What other option you have right now besides i945?
I'm not sure, but I know I just read an article that said manufactures were starting to use other chipsets with them. I thought I read it here...
On the rest I kind of agree. Probably Intel could make what you said, but in the end the result would be similar to what Atom offers. That's the reason why I don't see the point of Atom. If a downclocked desktop processor can match your energy efficient processor, what's the point of designing it?
Size and cost are the major reasons. Getting the die size down as small as possible was one of the main goals. This allows them to fit a huge number on a single wafer(~2500 IIRC), which maximizes profits while still keeping the final costs extremely low. Plus the small die produces very little heat.
If they were matching the Atom with a sub 10W chipset, then those extra 4w of the 2000+ would mean something.
You do know that the 945GSE is a sub-10w chipset, right? The desktop version of the i945 Tom's used is a 22w chipset, but there is nothing really stopping anyone from using the laptop chipset in the desktops.
But right now we don't need Atom as it is.
We don't need it in desktop as it is, in moble devices with the mobile chipset, it is a wonderful addition.
Atom+i945 is not a lot smaller than AMD's solution
I agree, in the desktop environment, but ulta-mobile Atom solutions are much smaller, look at the Eee PC as an example.
you can't implement it in smaller devices
Then how did they get it in an EeePC?
so you are left with a crippled in-order CPU with no advantages in the segment where you can implement it
No, it just has no advantages in the segment Tom's tested it in.
Sure, whenever Intel makes a proper chipset Atom will shine.
They already have made a proper chipset, the i954GSE, it just isn't used with the desktop version, but it could be.
If AMD, Via or even maybe Nvidia doesn't come up with something better by then, that is.
I hope they do, healthy competition is good for the consumer(me).
I never saw a market segment where Atom could fit anyway.
The Ulsub-notebook market, like the EeePC, is really the only market where it fits.
It is too big and too power hungry for portable devices (Tegra is a lot better suited for that, for example) and you can have faster "normal" desktop or mobile CPUs that only consume 5w more for larger devices. You want some graphics power in the bigger ones anyway, so your full system will not consume less than 50w. 50w, 55w what's the difference?
Tegra and Atom shouldn't even be considered in the same legue. Atom is meant for computers, Tegra is meant for portable devices(Cell Phones, PDAs, GPS Units, etc.). The Sub-Notebook market is really the only place Atom fits, and Tegra is way too under-powered for that market, and other solutions are way too power hungy. The difference between 50w and 55w in the sub-notebook market can be about 15 minutes of battery life, something that is definitely important to a lot of people.
Yet I must admit that I neither see the point of the Eee, at least the smaller one. That's probably because I don't like middle ground products. For me there's no place for anything between a laptop (bigger Eee counts here) and a full featured cellphone. I don't see the need for anything between the two, and it's there where Atom could make sense IMO. But that's only how I see it.
It is all a matter of preference. Some people like the Sub-Notebook, ultra-small, super-light notebooks. They like having something that they can fit in their car's glove box, and still have the ability to type on a real keyboard, use the internet at Starbucks. I know when I was in college I would have bought one of the smaller ones in an instant. I had to lug enough crap around campus, I would have gladdly paid for a smaller laptop.
![[I.R.A]_FBi](https://tpucdn.com/forums/data/avatars/l/39/39344.jpg?1384761935){kind=avatar}
