AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/1/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>>>But if you're looking for the most common Atom bin by number of
>>>>chips shipped to date, that would be the N270 (2.5W @ 1.60GHz), the backbone of the netbook revolution.
>>>
>>>Source?
>>
>>Just look up the specs of almost _any_ Atom netbook. If it's 1.6 GHz (and most
>>of them are), it's either a N270 or (if introduced recently) a Z530.
>>
>>Here, let me help you with a link to an amazon search for N270 in the netbook category
>>(Amazon's not a bad point of reference since they carry most if not all of the major netbook brands):
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/y9d7xx2
>>
>>Then go and try to find any Atom 230 netbooks on Amazon. I dare you...
>>
>>(Hint: don't waste your time.)
>
>BS. Show me numbers of chips sold (unless you simply made it up).

1. Netbooks are the volume driver for Atom (do you have a better candidate?)

2. If you survey netbooks, you will find that most netbook models have a 1.6GHz 2.5W N270. The remainder have a Z530 or other Z series chip.

3. During that same survey, you will find zero models (or, at least, I have yet to find a single one) which use a 1.6GHz 4W 230.

Are any of these things not factual? If not, what do these facts add up to, in your oh so humble opinion?

Do I have exact sales figures? No, and I never claimed to, nor did I invent any. This is just simple logic: if most products in the market segment which is probably 90% or more of Atom's volume use the N270, then obviously N270 is the high volume bin, not some kind of special unobtanium bin created only by heroic sorting efforts.

You assumed that when there are two power bins that must mean the lower one is always special and the higher one is the mainstream bin. You were simply wrong. Is it so hard for you to admit that?

Here's a little exercise for you. Go here:

http://ark.intel.com/SSPECQDF.aspx

Set "Brand" to Atom. Now, look all the way on the left. What market segment is N270 identified as? What market segment is Atom 230?

>>>>>is clearly worse if you consider there have been 10W DC 1.6 GHz 3M Core2s (SU9600) for some time. And quickly checking for benchmarks vs Core2, e.g. I used this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-efficiency,2069-8.html
>>
>>>>
>>>>>it appears low-power 2.5W bin hardly makes it a winner on the metric it was allegedly
>>>>>optimized for. And power-efficiency at platform level -- just forget it.
>>>>
>>>>The THG article you linked to compares the performance of a 65W TDP 2.53GHz C2D
>>>>to a 4W 1.6GHz Atom 230, not a 10W 1.6GHz SU9600 to a 2.5W 1.6GHz N270 as you imply.
>>>
>>>Oh, and what would be the performance of the 10W part? :)
>>
>>Why don't you tell me? It's up to you to support your argument. Don't ask me
>>to do your legwork for you, it only makes you smell more trollish than you already do.
>
>I don't expect the performance of lower-power bin of a Core 2 chip to be any different
>from that of higher-power bin of the same.

"of the same" what? Clock frequency?

You do realize that 2.53GHz != 1.60GHz, don't you?

>And what do we see? Even the original 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 at the bottom of the page
>is "Launched" -- just like Z series Atom. :)
>
>Wait, it's not just "launched", but listed as available at $129! Which of Intel's dealers has some in stock? :D

So let's make this clear: you believe that if there isn't a price listed and it says N/A instead, it's an old CPU which is unavailable, or in the process of becoming so?

Do you realize that a ton of those Atoms which have a 'N/A' price were 'launched' in Q2 2009? I don't think it signifies anything other than Intel choosing not to list a 1k budgetary price estimate for every CPU.

If you click various processor families (plain Pentium is a good one) you'll find that what they do to products which are in the process of exiting this mortal coil is to mark them "End of Life" in the Status column.

Those old moldy Pentium 4 models probably aren't having their information updated because nobody cares.

>>>surprizing part has to do with it doesn't seem to
>>>win in power efficiency either vs Core2.
>>
>>The methodology by which you reached this conclusion is terrible, IMO. You should
>>have at least tried to find a comparison between SU9600 and N270, or tried to find
>>separate benchmarks of similar methodology. (Actually, SU3500 would be a better
>>choice of C2D than SU9600, so you could compare one core to one core.)
>
>So what is it you don't like about the methodology? I didn't perform my own measurements,
>I rely on Intel's figures and measurements done by others, for me this is enough.

You didn't measure or find measurements of the mobile ULV C2D you identified as an exemplar of potential C2D power efficiency. Instead, you linked to measurements of a much faster 65W TDP desktop C2D.

And you wonder why I call you a troll.