Intel officially ships 1.6GHz dual-core Atom 330 processor

Wait, what's this? Intel's shipping the dual-core Atom 330? Despite reports that the 1.6GHz chip wouldn't actually leave the dock until Q4, Intel itself has stepped up to ensure everyone that it's getting 'em out in Q3. The brief points out the obvious -- you know, that the 330 was designed with nettops in mind -- while also confirming that it boasts 1MB of L2 cache, an 8-watt TDP and support for DDR2 667. So yeah, let's get these in some systems, shall we?

[Syliss @ Sep 20th 2008 2:10PM]

Now if i can get this into a netbook, ill fianally take the plunge!

[kaimonkey @ Sep 20th 2008 2:36PM]

totally agreeing wit u bro
if
the
price
remains
relativly the same price
tho even that is a bit high :(

[Juxtah @ Sep 20th 2008 2:43PM]

Dual core is great, however I'm a little apprehensive about battery life. With current average nettops getting between 1.5 and 3 hours, a extra TDP could cause battery life to drop significantly:(

Hopefully most good manufacturers can offset this in some way.

[E71 @ Sep 20th 2008 3:19PM]

Damn right. I'm waiting for the next PMP (probably Archos) to use this processor so it's finally powerful enough for 720p/1080p H264 MKVs.

I completely ignored the last 2 generations of Archos PMPs because they omitted support for this... now that we have this processor, there's NO excuse.

[coolbee8 @ Sep 20th 2008 3:46PM]

@e71

What are you smoking? This chip is meant for small laptops/netbooks, even so it can not decode 1080p alone smoothly; beside, you wont notice any difference between hd and sd even on the latest archos series, due to limited screen res and size, not to mention the space 1080p content takes, plus the side-effects of a 8w cpu in the pmp.

[E71 @ Sep 20th 2008 4:38PM]

@coolbee8

Actually, regular single-core Atom processor can play HD video:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/04/via-nano-trounces-intel-atom-in-hd-video-playback-not-quite/

Given that we now have 2 cores, it's highly likely it'll be capable of HD video playback.

Also, you're probably the billionth person to say there's no point of HD on small screen devices like Archos PMPs. However, I'm afraid you're wrong because:
a) I already have a large collection of 720p/1080p resolution video I'd like to watch on the go WITHOUT having to re-encode them to a lower resolution + supported codec. In other words, I just want to drag and drop them straight onto my PMP and watch them.
b) It may not make as big a difference on a small screen as it does on a large screen but IT DOES make a difference since we're downscaling high resolution video and so any artifacts in the video appear less noticeable.

You do have a point regarding the power though... maybe we'll have to wait forever for fuel cell batteries to become standard (and compact)!

[gb115b @ Sep 20th 2008 5:32PM]

yeah! also if they actually manage to have a poulsbo chip (rather than the 945GSE) that supports it would help offset the exta 4W power draw .. oh and better 1080p accel to boot....

@E71 -> feeling the same way myself re: high def content...i'm certainly not gonna attempt to keep a seperate version of everying for my portable players...already do that with my CDs in Flac and AAC for my ipod and its a royal pain...

[msalivar @ Sep 20th 2008 7:01PM]

Don't worry about the TDP, the chipset is most to blame for the poor battery life of current netbooks. Now that they're dual core, all we need is a new, power efficient chipset to make netbooks worthwhile for me.

[nerdtalker @ Sep 20th 2008 7:08PM]

I'm pretty sure it was engadget that reported on it, but the D945GCLF2 (2 for dual core) motherboard with the dual core atom has been shipping at mini-box for well over two weeks so far.

There's a lot of misinformation about TDP=total consumed power. The last story made the incorrect conclusion that total power draw was 8 watts. Unfortunately, that really isn't the case.

I've built 10 D945GCLF-based mini-itx atom systems so far, and without optical drive and a basic HD power consumption comes to 25 watts idle, 30 watts under max load. I'd tack on another 10 for dual core. As noted, the real power drain here is the 945 Chipset (ironically the only thing which requires active cooling). I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't moved to something better and more suitable yet. I refuse to buy a netbook until the matching chipset is paired with Atom, or the power drains are essentially mitigated by the old 945 chipset. I sense that intel just watnted a way to dump a warehouse full of 945 chips.

[thequinox @ Sep 20th 2008 9:46PM]

I agree that we need a better chipset for netbooks. Unfortunately i am not to pleased with the decision Intel made to remove SATA support from the Poulsbo line. Apparently IDE requires less power, but seriously. IDE? I want to buy a netbook and throw a 2.5" SSD inside, and there is no way I am investing in an IDE SSD.

[vcx @ Sep 21st 2008 7:41AM]

Using the main cpu to decode video is just lame... they should just use an extendable asic codec core. Thats one of the reasons why the nvidia tecra beats cpu's in power consumption when playing video.
http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-demo-tegra-atom-video-playback-intel-should-be-worried-0311879/

[Casey @ Sep 20th 2008 2:12PM]

Wouldn't that be "assure everyone?"
Or "ensure that?"

[gonintendo @ Sep 20th 2008 2:13PM]

why. why. why do people do this to themselves? can you tell me? please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sps7g78aBPY

[Jordan @ Sep 20th 2008 2:17PM]

Intel has been shipping these for almost 3 weeks. I already received mine from NCIX.com on the D945GCLF2. Decent performance. It can handle 720P and with 2GB for DDR2 has no issues with Vista. Even boots OSx86 with Kalyway 10.5.2.

[chop @ Sep 20th 2008 2:25PM]

dont expect them in netbooks anytime soon...

"Intel has officially begun shipping a 45nm dual-core Intel® Atom™ Processor known as the Intel Atom Processor 330. The newest member of the Atom family is designed specifically for nettops, which are affordable desktops purpose-built primarily for web surfing, email, and basic Internet usage."

[Jason Litka @ Sep 22nd 2008 1:06PM]

Just give it a couple months and they'll release a low-power version. With 10" and 12" models coming out, netbooks are getting too close in price to standard notebooks to not come with a dual-core processor.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 20th 2008 2:28PM]

Engadget, I owe you. When you reported on this a few weeks ago I canceled my Inspiron Mini order thinking that I would regret being an early adopter if the dual core Atom shipped anytime soon. And here it is. And I am glad I waited.

Thanks, Engadget.

PUT IT IN THE MINI, DELL. PUT IT IN.

[Zeth Ethereal @ Sep 20th 2008 6:37PM]

thats what she said muahahaaa

[Jason Litka @ Sep 22nd 2008 1:07PM]

This is not a netbook processor; those will come later. If you were wanting a system now then you're going to have to deal with a single-core chip (just as I am with my Inspiron 910 that is currently out for delivery).

[rreddy @ Sep 20th 2008 2:34PM]

Netbooks are overrated. Who would really want one of these anyway? Sure I would by one if Dell is offering the Mini for $99 along with an XPS, but I would not pay more than that.

[avester @ Sep 20th 2008 2:45PM]

I do, and so do few million other people who don't care what you think.

[Nick @ Sep 20th 2008 2:47PM]

A lot of people wonder the same thing, but there are apparently tons of people who want them. I have no need for a fully capable laptop, since I have two desktops and home and two at work. I rarely travel, and when I do, I don't really need to do any work, so a netbook is a perfect little light, small unobtrusive computer that I can take along on a trip.

[lolwecsan @ Sep 20th 2008 3:14PM]

the 99$ deal is only WITHOUT all the normal discounts, so you're really paying $300 extra dollars for the xps, not really any discount.

[happy_penguin @ Sep 20th 2008 2:35PM]

Is that the new Rick Roll?

[Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Sep 20th 2008 2:36PM]

I hear netbook manufacturers first need to find out how to balance the increased power consumption in these processors to not significantly reduce battery life before putting them in the systems.

The Asus N10 netbook would be a good candidate for these though.

[Ras @ Sep 20th 2008 2:42PM]

MacBook Air for a few hundreds? I knew Macs are expensive, but this a whole new dimension.

[catter12 @ Sep 20th 2008 3:05PM]

I want to see some 1080p benchies before making any sort of decision. Also, I do hope the chipset is able to handle something a bit better then the currnet onboard video. GMA 950 is horrible for anything but basic tasks. Yeah, that's kinda the point on netbooks, but for anything else.. it's not very good. Furthermore, the ddr2 667 looks great for the platform. Though I would like to know if the Atom can be clocked a bit higher, maybe 1.8, or even 2.0 if they wanted to push it. As it stands right now, however, it's looking pretty good for Intel's little champ.

[stevenfbchi @ Sep 20th 2008 3:20PM]

"I want to see some 1080p benchies before making any sort of decision."

CoreAVC runs 1080i just fine on the wind and I am sure that double the processing power, which is what the 330 has, will allow the threshold of gaining 1080p processing of matroska files.

[Jordan @ Sep 20th 2008 3:21PM]

Like I posted above, I have this particular motherboard (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=33303&vpn=BOXD945GCLF2&manufacture=Intel) and it runs 720p very well in Vista with WMP11 or VLC and Quicktime or VLC on Leopard if you build it as a hackintosh but as for 1080p, its a no go. 1080p is horrendous. Choppy and unwatchable. The only way to watch 1080p with this thing is if Intel pairs it with a better chipset like G31 or you run a graphics card like ATI HD 2400 or GeForce 8400 for basic 1080p playback.

[Jin Saotome @ Sep 20th 2008 3:22PM]

People have overclocked their netbooks to hit 2.0GHz on the atom, so it can be done, however you need to up the fan speed, and some users report that it's not very stable. This really shouldn't be an issue in a desktop environment where you can put slightly bigger fans.

[DBrim @ Sep 20th 2008 5:35PM]

You want to play 1080p video on a netbook with a 1024x600 screen? Really?

[catter12 @ Sep 20th 2008 9:28PM]

Yeah. Because you output to a seperate screen. These systems are uber cheap compared to other notebooks, and desktops. a $350 Eeebox that can output to 1920x1200, and play 1080p? You have a huge winner.

[Luke D @ Sep 20th 2008 3:06PM]

Yes! Finally!

I'm suddenly looking forward to netbook news on engadget from now on.

[Katherine @ Sep 20th 2008 3:07PM]

No, this is the new rock roll'd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sZuN0xXWLc

[Mike Peluso @ Sep 20th 2008 3:28PM]

seems like it's a good idea for a windows home server processor. The thing can be a fanless, all solid state for the server OS and then plug in a Drobo for the storage and data redundancy. It'd be an awesome combination.

Data robotics could do it with a new version of the Drobo share, now that I'd pay $200 for.

[Coolbee8 @ Sep 20th 2008 3:33PM]

Put this in a 17x17 desktop Mb, this is gone to make hell of a chip for super budget overclocking system.

[GeorgeJ @ Sep 20th 2008 5:50PM]

Engadget you need to get your story straight... Other sites have reported the correct interpretation of the intel press release but you...


from the intel article:

"The newest member of the Atom family is designed specifically for nettops, which are affordable desktops purpose-built primarily for web surfing, email, and basic Internet usage. The dual-core Intel® Atom™ Processor 330 features a 1.6GHz processing core, 1MB of level 2 cache, an 8W TDP"

keys points:

1) for nettops, which are affordable desktops"

2) 8W TDP - the mobile version would consume way less... (for example, current Atom single core consumes 2.5 W)

[El Taco @ Sep 20th 2008 6:20PM]

I don't get what's so cool about this. A dual-core 1.6ghz processor. Whoop-dee-doo

[El Taco @ Sep 20th 2008 11:42PM]

someone please fill me in

[gonintendo @ Sep 20th 2008 6:39PM]

wow, no gnr love? how about some of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-AYAv0IoWI

[Eli Gundry @ Sep 20th 2008 6:46PM]

I'd love to use one of these in an always on file server. The only problem I see with using Atom for this is the small amount mof hardware available for it, like two SATA ports, and the price. Oh well, I can always use AMD for this project....

Love to get a netbook with Ubuntu and this.

[Jeff Lewis @ Sep 20th 2008 8:21PM]

Since the 330 is pin compatble with the 2xx line of Atoms - if they're not soldered in - it should be possible to replace the one in your netbook and it should just work. Also - the power consumption goes from 6W to 8W, so it's not that bad. (Yes, I know it's a 33% increase - but it's not that much to start with).

[GeorgeJ @ Sep 20th 2008 9:48PM]

All, as I mentioned earlier... these are the "desktop/nettop" processors and NOT the mobile versions...

the mobile versions are not due to 2009...

[Adam Zey @ Sep 21st 2008 2:04AM]

Excellent! These things are already multithreaded to try to reduce the performance hit from the core being in-order, so one of these things will have four logical cores.

Combine that with CoreAVC (far better at splitting the load between multiple cores compared to libavcodec, which powers everything from mplayer to ffdshow to VLC) and Haali's Renderer (for raw-frame buffering, helps smooth out framerates during bursts of high-motion) and you should be able to play back any 720p content without a hitch.

[Ron @ Sep 21st 2008 2:12AM]

The lack of a multi-core processor has the primary thing keeping me from touching any netbook. The makes me want to get right into it. My only concern is how they'll perform, because the netbooks primary function, atleast in my opinion, isn't performance but mostly web browsing, word documents and stuff like that. I guess I'll just stick with what I have now. A netbook just isn't for me at this point, and if I want web browsing and email on the go I have my phone for that

[CosterMonger @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:59AM]

Really?
The thing that keeps me from getting one: is waiting to see what comes out next! (and at what price!)

[Ian @ Sep 21st 2008 2:30AM]

@Jeff Lewis: I thought it was from 2.5 W (max) for the single core (current model), to 8 W (max) for the dual version. I never thought the maths made sense, since the dual core Atom is essentially 2 single-core Atoms, but I figured it had something to do with the chipset, which isn't even meant for the Atom anyway.

Once they get rid of that thing and go to the matching Atom chipset (next year), I'll look into netbooks. Until then, we're going to have to stick with thick netbooks with heat issues. It would be even worse with dual core Atoms for laptops, which this story isn't really about anyway. This story is about the Atom for nettops (desktops for emailing and light porn surfing). With the Poulsbo chipset, we'll get Intel Atom processors for netbooks clocked faster, and maybe machines thinner than 1.3 - 1.4".

[Ian @ Sep 21st 2008 4:06AM]

Does anyone else here want a VIA Nano powered netbook rather than an Atom?

[Jash Sayani @ Sep 21st 2008 5:59AM]

Nice. Atom is doing great !

[smurfy @ Sep 21st 2008 8:34AM]

LOL dats gey.