It's over, Intel is .. blah blah .. Just read the fucking article.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3063508/components/intel-is-on-the-verge-of-exiting-the-smartphone-and-tablet-markets-after-cutting-atom-chips.html
>>54297707
RIP in peace. Wonder what's going to happen to all those cheap chinkshit tablets and mini PCs running Windows 10?
>>54297707
Damn nigger, no optimized link, no .png so we dont have to visit that click-bait trash website. It's like you don't even belong here or something.
Apollo Lake is still coming as Pentium & Celeron for entry level PCs & NUCs
Atom is dead though from what Intel is saying
>>54297928
>no optimized link
If I see a short URL on here I assume it leads to last measure.
>click-bait trash website
Not seeing it. Let me guess, some idiot posted some clickbait on there 2 years ago and you never got over it?
>>54297934
Looks like all the cheap mini PCs and netbooks are going to be using celery.
>>54297934
Atom cores are alive and will continue to be put into devices but dead for smartphones, and not many phones used it to begin with. I can't think of any besides the Zenfones.
>>54298005
pastebin that shit my man
>>54298121
Says they're discontinuing the x5 line, so only the higher-end x7 will survive. I guess.
>>54297707
What?
Atom chips were great for tablets/2-1 tablets.
Maybe too great apparently.
>>54298180
x5s are still used in tablets and 2-in1s
And there goes the chances of a Surface Phone.
>>54297707
Damnit, Intel. It's time to Make Atom Great Again
>>54298906
Rip. ARM has won.
>>54297707
>Intel exits desktop
>Intel exits mobile
>Intel becomes Google
>>54298921
It's time to stop spamming this shitty meme in every other thread.
Where's that guy who always posts Atom is better than ARM and uses a benchmark vssome old qualcomm krait cpu.
He told me X86 was the future of mobile and the x86 surface phone will beat everything.
>>54297707
>just laid off employees a week or two ago due to poor desktop sales, shift focus to mobile devices
>cutting atom chips
What the fuck are they even doing
>>54301719
They probably realize their overpriced Xeons are about to face much cheaper ARM and Power products.
They will have to cut all the products they were propping up with that money so they can slash Xeon pricing to remain competitive.
Maybe they know apple is going to switch Macs to ARM in the future or something as well. Their laptop parts are very high margin as well.
>>54301892
Finally they get their just deserts
If it wasnt for the mobile smartphone tech and competion we would still be back in the late 2000's dark days with them charging $500 for a quad core
>>54301719
They still have Core M: a mobile chip that's almost halfway decent (as opposed to the underpowered Atoms).
I'm guessing Core M is their plan for the future.
>>54302253
Problem is they have to sell core-M at $300 or else they will undercut their expensive laptop chips. The reason they love killing desktop sales is they can sell a dual core 2ghz chip for $500 to laptop users.
Meanwhile similar highend ARM SoCs will be sub $100 with integrated cell phone radios.
>>54297707
Where's that faggot who always posted the Zenfone web based benchmark to prove x86 is better than ARM and then proceeded to say that he wishes for a zenfone with Goldmont atom cores?
GUESS WHAT? INTEL, ATOM, AND X86 LOST
IT LOST
SO MUCH FOR ROOTING FOR A FAILURE
>>54302629
>Meanwhile similar highend ARM SoCs will be sub $100 with integrated cell phone radios.
Sub 30$ mate
Even highest end consumer ARM SoCs cost sub 30$. That includes in built radio, GPU, memory and everything
x86 did not have a chance against this, that is the simple truth
>>54297707
So Intel is kill in the mobile market. Congrats, RISCfags, you've won.
Now what? I hope you have something better than ARM lined up. Something that won't need 8 cores to perform similarly to 2 of Intel's. Because single core performance is still relevant. Not everything parallelizes well.
>>54302895
I'd like to see some more MIPS devices
>>54302914
Do those perform even as well as ARM? How are they on power consumption?
>>54302928
MIPS is still a great architecture, this is a little old but here's a MIPS CPU beating an i7 in CoreMark
http://blog.imgtec.com/mips-processors/mips-p5600-cpu-sets-new-performance-record
>MIPS P5600 even scores higher in CoreMark/MHz than Intel’s desktop line of CPUs. For example, an Intel® Core™ i7-2640M processor achieves 14513.79 CoreMark at 2.8 GHz, or 5.18 CoreMark/MHz – nearly 10% lower than the latest result for MIPS P5600.
As for power consumption, all I can say is my JZ4780 draws 168mW under full load
>>54303011
Per MHz. What clock speed was the P5600 they tested, and how fast do they come? The i7 was 2.8 GHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10288/intel-broxton-sofia-smartphone-socs-cancelled
Apparently the shitty netbook platform will still be around, so a Skylake Celeron-based Chromebook might be hard.
>>54303052
>Per MHz
Yes, which means the MIPS CPU has higher IPC
>What clock speed was the P5600 they tested, and how fast do they come?
No clue, but it looks like the CPU is available from 1-1.7GHz
>>54302895
I don't think we want better performance on phones. Can Intel please go back to making good desktop processors? They kinda stopped doing that.
>>54303129
>No clue, but it looks like the CPU is available from 1-1.7GHz
Then even with 20% better IPC, the 2.8 GHz i7 still squarely kicks its ass.
>>54303189
Maybe so, but how many smartphones and tablets do you see with a fucking i7
>>54303189
Also I read wrong, it states the max clock as >2GHz
Price drops when?
>>54298030
I'd imagine they'll end up using mediatek x86 shit that Intel licensed last year.
Intel knew Atom was a shit, but needed to prop up x86 in the tablet formfactor until mediatek was ready.
Intel still has Willow Trail to roll out and after that they'll transition to the higher profit hybrid category and leave the tablet/phone x86 SoCs to mediatek.
>>54303396
Cherry Trail is already <$20...
>>54303479
Sorry it was Rockchip not Mediatek.
Got my chinese companies mixed up in a tizzy.
Those Atoms were getting pretty good toward the end. I have a Minnowboard Max and that thing kicks ass.
I think I know people who might be affected by this news personally as well.
Is this the end for cheap Chinese Windows tablets? I thought the reasons they were cheap were Intel shitting out millions of cheap Atom CPUs and MS giving Windows away on small devices.
As far as I know, the Quark line has been spared so far. Wonder if they're going to start throwing *more* money at Quark since they've been talking about IOT so much lately.
>>54303526
No, one more generation of little atoms left (Willow Trail)
After that, Rockchip should have their Atom based SoCs out.
So we're going to see more than three x86 vendors soon?
>>54303575
Only for lowend gear,
This isn't a revival of the late 80s/early 90's where everyone and their dog could get a license and make x86 CPUs.
Consider than Intel and AMD basically have 'vassal' companies in China making the lowend gear that produces almost no profit for them but that the gears existence is good for x86 proliferation and hurting ARM.
>>54297707
That's like saying "AMD giving up on laptop/high end desktop market!"
Intel was never relevant for tablets or phones.
>>54302895
Do you even Apple? ARM is fine, it's Qualcomm and Samsung who suck penor.
http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-head-to-head-against-intels-core-m-in-arm-x86-grudge-match
I have an ASUS Zenpad 8.0 tablet that has the same intel Atom quad core and 2gb ram as the lesser version of the Zenfone 2.
Holy fuck does it lag. I've had tablets with middle of the road dual core processors that lagged less than this thing.
>Maybe because It's stuck on android 5.02?
Why is intel failing? I thought theey were ready to became a monopoly after slowly destroying AMD?
>>54303675
Because they don't compete with AMD on the mobile market.
>>54302629
http://ark.intel.com/products/89612/Intel-Pentium-Processor-4405Y-2M-Cache-1_50-GHz
6W TDP, 161 goyim shekel + discount
>>54297707
Uh, are PC World morons?
Atom hasn't been around for like 3 years now.
Intel rebranded them as Core M processors, the latest Skylake ones just came out.
There's no phone/tablet capable chips from Intel this generation, not for a while, but I'm betting they're just waiting for their in-house baseband silicon to be ready, so they can fit it all on a single package.
>>54302670
Cherry Trail is cheaper...
The truth is Intel with their manufacturing can't compete with the prices, even though they're selling at a profit - it's far too slim and they'd be better off just putting the money in a hedge fund!
That's why they licensed to Rockchip, that's why AMD is doing the same - they're outsourcing the shit lowend, low profit SoCs to chinese corps who can afford it because they're paying almost nothing for labor and materials.
'Atom' and phone/tablet x86 will live on, just not as Intel products.
However, Intel will still get fat cash from licensing, win-win for them.
>>54297707
There will still be the Core M right ?
>>54304117
Yes, coreM makes mad dosh.
>CoreM 5Y71 - USD$281 RCP
http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5Y71-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz
>Atom X5 Z8300 - USD$21 RCP
http://ark.intel.com/products/87383/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8300-Processor-2M-Cache-up-to-1_84-GHz
Not even a huge performance difference between the two, the CoreM is selling for 10x the price of Cherry Trail!
>RCP is price per unit in orders of 1,000 or more.
>>54304205
Wow.. $281 is a huge price, I guess we all go back to ARM fucking android tablets.
I liked the Atom cheap chink windows tablets...
>>54304224
>I liked the Atom cheap chink windows tablets...
So do I
Like I've stated previously in the thread though, we've still got one more generation of Intel chips for the chinese tablets - Willow Trail.
After that we're wating for Rockchip on the Intel side and Thatic on the AMD side to release their cheap x86 SoCs.
Rockchip started sampling chips late last year, so I'd imagine once willow trail is through (or even during willow trails release timeframe) we'll see Rockchip.
Thatic might be a few years away yet as the deal was only done a few weeks ago...
Isn't the core m replacing the atom chips?
>>54303962
>http://ark.intel.com/products/89612/Intel-Pentium-Processor-4405Y-2M-Cache-1_50-GHz
About 30% slower than Broadwell Core M, which is a good base point for minimum performance.
>>54304010
Atom and Core M are nothing alike, Core M is basically undervolted mobile i5. Atom is basically ... shit.
>>54304205
>Max Memory Size
>2GB
Kek
>>54304354
>2GB
The fuck are you doing with an Atom that you need more than 2GB RAM?
>>54304360
Certainly not browsing the web with a desktop OS or Lagdroid.
>>54304374
Windows 8 runs perfectly fine with 2GB RAM. So does basically every Linux distro.
>>54304383
You certainly have an interesting definition for "perfectly" fine.
>>54304412
How so? Last I checked, if something works without issue it's quite reasonable to say it works perfectly fine.
>>54304447
>>54304412
shut up and kiss
>>54304447
You won't exactly have issues with 1GB either, it'd just run like shit, limit the amount of tabs you can have open massively and qualify "having browser + music player open" as multi tasking. Same with any amount lower than 4GB, and this is ignoring the sluggish CPU itself.
>>54304461
T-that's a bit rushed, anon.
>>54304498
I used an Atom N455 with 2GB RAM as my main laptop for a few years, only reason I don't anymore is because the hinge broke. 2GB RAM is fine, quit sperging. Hell I have 5GB RAM in my current laptop and I've never broken 600MB.
>>54297707
Shame if true.
The BayTrail and newer Atoms were pretty dope.
>>54304498
I used to run more 'a few tabs' on my old AthlonXP system in the day, it only had 1GB of ram...
I used to listen to music at the same time
And run stupid bloat like windowsblinds because I was an idiot teenager.
>>54304545
Yeah, this news is quite surprising given the success of these cheap Windows tablets. Even the Surface used an Intel Atom processor and they were pretty decent for what they were. Surprisingly capable.
Maybe they are just shifting the focus to Core M now, but while they're more powerful, they're not as cheap and don't have as good battery life, so this could essentially spell the end for these cheap Windows machines.
I'd understand if they were just killing those chips they put into Android devices, those never really kicked off but this is just confusing
>>54304723
Intel wasn't making real profit from them, it wasn't a loss, but the money was being squandered - an average hedge fun was paying higher dividends that the atom venture.
Take the surface 3 for example, Microsoft charges an arm and a leg for what is the same as a cheap $100 chinese windows tablet - Intel wants some of that money.
The cheap chips will continue to exist in the form of Rockchip x86 SoC's, where Intel gains license money without having to invest any capital.
>>54301698
An intel cherry trail x5-z8300 is about on the level of an Exynos 5260. Which is now 2 years old ...
>>54303635
Sounds like a software problem. The Z3560 isn't a bad processor at all.
>>54304274
Dirt-cheap Rockchip atoms should be interesting. The performance will probably be even worse than intel atoms, though.
>>54304723
>I'd understand if they were just killing those chips they put into Android devices, those never really kicked off but this is just confusing
They were selling them at a huge loss.
X86 just cant compete with ARM when it comes to development costs. ARM have modular buses and memory controllers you can license. Intel have to design every single part of an Atom SoC.
>>54305370
Intel should have licensed the Atom architecture instead of giving the CPUs for free, imho.
>>54305528
Why would anyone want them? The lower cost of implementing ARM cores would make any licensing discounts pointless.
All intel would end up doing is paying someone else to make them losing them money just like selling at a loss.
FINALLY they ended up with this garbage called "Atom".
ALELUIA!
>>54307929
Only in name, because pretty much all the Pentium and Celeron processors they sell today are Atom-based.
>>54307929
Atoms never were garbage.
>>54297707
Fuck. Does this mean no more 8-core, 20W-TDP C2750/2758 replacements for low power server use? Are we going to have to stick with ECC-incompatible Airmont quad-core pissers for our NAS and home server boxes?
>>54308215
The replacement is Xeon-D, afaik.
>>54308233
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182963
>literally 2.5 times the price
Nigga why
>>54308340
10880 CPU benchmark
