In effect, all we're getting here is a slight boost in clockspeed and the GPU/memory controller moved on-die. Performance isn't likely to be significantly different on the CPU front, and the GPU is now locked-in, removing the possibility of using a higher-end chipset-based solution such as nVidia's ION.
As far as I can tell, ION (the whole deal, chipset/GPU) requires 12w, Intel's existing Atom chipsets consume 25.5w. Assuming Tiger Point consumes as much power as the ICH7 (3.3w), here's how it stacks up:
Sure, it's an improvement in power consumption (dramatically compared to Intel's old platform), but unless they've got an exceptional GPU on-die, you're looking at much lower graphical performance. Me, I'd rather have something using the ION platform rather than the N470.
After all, with the ION, you're getting decent GPU performance fast enough for random 3D apps and low-end gaming, CUDA for acceleration or video decoding, etc. It makes the Atom platform bearable when combined with something like CoreAVC.
I've got to wonder if moving the GPU on-die was more about locking out nVidia as it was about actually saving any power (couldn't the GPU be integrated into Tiger Point?) It's hardly something to get excited about when it'll be released some time in 2010 and we've got a better solution on the market *right now*.
Come on, Intel, the only significant improvement to the Atom platform in almost two years came from nVidia! You need to step up your game!
nVidia has the licence to build chipsets for the DMI interface. They could always build an Ion chipset, with some sort of ATI Hybrid Graphics-like system to save power.
As long as this has proper DXVA/VA-API and OpenCL support, CUDA just seems overkill.
I have to agree, this really sounds like a way to force nVIDIA to stay out of this game, especially since this thing is still using 45nm. And everyone should also understand that the GPU built in the N470 is actually even less capable than the old GMA950 included in all those N270\N280 setups. So i wonder if this thing is actually even capable to fulfill Windows 7 needs for everyone that is planing on use that OS.
Hopefully with the new ION LE things should start to go better for nVIDIA if companies still pair it with the Atom N280.
An advantage of the N470 + chipset I can see is the tiny size of it. I'm not sure actually how big the ION chipset is, but I'd assume it isn't smaller than the old Atom chipset was, while the new Tigerpoint chipset is like about a third of the original Atom chipset in physical size (see http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11548&Itemid=1).
So Tigerpoint netbooks could either be much slimmer again or they have more space to include a larger battery or other hardware.
Looks like a 15-20% graphics increase according to Fudzilla along with PASSIVE COOLING, which is a massive plus- much quieter, slimmer, cooler, less energy both from the chip and from not using fans, and about 1/3 of the current size.
All in all a fairly good upgrade from the Atom, yet still being the crap that it is.
Agreed Lionheart. One interesting aspect to the new Nokia netbook is that it appears to allocate something like half of the volume of the lower half to a battery, so that rather than having a six or 9 cell battery stick out the back of a netbook, you might be able to design one that is integrated within the body of the netbook. A smaller motherboard design with a simpler layout and fewer layers would also be cheaper to manufacture.
Obviously we'll have to wait for real battery life benchmarks to see what kind of improvements we're talking about, but given that the power draw of something like an ASUS 1005HA varies from about 8W at idle (for the whole netbook) to maybe 16W, a potential 5W savings (yeah, I know TDP is "max" not real usage) is nothing to sneeze at. Could be responsible for a substantial difference in battery life between two systems, everything included--LCD, disk, everything.
There's more to PC games than computer towers and input devices... Enter the CM Storm Sirus, the outfit's first foray into the world of gaming headsets.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Let's review, shall we?
Atom N280 (Circa February 2009)
TDP: 2.5w
Clock: 1.66GHz
FSB: 667MHz
Process: 45nm
Atom N470 (Circa 2008)
TDP: 6.5w
Clock: 1.86GHz
FSB: 667MHz
Process: 45nm
In effect, all we're getting here is a slight boost in clockspeed and the GPU/memory controller moved on-die. Performance isn't likely to be significantly different on the CPU front, and the GPU is now locked-in, removing the possibility of using a higher-end chipset-based solution such as nVidia's ION.
As far as I can tell, ION (the whole deal, chipset/GPU) requires 12w, Intel's existing Atom chipsets consume 25.5w. Assuming Tiger Point consumes as much power as the ICH7 (3.3w), here's how it stacks up:
Intel N280 + nVidia ION (GeForce 9400M): 14.5W
Intel N470 + Tiger Point: 9.5W
Sure, it's an improvement in power consumption (dramatically compared to Intel's old platform), but unless they've got an exceptional GPU on-die, you're looking at much lower graphical performance. Me, I'd rather have something using the ION platform rather than the N470.
After all, with the ION, you're getting decent GPU performance fast enough for random 3D apps and low-end gaming, CUDA for acceleration or video decoding, etc. It makes the Atom platform bearable when combined with something like CoreAVC.
I've got to wonder if moving the GPU on-die was more about locking out nVidia as it was about actually saving any power (couldn't the GPU be integrated into Tiger Point?) It's hardly something to get excited about when it'll be released some time in 2010 and we've got a better solution on the market *right now*.
Come on, Intel, the only significant improvement to the Atom platform in almost two years came from nVidia! You need to step up your game!
Of course, I meant 2010 for the N470.
nVidia has the licence to build chipsets for the DMI interface. They could always build an Ion chipset, with some sort of ATI Hybrid Graphics-like system to save power.
As long as this has proper DXVA/VA-API and OpenCL support, CUDA just seems overkill.
I have to agree, this really sounds like a way to force nVIDIA to stay out of this game, especially since this thing is still using 45nm.
And everyone should also understand that the GPU built in the N470 is actually even less capable than the old GMA950 included in all those N270\N280 setups. So i wonder if this thing is actually even capable to fulfill Windows 7 needs for everyone that is planing on use that OS.
Hopefully with the new ION LE things should start to go better for nVIDIA if companies still pair it with the Atom N280.
An advantage of the N470 + chipset I can see is the tiny size of it. I'm not sure actually how big the ION chipset is, but I'd assume it isn't smaller than the old Atom chipset was, while the new Tigerpoint chipset is like about a third of the original Atom chipset in physical size (see http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11548&Itemid=1).
So Tigerpoint netbooks could either be much slimmer again or they have more space to include a larger battery or other hardware.
@Lionheart
You can't combine cell phone with 6-cell laptop battery, so size doesn't really matter.
Looks like a 15-20% graphics increase according to Fudzilla along with PASSIVE COOLING, which is a massive plus- much quieter, slimmer, cooler, less energy both from the chip and from not using fans, and about 1/3 of the current size.
All in all a fairly good upgrade from the Atom, yet still being the crap that it is.
Agreed Lionheart. One interesting aspect to the new Nokia netbook is that it appears to allocate something like half of the volume of the lower half to a battery, so that rather than having a six or 9 cell battery stick out the back of a netbook, you might be able to design one that is integrated within the body of the netbook. A smaller motherboard design with a simpler layout and fewer layers would also be cheaper to manufacture.
Obviously we'll have to wait for real battery life benchmarks to see what kind of improvements we're talking about, but given that the power draw of something like an ASUS 1005HA varies from about 8W at idle (for the whole netbook) to maybe 16W, a potential 5W savings (yeah, I know TDP is "max" not real usage) is nothing to sneeze at. Could be responsible for a substantial difference in battery life between two systems, everything included--LCD, disk, everything.