ARM's Cortex-A9 beats Atom N270: too bad it's not 2008
By Thomas Ricker 
posted September 16th 2009 7:18AM
posted September 16th 2009 7:18AM
ARM's doing some chest thumping today by revealing a 2GHz clock speed on its dual-core Cortex-A9 processor. The move is meant to remind manufacturers that ARM can scale beyond its traditional smartphone strong-hold and into netbook territories currently dominated by Intel. ARM's even handing out benchmarks showing the Cortex A9 out performing Intel's single-core 1.6GHz Atom N270 -- a processor launched back in 2008. Of course, Intel already ships a dual-core Atom 330 processor with its low-power Pineview processor set to launch on the near-horizon. It's also worth remembering that Windows 7 won't run on ARM so future Cortex A9 smartbooks will have to settle for Windows CE, Android, or perhaps, Google's Chrome OS if you ask politely. ARM is licensing its Cortex A9 speed- and power-optimized technology today with delivery in the fourth quarter of 2009.[Via PC World, thanks Ian]
Best pic ever. I'd hit it, but only if her face were to stay that way.
Ya know, you're right.. she could.. she could. That's part of the fun, isn't it?
Actually, I think that's Carrot Top. So...
I think this was for a tv commercial. I think it's a roller coaster in the background. I doubt she can speak with the fx makeup over her nose, mouth and chin.
She's a 'butter face'.
Goog god, that pic is right out of an Aphex Twin video.
Come to daddy. Come to daddy.
I'm pretty sure that's Mr. Ed
or a handful of linux OS's...
What I was going to say. Also Symbian; dual-core 2GHz ought to be enough to make S60 feel snappy and responsive for a change.
(I like S60, but it does involve a lot of waiting on my N75.)
I'm actually typing this on a beagleboard running ubuntu.... so winCE can kiss my butt
Get your hands on the Omnia HD with some of the new custom ROMs flying around. Then you know how fast S60 can be.
will have to see what MS does with Windows CE 7.0
Smartbook are going to become more popular and im sure MS doesn't want to miss that party.
I too would like to acquire gills.
knock, knock, knock....
candygram
LANDSHARK!
Android, Wince or google os.. ? Or ubuntu or a number of other Linux desktop OS that port very nicely over to Arm? Sheesh.. miss out probably the most effective port ever why don't you?! Ubuntu for Arm would be just like Ubuntu for x86.. unlike android or wince.. which doesn't match a desktop OS
I would buy a netbook with Cortex-A9 dual-core processor running Karmic Koala Ubuntu at the $199 magical price.
Kind of looks like a pissed off Nancy Pelosi
Pretty much anyone in a wind tunnel looks like Nancy Pelosi.
Combine it with ION and it's a major tablet win.
1. 2 GHz Cortex A9 CPU
2. ION style chipset
3. low power touchscreen pixelqi display (5 to 6 inch)
4. Android 1.6 or better
5. $299 or less
Recipe for win.
If anything, it could become part of a next-gen Tegra.
But then again, even a pile of poo combined with Ion would be the next big thing in the eyes of some Engadget commentors...
They are touting the power to show it will be able to run a desktop level OS. Also ARM architecture is known to use very little power although they are not making statements to that effect.
Imagine an ARM Cortex-A8 with OLED and a laptop battery.
ARM I'M REALLY HAPPY FOR YA, I'MMA TO LET YOU FINISH ..BUT INTEL HAD ONE OF THE BEST CPUs OF ALL TIME!!!
inside voice please...
I wonder how power consumption compared - because that's the REAL advantage of the ARM architecture, and not really a forte of x86...
Yeah, we're stuck with WinCE, Android or Chrome... unless, of course, we run Maemo, Slackware, Debian, Angstrom, Ubuntu, any of the other distros with an ARM port, or even FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD. If Apple or Palm used these, they could run the OS X or WebOS. If you really wanted to, you could rock Symbian, too, although you'd need to put some serious effort into revamping the UI.
When you actually look at the facts, it's actually easier to consider what *can't* run on it, and:there's only one common line of OSes so x86-addicted that it can't run on ARM: Windows NT. Maybe we should consider the perpetuation of this as a problem with Windows 7, not with ARM?
Considering NT was ported too x86, and took it's name from it's original target CPU, a report isn't out of the question. But I doubt it's very likely unless ARM takes of in a really really huge way suddenly.
So what, the Atom N270 is from 2008. It's still the newest and by a wide margin most used mobile Atom out there so it's totally appropriate to compare a low-power CPU to it.
Not only that, but the Atom 330 is only approved for desktop/nettop use - AFAIK, Intel does not allow the 330 to be used in a mobile application.
And the atom 330 uses 8 (!) W, and has no speedstep. ARM is the future.
She looks like lots of Botox/Plastic Surgery gone wrong...
Either that or the fangs havn't popped out yet....
Microsoft can't port Windows 7 to ARM.
- It would cost $2 billion
- There are not enough ARM developers to work for them
- It will take 4 years
The only thing Microsoft can achieve by trying to port Windows 7 to ARM is hiring away the world's top ARM programmers so that they can't work on Android, OS X, Symbian, webOS and other competing OSes.
Windows NT is pretty portable, so, they could port it to ARM, if there was enough demand, which there isnt.
They would need to make a HAL and device drivers.
I know $2 billion may sound like a lot to us peasants, but I think Microsoft can swing it.
"Microsoft can't port Windows 7 to ARM." -- I believe you are mistaken. To expand on what Angus Hedger said:
Windows currently runs on three different platforms (x86, x86-64, and Itanium), and, in the past, has run on Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS, and possibly Sparc (the Sparc port was done by a third party, but canceled before release; I don't know if it was completed). Even if we assume the non-Intel versions have been allowed to rot, the vast gaps between x86 and Itanium mean that their code *has* to be portable. Adding ARM really shouldn't be difficult.
As Angus says, they'd need a new Hardware Adaptation Layer, and new drivers--but ARM could make that almost trivial, by pushing a reference implementation that's built around a standard desktop bus, such as PCIe or USB, so that existing drivers would be easy to port.
And, of course, any port requires a compiler for the new target--but MS *has* an ARM compiler, which they use for Wince.
Really, the biggest problem would be marketing: making it clear to customers that their Windows/ARM netbook won't run all their Windows/x86 programs. Even that can be mitigated technically, though, with an emulator (as Apple has done with their two CPU transitions). Emulated apps would be slower than native ones, but it might be a nice tradeoff to get the battery life.
Ever heard of ReactOS? It's an open-source OS with the same NT architecture. On x86, it's binary-compatible with lots of Windows applications.
And it runs on ARM and PPC (obviously not binary compatible)
They actually are saying in the press release, less than 250 mW per CPU, or less than 0.5 W total.
Combine that with the fact that Intel's TDPs aren't power consumption, but heat emissions... (IIRC, a "2 W" Atom pulls 2.75 W peak, and that's what a Z530 is, the N270 is claimed at "2.5 W.")
wtf is with the picture?!
no no this is good. let's just see some OEMs pick it up and optimize it. the atom is a HUGE compromise-i know, i use one
You make 2008 sound like aeons ago. Technology moves fast, I know, but most netbooks are still using this "2008" piece of technology.
Plus, what's the power consumption for the Atoms? The N270 has an estimated 2.5W power requirement. ARM says the A9 requires 250 mW. That's about 10 times more for the Atom, not counting the chipset or the I/O controller.
Apples and Oranges, Engadget. Apples and Oranges.
Gah! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!
what is the story of this picture?
it's fantastically weird.
FTA: "average power use of 200 to 300 milliwatts" vs. 2.5 watts for atom. That's the news folks.
What could i possibly use 2 GHz for if i can't run proper (x86) windows?
With Debian, Ubuntu and any number of Linux distributions how about:
Web Surfing? Yes, there is a web browser and even a Flash port for ARM (unlike smartphones)
IM? Pidgin has already been ported supporting pretty much every main IM protocol.
E-mail? Yes, Claws mail, thunderbird and any number of clients.
Watch Movies? Yes, Canola2, and I believe VLC exists in ARM versions complete with most standard non-DRM codecs.
Listen to Music? Yes, and again most standard non-DRM'd codecs are supported.
Games? Yes, there are even some of them too, and even with full support for OpenGL accelerated graphics.
Word Processing? Yup, there's an app for that too. In fact there is a whole office suite called OpenOffice.org that you may have heard of.
Also watch porn, w/o risking to get a warmly "Love" Virus, or a hard on in your Windooze
And that is without taking into account that a SoC with graphics processor equivalent to the x4500 and dsp along side the dual core system would most likely draw less then 2W. Compare that to an atom/945 based system or atom/ion system.
A netbook based on this architecture would draw more power through its led based lcd than it would through its processor.
Even with half a laptop battery this thing could last for about 10 hours.
epic pic
this post is legendary
Picture?!?!?!
I must know the story behind it.
I see what you did there ;)
Well, the SoC argument is becoming weaker, as Atom is moving to an SoC approach, too.
Of course, to be completely fair, this isn't a Cortex-A9-based SoC vs. Atom/945 or Atom/Ion, it's Cortex-A9-based SoC vs. Atom/Poulsbo, if you want to use present Atoms. Lower power consumption, but lower performance.