New Intel Atom Processor Platform Significantly Lowers Power for Tablet and Handheld

[Imsochobo]

We have been using x86 for the past 30+ years, I believe we will still use them for the next 30+ years at least. Indeed, the x86 instructions is so robust that it relegated the ARM to only "lesser" devices.

ARM is moving up and not down. Dualcore's quads, arms, working already, ready for netbooks already.

Whats keeping X86 the only desktop choice is ... Windows.
Linux can run on:

he Linux kernel is portable and supports the following computer architectures:

* Alpha architecture:
o DEC Alpha
o Samsung Alpha CPU
* Analog Devices
o Blackfin (since 2.6.22)
* Argonaut RISC Core (ARC) from ARC International
* ARM architecture:
o Acorn Archimedes and Risc PC series
o DEC StrongARM
o Marvell (formerly Intel) XScale
o Sharp Zaurus
o iPAQ
o Palm, Inc.'s Tungsten Handheld[1]
o Gamepark Holdings' GP2X
o Nokia 770 Internet Tablet
o Nokia N800
o Nokia N810
o Nokia N900
o gumstix
o Nintendo DS via DSlinux
o Sony Mylo
o Psion 5, 5MX, Series 7, netBook
o Some Models of Apple iPods (see iPodLinux)
o OpenMoko Neo 1973
o Freescale's (formerly Motorola) i.MX multimedia processors
* Atmel AVR32
* Axis Communications' ETRAX CRIS
* Freescale 68k architecture (68020, 68030, 68040, 68060):
o Some Amigas: A1200, A2500, A3000, A4000
o Apple Macintosh II, LC, Quadra, Centris and early Performa series
* Fujitsu FR-V
* Hewlett-Packard's PA-RISC family
* H8 architecture from Renesas Technology, formerly Hitachi.
o H8/300
o H8/500
* IBM
o System/390 (31-bit)
o zSeries and System z9 mainframes (64-bit)
* Intel IA-64 Itanium, Itanium II
* x86 architecture:
o IBM PC compatibles using IA-32 and x86-64 processors:
+ Intel 80386, 80486, and their AMD, Cyrix, Texas Instruments and IBM variants
+ The entire Pentium series and its Celeron and Xeon variants
+ The Intel Core processors
+ AMD 5x86, K5, K6, Athlon (all 32-bit versions), Duron, Sempron
+ x86-64: 64-bit processor architecture, now officially known as AMD64 (AMD) or Intel64 (Intel); supported by the Athlon 64, Opteron and Intel Core 2 processors, among others
+ Cyrix 5x86, 6x86 (M1), 6x86MX and MediaGX (National/AMD Geode) series
+ VIA Technologies Eden (Samuel II), VIA C3, and VIA C7 processors
o Microsoft's Xbox (Pentium III processor), through the Xbox Linux project
o SGI Visual Workstation (Pentium II/III processor(s) with SGI chipset)
o Sun Microsystems Sun386i workstation (80386 and 80486)
o Support for 8086, 8088, 80186, 80188 and 80286 CPUs is under development (the ELKS fork)[2]
* M32R from Mitsubishi
* MIPS architecture:
o Dingoo
o Infineon's Amazon & Danube Network Processors
o Jazz
o Cobalt Qube, Cobalt RaQ
o DECstation
o Loongson (MIPS-compatible), Loongson 2, and Loongson 2E from BLX IC Design Ltd (China)
o Some PlayStation 2 models, through the PS2 Linux project
o PlayStation Portable uClinux 2.4.19 port [1]
o Broadcom wireless chipsets
o Dreambox (HD models) [3]
o Cavium Octeon packet processors
* OpenRISC open core processor series:
o Beyond Semiconductor OR1200
o Beyond Semiconductor OR1210
* Power Architecture:
o IBM Servers
* PowerPC architecture:
o IBM's Cell
o Most pre-Intel Apple computers (all PCI-based Power Macintoshes, limited support for the older NuBus Power Macs)
o Clones of the PCI Power Mac marketed by Power Computing, UMAX and Motorola
o Amigas upgraded with a "Power-UP" card (such as the Blizzard or CyberStorm)
o AmigaOne motherboard from Eyetech Group Ltd (UK)
o Samantha from Soft3 (Italy)
o IBM RS/6000, iSeries and pSeries systems
o Pegasos I and II boards from Genesi
o Nintendo GameCube and Wii, through Nintendo GameCube Linux
o Project BlackDog from Realm Systems, Inc.
o Sony PlayStation 3
o V-Dragon CPU from Culturecom.
o Virtex II Pro Field Programmable Array (FPGA) from Xilinx with PowerPC cores.
o Dreambox (non-HD models) [4]
* SPARC
o SPARC (32-bit):
+ Sun-4 (to be abandoned in version 2.6.27)
+ SPARCstation/SPARCserver series (sun4c, sun4m, sun4d)
o SPARC (64-bit):
+ Sun Ultra series
+ Sun Blade
+ Sun Fire
+ SPARC Enterprise systems based on the UltraSPARC T1 and UltraSPARC T2 processors
* SuperH
o Sega Dreamcast (SuperH SH4)
o HP Jornada 680 through Jlime distribution (SuperH SH3)
* S+core

Windows:
X86
IA32

Loads of the instructions in a x86 cpu is dead tech, we hardly use some of it, but have to be there.
Makes powerconsumtion get higher with x86 no matter how you look at it.

Well, whats keeping x86 alive is mostly windows

The question lies in what impact will the android have.
Mobile phones, good god i love it, will it be good at tablets? will it be good at netbooks? exporting it to desktop, IT IS Linux, and linux is versatile. its kernel scales extremely well with device type. and in the end its the desktop market that remains the question.

Lastly i have to say, I dont like either inst. sets mentioned in this thread

 

[R_1]

After reading Intel fact sheet I realized that this is not a single SoC, but 3 separate chips : Z6xx processor, Platform Controller Hub (PCH) MP20 and MSIC chip. No radio, no GPS, no nothing. As a comparison I would like to show you a block diagram of TI Omap 44x0, "Pre-integrated" with various wireless radios, including 3G/4G modem, WiLink Wi-Fi, NaviLink GPS, and BlueLink Bluetooth:

 

[btarunr]

ARM is moving up and not down. Dualcore's quads, arms, working already, ready for netbooks already.

Whats keeping X86 the only desktop choice is ... Windows.
Linux can run on:

1) x86 runs Linux, too.
2) Linux is installed in less than 2% of the world's computers, mostly web-servers, which again use x86 processors such as Intel Xeon and AMD Opteron

Loads of the instructions in a x86 cpu is dead tech, we hardly use some of it, but have to be there.

Loads of instruction sets are what speed up the processor, add to its IPC efficiency. Almost every application you use make use of them.

Makes powerconsumtion get higher with x86 no matter how you look at it.

Wrong. x86 processors are proportionately powerful to their wattage, compared to ARM.

Well, whats keeping x86 alive is mostly windows

What's keeping Linux alive is mostly x86.

The question lies in what impact will the android have.

Android is a Linux distribution. It supports x86, so once Intel gets into handheld processors, Android will seamlessly run it, so no, Android has no impact.

Mobile phones, good god i love it,

x86 just entered that segment.

will it be good at tablets? will it be good at netbooks?

A vast majority of tablets and notebooks use x86 processors.

exporting it to desktop, IT IS Linux, and linux is versatile. its kernel scales extremely well with device type. and in the end its the desktop market that remains the question.

Linux will never beat Windows in desktops. People have been dreaming about that since 1995.

eLastly i have to say, I dont like either inst. sets mentioned in this thread

What do you like?

 

[pr0n Inspector]

After reading Intel fact sheet I realized that this is not a single SoC, but 3 separate chips : Z6xx processor, Platform Controller Hub (PCH) MP20 and MSIC chip. No radio, no GPS, no nothing. As a comparison I would like to show you a block diagram of TI Omap 44x0, "Pre-integrated" with various wireless radios, including 3G/4G modem, WiLink Wi-Fi, NaviLink GPS, and BlueLink Bluetooth:

http://focus.ti.com/en/graphics/wtb...cPN=TMS320DM642&isFunctional=Y&isFunctional=Y

a tri-chip SoC would be hilarious. and sad.

 

[Fourstaff]

Thanks Bta, you summed up what I would say. A triple chip SoC would not be called a SoC, it would be called processor, northbridge and southbridge.

 

[Imsochobo]

What do you like?

I cant say for sure whats the best right thing, something someone doesnt controll so badly that there is no compotition, ARM is deffy over X86 just cause the fact that it allows more compotition.
I don't know about ARM and HPC so cant really tell if i like it or not, all i can say a snapdragon is snap in a phone.

Linux(more like Unix) got more units built on non x86 than x86 FYI

Dead tech subject, gotta go to meeting, its in interviews with both AMD and Intel about these functions, and limitations.
And ofc strengths of x86.
Main reason why i dont like x86 is already said. ( license )

 

[Fourstaff]

What do you like?

I cant say for sure whats the best right thing, something someone doesnt controll so badly that there is no compotition, ARM is deffy over X86 just cause the fact that it allows more compotition.
I don't know about ARM and HPC so cant really tell if i like it or not, all i can say a snapdragon is snap in a phone.

Linux(more like Unix) got more units built on non x86 than x86 FYI

Dead tech subject, gotta go to meeting, its in interviews with both AMD and Intel about these functions, and limitations.
And ofc strengths of x86.
Main reason why i dont like x86 is already said. ( license )

Comparing ARM and comparing x86 is like comparing a bike and a truck. A bike is a bit slow, gets you everywhere and doesn't require power. A truck however, can do everything you want and some more, but guzzles petrol.

x86 is as "open source" as Linux, AMD, Intel etc all have their own flavours of it, much like different flavours as Linux. For example, AMD has SSE5 on Bulldozer while Intel has SSE4 on the core ix processors. You need as much license to run Linux as making x86 compliant processor.

Also, I don't buy all those "competition" bullsiht: If all processors are only ARM compliant, then everyone will have as much functionality as an iPad (read: none). I'll pass on that.

 

[R_1]

Competition is always something good. That's why Intel and it's x86 processor will speed up ARM development. Some lazy companies like TI have ridiculously long time to market cycle. For OMAP3 it was 3.5 years after showcasing the platform on MWC 2006 in Barcelona and Omap 4 was introduced in late 2008. So, Intel will bring some needed tension in ARM swamp.

 

[Imsochobo]

Comparing ARM and comparing x86 is like comparing a bike and a truck. A bike is a bit slow, gets you everywhere and doesn't require power. A truck however, can do everything you want and some more, but guzzles petrol.

x86 is as "open source" as Linux, AMD, Intel etc all have their own flavours of it, much like different flavours as Linux. For example, AMD has SSE5 on Bulldozer while Intel has SSE4 on the core ix processors. You need as much license to run Linux as making x86 compliant processor.

Also, I don't buy all those "competition" bullsiht: If all processors are only ARM compliant, then everyone will have as much functionality as an iPad (read: none). I'll pass on that.

Arm in my desktop, no thanks. agree'd on that.

2nd
A licence to run linux?

No, you just are implied to pass the knowledge on, it has a licence, THE GPL GNU and the other flavors of it.
X86 is controlled by a firm, If i want to start up a X86 chip designer, I HAVE to get a licence that i pay for to Intel, worth loads of cash.
And then, if i have loads of cash, IE. being google, if they want to make chips, maybe intel dont want to, then denied, i cant, intel can deny companies as they want, they tried to deny global foundries of producing x86 chips, marketing or not, tells the story.

Linux, download, run, sell (yes i can) but any changes to the kernel and other GPL/GNU projects have to be passed on(provide the source code)
So the two compared licence things are rather incomparable.

Other architectures: Sparc(proven HPC capable)(mostly dead) open and royalty free. PowerPC(also HPC capable), and X86, Closed and requires royalty, so not as open as linux as you states, rather 100% the opposite.

 

[Fourstaff]

Arm in my desktop, no thanks. agree'd on that.

2nd
A licence to run linux?

No, you just are implied to pass the knowledge on, it has a licence, THE GPL GNU and the other flavors of it.
X86 is controlled by a firm, If i want to start up a X86 chip designer, I HAVE to get a licence that i pay for to Intel, worth loads of cash.
And then, if i have loads of cash, IE. being google, if they want to make chips, maybe intel dont want to, then denied, i cant, intel can deny companies as they want, they tried to deny global foundries of producing x86 chips, marketing or not, tells the story.

Linux, download, run, sell (yes i can) but any changes to the kernel and other GPL/GNU projects have to be passed on(provide the source code)
So the two compared licence things are rather incomparable.

Ok, my bad. Having researched a bit more, I found out that the free x86 licenses only apply to AMD, not to everyone in general.

 

[v-zero]

x86 refers to the instruction set, not dead tech. Foe example all processors (Intel, AMD, VIA etc) found in computers have the x86 instructions. ARM is another set of instruction, so they should be threatened by Intel rather than the other way around, because by releasing this chip, Intel is threatening the ARM's traditional market.

His point, obvious to anybody with a decent level of knowledge of such things, is that the x86 instruction set is cumbersome. It is not an efficient instruction set, and has been built upon so much that it is full of redundant ideas which, because they are part of the x86 instruction set, must be included in any x86 device for it to be compatible.
The only reason x86 is still around is that it got the popular vote a long time ago, and now that Microsoft dominates the operating system space, there is not choice but to continue down that route.
The instruction sets found in modern ARM processors are far more efficient in most areas that are important to mobile technology, than their archaic x86 based brethren

 

[HillBeast]

What do you like?

I cant say for sure whats the best right thing, something someone doesnt controll so badly that there is no compotition, ARM is deffy over X86 just cause the fact that it allows more compotition.
I don't know about ARM and HPC so cant really tell if i like it or not, all i can say a snapdragon is snap in a phone.

Dude, I think you need to seriously lighten up about this. It's just a processor annoucement. Intel may have done some pretty cool stuff to it to make it really efficient and make it work, but noone knows right now because nobody has it yet and until someone has it, I think you need to just shut up.

Here is a list of architectures that I grabbed of Wikipedia:

* 4004, 4040
* 6800, 6502, 6809, 68HC11, 68HC08, etc
* 8008, 8080, 8085, Z80, Z180, eZ80, etc
* 8048, 8051, etc
* Z8, eZ8, etc
* Burroughs B5000/B6000/B7000 series
* eSi-RISC
* Mico32
* PA-RISC
* IBM 700/7000 series
* System/360 and upwards compatible successors
o System/370
o System/390
o z/Architecture
* PDP-11
o VAX
* SPARC
* SuperH
* Tricore
* Transputer
* UNIVAC 1100/2200 series
* EISC (AE32K)

All of those a really rare.

* Motorola 68k
* Alpha

Nobody uses these anymore

* ARM

ARM, while it is energy efficient is very slow.

* IA-64 (Itanium)

Itanium is in servers and workstations etc only and is pretty rubbish.

* MIPS

I think the only really new MIPS chip is in the PSP and PS2.

* Power Architecture
o POWER
o PowerPC

POWER/PowerPC used to be used in Macs but now it is only in the consoles and super computers, and I know all those chips are inefficient. Fast, but inefficient.

* x86
o IA-32 (i386, Pentium, Athlon)
o x86-64 (64-bit superset of IA-32)

And we come to x86 which while it may be old, it still works great. If you were to get an ARM chip to do the same level of performance as a Core i7, I'd say it would be way hotter and consume way more power. ARM is actually pretty slow and the only reason it is keeping up in the mobile market is because it is so open and people can just slap in more stuff like H.264 and such. I'm not saying ARM is slow, because it is pretty impressive what it can do, but I really don't think it would be as powerful as x86.

You were asked what architecture you like, and the list is there. Which one is the best out of them, and I can tell you now my preference is definately x86 because there market is so competitive, AMD, VIA and Intel have to work so hard to make it better. ARM is so quiet, it almost stands still.

 

[Imsochobo]

Sorry to break it to you guys.

Dell, ARM and marvel will make server cpu's...
Just read it from IBM.
And Marvel will deliver 1.2-2 Ghz cpu's for (no) HPC yet but for WHS and NAS.
Marvel already provide NAS chips based on ARM, which is indeed a server.

Albeit the HPC market stays with gpu power, X86 and PowerPC, and some still run Sparc. some of the top 500 is still sparc yeah!

what did i say ?

I believe that we are still using the x86 instructions and its extensions (SSE and so on). so its not archaic as you suggested. Also, I think the x86 instruction is "open source" now, so I don't think Intel will profit from people using the x86.

5 Years worth of licence:
1 Billion usd. Opensource my A.

Intel profits from it, they choose
A.\ who can design chips.
B.\ They prevent other archs from entering the market by blocking, just like microsoft.