except that it doesn't have 5 of the 9 items requested.
Leaving off arguments about whether 4/9ths equates to "pretty much", what was the point of this?
Unfortunately quality is another matter. Plenty of devices may match these specs, but is each feature any good? Cameras in particular, I bought the Nokia n95 because it's probably the only Smartphone that has a decent cam (and I use it all the time, it's a great memory aid and fun), but the other features are just not very good. These things have a long way to go, and gadget sites just spitting out the bare specs doesn't do anyone any good.
skyfire, google it
AMD is officially dead to me.
I wonder how well they overclock.
I hate to linger on appearances for a solid piece of hardware, but the appearance of those chips is almost artful.
Cue two hours wasted as I break out some art theory texts and try to put my thumb on why they're asthetically pleasing. They're freakin' chips after all!
Think Frank Lloyd Wright, think Prairie design, think Mondrian. They are beautiful!
(I was an aesthetics major back in the day)
...and Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Damn, I hope I don't start a flame war (AAPL vs MSFT).
This will be awsome but I have one question, how do they go from 0.65wat power for 800Mhz to 2 wats for 1.1Ghz, its only 300 mhz difference?
Look at the prices - the 800MHz one is clearly using a different manufacturing process to make it much more efficient, as it's likely to go into devices with smaller batteries like phones instead of full MIDs/UMPCs.
Our eyeballs have lower resolution than 1080p would provide on a handheld screen. Now if you are going to drive a 30 inch monitor with one of these...wait, why would we do that?
I wish someone will make a desktop with ATOM cpu, like NEC did in their PowerMate Eco (a laptop in desktop form). This is an awlsome machine but NEC stopped with only a Transmeta Crusoe and not the Efficeon chip. Damn them.
Looks like the Z530 offers the best balance of speed, power draw, and price.
BTW, The price shown includes the chipset.