lexluthermiesterQuote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.

lexluthermiesterQuote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.

lexluthermiesterQuote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.

NdMk2o1oWhy are you taking it like a personal attack, they are low performance chips that are intended for certain use scenarios and tasks as you mentioned but when they cant perform those tasks to an acceptable level then they will get the criticism they deserve and is some cases they aren't able to deliver...

But maybe you're right, I'm sure with your vast knowledge and contributions here on TPU you are indeed qualified to advise TPU to stop with their "mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that you seem to have uncovered.

m1dg3tDo these up n' croak too or just the c2000? LoL

lexluthermiesterIt seems Intel figured out that problem and it isn't likely to pop up again, pun intended.

R-T-BWasn't my intention, I may have let a bit more of my personal experience with a particularly poor (and pink, thanks @Toothless) atom netbook creep

Ferrum MasterThat's actually slower single core wise as my Pentium 3 funbox as we benched in CPU-Z thread.

Call that progress :D

R-T-BThat pink netbook sat in the server closet with it's pink case removed for about 3 months before being pulled out due to being a horrible NAS and thrown in a pile of misc circuit boards. It's still there, looking sad.

But again, I should never have tried to use it as an NAS, honestly. Not its purpose.

R-T-BOne would hope. Of course they could always pull a Samsung and have their "fix" do the exact same thing.

I'd hope the industry is learning rather than regressing though. ;)

theoneandonlymrkI have a blue one I was half tempted to fit an ssd too , just to see but nope the boot time pain keeps me away.

lexluthermiesterOne of the Atom based devices that I referred to above is an Emachines EM250. Single core 1.6 ghz Atom with 2GB of DDR2. It has AndroidX86 on it and runs smooth as silk. It does the job needed of it to and does it well. I actually have an older 240GB SSD in it and the boot up times, while not super fast, are good.

lexluthermiesterNow lets be fair, the Note 7 battery problem was a manufacturing problem on the part of the battery maker. Samsung had little to do with it and yet has had to bare the brunt of the damage.

R-T-BI was referring to the fact that they failed to do QA on the second battery line any better than the first... but yes, point taken. Time pressure certainly had a lot to do with their situation too. I'm pretty sure Intel at any rate is not eager to be on that same chopping block.

theoneandonlymrkI'd rather use my phone (zenfone2)and easily could, powered USB hub keyboard and mouse and mirrorcast to a TV and it's a quad Intel OoO CPU so I could do something useful , even game and it also fits in my pocket and has 4-5 times the battery life in my overestimate;) :p

lexluthermiesterYes but a phone doesn't have a 10" screen, 3 full size usb ports and a decent sized keyboard. Hell, most tablets don't even have that. And Miracasting only works if you have a display that can do it. The other device I have is a GPD Win which less than a year old and performs very well. But I digress..

My point was that the Atom CPU line is not useless. It had it's uses then and still does now. Not a power-house line of CPU, sure. But not useless or a nightmare to use.

lexluthermiesterMy point was that the Atom CPU line is not useless. It had it's uses then and still does now. Not a power-house line of CPU, sure. But not useless or a nightmare to use.

theoneandonlymrkI get you, we just have different levels of nightmare.

R-T-BI agree with that. My main emphasis with the article is that the compute power is... well it is what it is. But it's certainly got it's place. I just got slightly dramatic in saying that.

R-T-BI'd say as a primary computing device (like, for gaming) an Atom CPU is certainly nightmare material. But it was never meant for that either.

Quality journalism lacks those kinds of things. As a trusted and reputable media outlet, TPU has a responsibility to provide information as objectively as possible, reserving bias and personal opinion for a section that is qualified as such, if shared at all.

xorbeAnd how much does a 16-core Atom cost?

lexluthermiesterQuote: "Intel's Atom CPU line may bring back ugly memories of the netbook era and slow, under-powered devices that were often jokingly compared to the compute power of a common potato"

You say that like it's a fact. I have had a number of Atom based devices and while the performance was limited, every one of them did the job intended and some, including the two I still own, still do and very well. The Atom was never meant to be a performance chip. It was meant as/for a utility type implementation. And in that capacity it excelled.

So can we dispense with the "Making mountains out of mole-hills" mentality that has crept into TPU lately? Seriously.