Remember that they are just drivers. The hardware should support DX10.1, but Intel may only ship DX9 drivers due to the issues. DX10.1 should be added later through a driver update.
Seeing many games seem to use DX9 for the low-end settings and DX10 for the high-end settings, I'm not sure how useful giving a DX10 GPU to an Atom will be beyond the checkbox being filled.
It's *Atom* guys... does anyone actually try to play games on Atom? Ugh. Even AMD's Brazos struggles with games -- the undemanding Batman: Arkham Asylum almost manages to stay above 30 FPS at minimum settings, but most other games tank. See: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/5
The bigger deal will be whether the new IGP in Cedar Trail can actually handle H.264 offload and Flash video decoding. If it can, that takes care of the worst failings of Atom in terms of netbooks. If you want something faster, I'd suggest spending up for an AMD E-350, but you still won't have a good gaming experience. For that, you'll need to spend up even more for AMD Llano, or Intel i3/i5 + Optimus.
It's the same crappy bonell core, and should I even mention GPU? Much worse than E-350 (18W), should be on the same level as C-50 (9W) though. Don't forget that intel's TDP != amd's tdp.
Yup, and you have each company's use of TDP backward. AMD uses "average high point", Intel uses "maximum".
So when Intel says 10W, they mean that's the most it will use before throttling; when AMD says 9W, they mean "usually only gets this high." Yes, the actual long-term average power usages for both will be noticeably different, we'll have to see actual comparisons for that.
Not to mention the fact that at these CPU power loads, the CPU is no longer the major power hog! The display is likely the biggest power hog on these devices now.
What surprises me most is that $10 gets you Hyperthreading, 15% more raw CPU speed, and a 60% faster GPU. In the same max power envelope! Yeah, the average power use will likely be higher, but for only 25% more, getting more than 25% more CPU power (Hyperthreading is good for at LEAST 10%,) and 60% more GPU power, that nuts.
Well, the higher clock speed (513MHz) will probably mean that the D2700 will almost equal the E-350 for single-threaded tasks, and probably equal or slightly beat it for heavily threaded workloads. The E-450 might redress the balance, but it's barely an improvement over the E-350. Those TDP values aren't really comparable to the E-350, in any case, as the GPU on Brazos is easily the most powerful (and hungry) part, yet in most circumstances, you'll not see that sort of power draw, even with Brazos being 40nm and now behind the competition.
Brazos wasn't really meant for gaming, only media acceleration in all fairness. Still, much was made of it being a very cheap way into gaming at the expense of Atom-based systems, so it can't completely escape criticism on that front.
Judging by those prices, the D2700 is only $12 cheaper than a dual core Llano A4-3300. You can buy an E-350 WITH motherboard for about $80-$90 if I'm getting the exchange rate correct.
But it's not. I'm not defending Atom here, but there's plenty of benchmarks that state that Bobcat is much faster at single threaded workloads, and the gap narrows quite a lot when it comes to multithreading when compared to an HT-capable dual-core Atom.
Sure, the E-350 still wins, but not by much, against a 1.66GHz Atom D510. This new Atom is 466MHz faster and would likely take the lead in some of the benchmarks shown on the link. I suppose it depends on how well the architecture scales.
The Nano still looks rather nice. I'd love to see a 45nm or 32nm version as opposed to the 65nm versions floating about. Clock for clock, it is the best CPU in its class, even though it's only slightly ahead of Brazos.
These chips are only good for mid-end NAS boxes!. On the laptop and desktop, it be beaten by AMD's E-series and C-series chips, on Desktop, A-series walks allover it several times. So who cares if DX9 or DX10 is supported. The gpu is so anemic it can hardly play any useful games.
On a tablet, the ARM A9 run circles over it. This chip is just 2 years too late sorry.
D2700 should be faster than C-50 in both single thread and multi-threaded benches
Against E-350 it will be slower in single-threaded and slightly faster in multi-threaded benches. Remember that the current 45nm Atom D525 is on par with E-350 in multi-threaded benches. So, the clock boost on D2700 should make it slightly faster.
However, I don't think it will match E-350 or even C-50 in GPU performance. But at least it is going to support HD video decoding
Benchmarks should confirm what is already known. Atom 32 is the low cost platform that will do HD video. Atom 32 owns the owns most frugal use of energy title within the I86 camp. Today, there is no comparable desktop ARM product. As Intel's low cost chip, anything else made by Intel or AMD costs more and should be more powerful than Atom (ok, forget AMD and E-350 when it comes to multi threaded workloads but from a theoretical perspective, it should be that way).
In due course, reviews will confirm that d2700 is (i) worthless as a gaming platform, (ii) comparable or better than Atom with Ion at media consumption, and (iii) marginally better than the prior generation due to the clock speed boost. I want one.
I can't quite understand why it's taken so long to move Atom to 32nm. We know it's no powerhouse, but it would make a cheaply produced CPU even cheaper for Intel, and they could still charge stupid prices for them knowing they'd rake in even more money.
I hear that the new Celerons are rather interesting; the G440 is great in terms of single-threaded performance and competes directly with the E-350, which brings it into Atom territory, and at a price of $37 (per 1K units), a damned sight cheaper for something with full instruction set support.
Every review says the G440 offers impressive value, but if you want to buy one in an 1155 motherboard from Newegg today it will cost you $99 plus tax. An Atom d525 motherboard costs $75 and the d2700 should be about $10 cheaper than the d525. The G440 offers a really big performance boost as it should: it costs 50% more. I like it but if your interest is limited to consuming media files and browsing the Internet, I do not think it is worth the extra $33. Atom is the low cost leader and the leading platform when it comes to energy efficiency. I am comfortable with its performance and it works for me.
Why does a 32nm D525 have a 13w TDP while a 45nm N570 has a 8.5w TDP? Bumping up to 1.83 from 1.66 should be canceled out by the die shrink. Higher IPC maybe?
Perhaps I am missing something here - but one feature I value highly is speedstep, especially on a system intend to leave on 24/7. I don't need maximal power all the time, so having a way of putting the system into a low-power idle without actually going to sleep is important. Every watt matters!
So why on earth doesn't this CPU support it? What have I overlooked (or have Intel)?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
gevorg - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
This is ridiculous.Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Remember that they are just drivers. The hardware should support DX10.1, but Intel may only ship DX9 drivers due to the issues. DX10.1 should be added later through a driver update.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Seeing many games seem to use DX9 for the low-end settings and DX10 for the high-end settings, I'm not sure how useful giving a DX10 GPU to an Atom will be beyond the checkbox being filled.JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
It's *Atom* guys... does anyone actually try to play games on Atom? Ugh. Even AMD's Brazos struggles with games -- the undemanding Batman: Arkham Asylum almost manages to stay above 30 FPS at minimum settings, but most other games tank. See: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/5The bigger deal will be whether the new IGP in Cedar Trail can actually handle H.264 offload and Flash video decoding. If it can, that takes care of the worst failings of Atom in terms of netbooks. If you want something faster, I'd suggest spending up for an AMD E-350, but you still won't have a good gaming experience. For that, you'll need to spend up even more for AMD Llano, or Intel i3/i5 + Optimus.
MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
The real question is, how will it compete with Bobcat? AMD blew Atom out of the water there.Herp Derpson - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
It's the same crappy bonell core, and should I even mention GPU? Much worse than E-350 (18W), should be on the same level as C-50 (9W) though. Don't forget that intel's TDP != amd's tdp.CharonPDX - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Yup, and you have each company's use of TDP backward. AMD uses "average high point", Intel uses "maximum".So when Intel says 10W, they mean that's the most it will use before throttling; when AMD says 9W, they mean "usually only gets this high." Yes, the actual long-term average power usages for both will be noticeably different, we'll have to see actual comparisons for that.
Not to mention the fact that at these CPU power loads, the CPU is no longer the major power hog! The display is likely the biggest power hog on these devices now.
What surprises me most is that $10 gets you Hyperthreading, 15% more raw CPU speed, and a 60% faster GPU. In the same max power envelope! Yeah, the average power use will likely be higher, but for only 25% more, getting more than 25% more CPU power (Hyperthreading is good for at LEAST 10%,) and 60% more GPU power, that nuts.
silverblue - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Well, the higher clock speed (513MHz) will probably mean that the D2700 will almost equal the E-350 for single-threaded tasks, and probably equal or slightly beat it for heavily threaded workloads. The E-450 might redress the balance, but it's barely an improvement over the E-350. Those TDP values aren't really comparable to the E-350, in any case, as the GPU on Brazos is easily the most powerful (and hungry) part, yet in most circumstances, you'll not see that sort of power draw, even with Brazos being 40nm and now behind the competition.Brazos wasn't really meant for gaming, only media acceleration in all fairness. Still, much was made of it being a very cheap way into gaming at the expense of Atom-based systems, so it can't completely escape criticism on that front.
Judging by those prices, the D2700 is only $12 cheaper than a dual core Llano A4-3300. You can buy an E-350 WITH motherboard for about $80-$90 if I'm getting the exchange rate correct.
Herp Derpson - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
I Have to disagree. Clock-per-clock, bobcat core twice as fast. Such small increase in clockspeed won't help atom much.silverblue - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link
But it's not. I'm not defending Atom here, but there's plenty of benchmarks that state that Bobcat is much faster at single threaded workloads, and the gap narrows quite a lot when it comes to multithreading when compared to an HT-capable dual-core Atom.http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-revi...
Sure, the E-350 still wins, but not by much, against a 1.66GHz Atom D510. This new Atom is 466MHz faster and would likely take the lead in some of the benchmarks shown on the link. I suppose it depends on how well the architecture scales.
The Nano still looks rather nice. I'd love to see a 45nm or 32nm version as opposed to the 65nm versions floating about. Clock for clock, it is the best CPU in its class, even though it's only slightly ahead of Brazos.
fteoath64 - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link
These chips are only good for mid-end NAS boxes!. On the laptop and desktop, it be beaten by AMD's E-series and C-series chips, on Desktop, A-series walks allover it several times. So who cares if DX9 or DX10 is supported. The gpu is so anemic it can hardly play any useful games.On a tablet, the ARM A9 run circles over it. This chip is just 2 years too late sorry.
maroon1 - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link
D2700 should be faster than C-50 in both single thread and multi-threaded benchesAgainst E-350 it will be slower in single-threaded and slightly faster in multi-threaded benches. Remember that the current 45nm Atom D525 is on par with E-350 in multi-threaded benches. So, the clock boost on D2700 should make it slightly faster.
However, I don't think it will match E-350 or even C-50 in GPU performance. But at least it is going to support HD video decoding
Roland00Address - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 - link
Just making sure for intel still makes single core atomsKristian Vättö - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link
Yes. The core and thread count is mentioned in the table.iwod - Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - link
I think this is far too expensive for Atom range.dealcorn - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link
Benchmarks should confirm what is already known. Atom 32 is the low cost platform that will do HD video. Atom 32 owns the owns most frugal use of energy title within the I86 camp. Today, there is no comparable desktop ARM product. As Intel's low cost chip, anything else made by Intel or AMD costs more and should be more powerful than Atom (ok, forget AMD and E-350 when it comes to multi threaded workloads but from a theoretical perspective, it should be that way).In due course, reviews will confirm that d2700 is (i) worthless as a gaming platform, (ii) comparable or better than Atom with Ion at media consumption, and (iii) marginally better than the prior generation due to the clock speed boost. I want one.
silverblue - Thursday, September 29, 2011 - link
I can't quite understand why it's taken so long to move Atom to 32nm. We know it's no powerhouse, but it would make a cheaply produced CPU even cheaper for Intel, and they could still charge stupid prices for them knowing they'd rake in even more money.I hear that the new Celerons are rather interesting; the G440 is great in terms of single-threaded performance and competes directly with the E-350, which brings it into Atom territory, and at a price of $37 (per 1K units), a damned sight cheaper for something with full instruction set support.
dealcorn - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Every review says the G440 offers impressive value, but if you want to buy one in an 1155 motherboard from Newegg today it will cost you $99 plus tax. An Atom d525 motherboard costs $75 and the d2700 should be about $10 cheaper than the d525. The G440 offers a really big performance boost as it should: it costs 50% more. I like it but if your interest is limited to consuming media files and browsing the Internet, I do not think it is worth the extra $33. Atom is the low cost leader and the leading platform when it comes to energy efficiency. I am comfortable with its performance and it works for me.landerf - Saturday, October 8, 2011 - link
Why does a 32nm D525 have a 13w TDP while a 45nm N570 has a 8.5w TDP? Bumping up to 1.83 from 1.66 should be canceled out by the die shrink. Higher IPC maybe?WhitePJ - Sunday, December 4, 2011 - link
Perhaps I am missing something here - but one feature I value highly is speedstep, especially on a system intend to leave on 24/7. I don't need maximal power all the time, so having a way of putting the system into a low-power idle without actually going to sleep is important. Every watt matters!So why on earth doesn't this CPU support it?
What have I overlooked (or have Intel)?