AMD netbooks

[pc999]

Looks who finally arrived to the race

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668268.php

http://stuff.tv/Review/Packard-Bell-dot-ma-review/

AMD powered
Inside the case things get more intriguing. It's the only machine we know of that uses the Athlon L110 processor, but despite ticking over at just 1.2GHz it's more than capable of holding its own against the more popular Intel Atom. If anything, it seems more responsive for multitasking and general desktop work.

The graphics, meanwhile, come billed as an AMD Radeon X1250 chip. Capable of running Vista comfortably, it can also assist the CPU with video decoding tasks. Which means that, unlike most netbooks, the dot m/a can get 720p video up and running at an acceptable pace. And the sharp, large screen has the pixels to prove it.

I have read it OC nicely to 1,6Ghz and run WOW at stock speed very well.

Anyway it seems that AMD does offer better performance, but not as good bateery life.

I still find them underperforming/overpriced, but it seems to be improving I just hope this put pressure on a fast evolving netbook and sub and cheap notebook tech/market.

Cant wait to see a cheap dualcore neo ???:in fact I still dont understand why they are made on 65nm), it will bring the industry forward.

 

[Albuquerque]

About this:

720p video up and running at an acceptable pace. And the sharp, large screen has the pixels to prove it.

Both the HP 2140 and the Dell Mini 10 (both use the Atom N270) units I've tested can do Quicktime's H.264 720P content without issue. Now, I doubt that it's accelerated by the crap-tastic Intel chipset, so this is an obvious step-up. Nevertheless, I don't think that specific point was quite accurate.

 

[pc999]

About this:

Both the HP 2140 and the Dell Mini 10 (both use the Atom N270) units I've tested can do Quicktime's H.264 720P content without issue. Now, I doubt that it's accelerated by the crap-tastic Intel chipset, so this is an obvious step-up. Nevertheless, I don't think that specific point was quite accurate.

That may be true, but what I really find good in this is competition.

We are getting more/better performance/HW (eg 2GB DDR2 and running Vista) at the same price, with expense in baterry live (still they claim 4-5h). Some will prefer this (given 4h I probably prefer).

Anyway a dual core neo with the 3xx0 card at 45 nm should really quickstart the netbook, just dont understand why is still 65nm?

 

[Blazkowicz]

because it's a simple, native single core chip, very mature.
They do have a 45nm single core now, but it's a Regor with one core disabled, high clocked and for the desktop (sempron 140).
Maybe the process has to mature (low power Regor are yet to come and Propus is overdue)

For some reason AMD CPU with disabled cores are power inefficient, too, maybe because of the "uncore" part (but there's also L3 cache on those CPU)

 

[digitalwanderer]

Aw, they're cute! What's more important than that? :|

 

[pc999]

because it's a simple, native single core chip, very mature.
They do have a 45nm single core now, but it's a Regor with one core disabled, high clocked and for the desktop (sempron 140).
Maybe the process has to mature (low power Regor are yet to come and Propus is overdue)

For some reason AMD CPU with disabled cores are power inefficient, too, maybe because of the "uncore" part (but there's also L3 cache on those CPU)

Just thinking they should be a litle more agressive in the netbook market, both this and Via Nano should probably beat Atom in almost everything (or at least make Intel finally do anything to advance Atom).

I mean both Via Nano/Sempron beats Intel in the performance, they arent hotter and still on 65nm, in 45nm they could probably at least match them in the batery department, meybe even offereing a litle more performance and much better margins.

The same can be said for Neo vs CULV, single core neo runs about 25-30% slower than dualcore CULV (I am yet to see dual core behnchmarks/reviews) althought a higher TDP, still it cost a lot less. On 45nm the same, better TDP, margins meybe even performance. Or the same for any notebook CPU they still are on 65nm and in this market it is a lot harder to competetive with price/performance alone.

 

[Zaphod]

I mean both Via Nano/Sempron beats Intel in the performance, they arent hotter and still on 65nm, in 45nm they could probably at least match them in the batery department, meybe even offereing a litle more performance and much better margins.

I just don't know. I thought the Nano looked promising in the previews, but there must be something not right with Via hardly getting their foot in the door in terms of design wins. I wonder if 45nm might be (too little) too late one again. As for AMD I hold even less hope for them, unless they've got something special up their sleeve that I'm just not seeing, since Intel have already starting to push the Core 2 Solo into the makets AMD have stated that they hope to be occupying (take a look at the Acer Aspire 3810T Timeline (@$549), for example).

 

[pc999]

I just don't know. I thought the Nano looked promising in the previews, but there must be something not right with Via hardly getting their foot in the door in terms of design wins. I wonder if 45nm might be (too little) too late one again. As for AMD I hold even less hope for them, unless they've got something special up their sleeve that I'm just not seeing, since Intel have already starting to push the Core 2 Solo into the makets AMD have stated that they hope to be occupying (take a look at the Acer Aspire 3810T Timeline (@$549), for example).

Any idea how does it compare (performance wise, in TDP and batery it wins) against the single core neo (i am guessing not as good given the above figures with a 1,4Ghz CULV), BTW that is a great price here it is about 300 euro more than a HP DV2.

About Via it is actually strange I dont see any reason why it isnt as popular, meybe brand recognition (talking only about legal reasons)?

About 45nm I dont know if it will be to litle to late, 1) dont dont want to give to much performance (some of the newer Atoms are even slower 1,3Ghz) so they dont canabalize their notebooks, but probably it would end giving more. But competition would give better prices, baterry, features and overall qualitity.

Once they probably dont want a performance war, meybe 45nm are enough (I mean for some time longer than usual, like in DDR and chipsets) to a good performance/price/batery ratio.

 

[Zaphod]

Any idea how does it compare (performance wise, in TDP and batery it wins) against the single core neo (i am guessing not as good given the above figures with a 1,4Ghz CULV), BTW that is a great price here it is about 300 euro more than a HP DV2.

How is the Neo performance per clock compared to it's older Athlon 64 derived siblings? At 90-65 nm (late 2007) it used to be Sempron < Turion ~ Dothan < Core < Core 2. If the Neo is anything like an Athlon 64 2000+, I believe the Intel offering should be faster even if clocked 300MHz lower. Of course, the better graphics core would probably give the Neo a notable edge in 3D and video decode tasks.

And yeah. It's more expensive here too. (Acer seems to vary regional pricing quite a lot depending on what sells at any given time and the competitive situation in the different markets. At the equivalent of $550 + VAT I'd buy one of those puppies in a heartbeat.) It was meant more as an indicator of the "pressure from above" Intel can exert with the Core 2.

 

[pc999]

How is the Neo performance per clock compared to it's older Athlon 64 derived siblings? At 90-65 nm (late 2007) it used to be Sempron < Turion ~ Dothan < Core < Core 2.

No idea, it seems it is based on the A64, but I cant imagine how diferent it may be. From the above figures I would say it cant be much slower in IPC (if at all).

If the Neo is anything like an Athlon 64 2000+, I believe the Intel offering should be faster even if clocked 300MHz lower. Of course, the better graphics core would probably give the Neo a notable edge in 3D and video decode tasks.

Not very helpfull if you cant use the GPU in yours aplications, still many will like.

And yeah. It's more expensive here too. (Acer seems to vary regional pricing quite a lot depending on what sells at any given time and the competitive situation in the different markets. At the equivalent of $550 + VAT I'd buy one of those puppies in a heartbeat.) It was meant more as an indicator of the "pressure from above" Intel can exert with the Core 2.

Still hard to say why Via cant be competetive in the netbook market, someday they will be out of it (the Ubunto netbook version already requires a atom).

Via still is a better performer (must complain about Atom being so weak) and does have (not as) good batery live (but still quite good), and is not pricier (meybe even cheaper?).

 

[swaaye]

I have both an EeePC900 (Celeron M 900MHz) and a HP dv2 (Athlon Neo 1.6GHz.) They perform like you'd expect them to. They aren't gimped in any way other than clock speed.

Atom's 1.6GHz clock speed definitely gets people more excited than it should. It varies of course, but generally I'd say that an Atom 1.6 performs like a Athlon 64 ~1000 / Celeron M ~1000 would. Anandtech's CPU compare thinger has Atom 220 in it if you want to see how it compares to a Sempron 1150 (2.0 GHz 256K L2).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I dont think the Atom is that weak. I used my netbook for about a month when I went to Japan at the start of summer and it works fine as im concerned. It plays movies without problems (maybe it wont do 720p or 1080p, but why you want to watch that kind of stuff on a 10.1inch, 1024x600pixel screen is beyond me...), all your office stuff will work without a problem, internet works fine though the resolution at times is just a bit below what would be really comfortable and it will even play a fair bit (though old) games without problems so given the price and batterylife I dont feel the system is gimped. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that booting some things takes a bit longer and it really doesnt like running multiple programs at the sime time like your desktop does but given at what these netbooks are aimed for I cant really have any complains.

 

[pc999]

I have both an EeePC900 (Celeron M 900MHz) and a HP dv2 (Athlon Neo 1.6GHz.) They perform like you'd expect them to. They aren't gimped in any way other than clock speed.

Atom's 1.6GHz clock speed definitely gets people more excited than it should. It varies of course, but generally I'd say that an Atom 1.6 performs like a Athlon 64 ~1000 / Celeron M ~1000 would. Anandtech's CPU compare thinger has Atom 220 in it if you want to see how it compares to a Sempron 1150 (2.0 GHz 256K L2).

Well it looks like this sempron should still beat the atom, plus it OC nice from what I have read.

BTW do you have any idea if Neo would run a audio/music creation program like FL Studio well? I mean audio can be as CPU expensive as anything (also realtime is a real plus), and I know that in something like FL Studio demo song it will bring the Atom to an average of 90% load (peaking aat 99%, to many times).

From what I have heard atom is a litle bellow what one would need to do light work on such aplications, it would be very interesting to know what this Sempron and/or Neo could do, meybe even Via Nano.

I dont think the Atom is that weak. I used my netbook for about a month when I went to Japan at the start of summer and it works fine as im concerned. It plays movies without problems (maybe it wont do 720p or 1080p, but why you want to watch that kind of stuff on a 10.1inch, 1024x600pixel screen is beyond me...), all your office stuff will work without a problem, internet works fine though the resolution at times is just a bit below what would be really comfortable and it will even play a fair bit (though old) games without problems so given the price and batterylife I dont feel the system is gimped. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that booting some things takes a bit longer and it really doesnt like running multiple programs at the sime time like your desktop does but given at what these netbooks are aimed for I cant really have any complains.

My complain are those derived from lack of competition, which mean higher prices, and less options. I am quite sure that if AMD had any real competitor in the netbook or Nano a real product in retail, I would be much better served for netbooks.

BTW some benchmarks

Neo vs Atom vs C2D

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/amd-kinda-sorta-takes-aim-at-atom-with-athlon-neo/

Neo X2 (HP DV2z)

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=profile&u=borkd-29782-14463-15647

Atom

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=profile&u=lukast-31129-30322-2237

 

[Zaphod]

BTW some benchmarks

Neo vs Atom vs C2D

Somehow I get the feeling that those wouldn't have looked as uplifting for AMD if they replaced the C2D with a Celeron M.

 

[swaaye]

The Athlon Neo 1.6 single core is nothing magical. It's just what a Athlon 64 @ 1.6 performs like. It's not fast by desktop standards at all, but it is definitely faster than Atom by a decent bit.

If you're worried about having enough CPU power, just buy something with a C2D and be done with it. It will blow away Athlon Neo, even the new X2 variant, just like on the desktop.

The reason I bought the HP dv2 was primarily for the discrete Radeon 3410. It's faster than any of the IGPs. It does make the machine get quite warm though, unfortunately. I like to play older games and wanted something besides a GMA or 780G/690G. I also wanted it to have something bigger than the tiny Eee900 (and just wanted to mess with a newer mini note). Frankly though I think the 9" Eee900 is one hell of a nice little usable machine.

 

[Zaphod]

What kind of battery life do you get with that dv2 for normal web/mp3/office tasks? I'm half way looking to upgrade an Eee 900 too (damned nice little machine apart from the battery issues), but none of the Atom netbooks seem like a worthwhile swap in terms of performance and none of the alternatives so far seem to offer a decent step up as far as runtime goes.

 

[swaaye]

I think it's good for at best 3 hours. It's rather disappointing in that way, probably because of the discrete GPU. I'm almost always near an outlet so battery life isn't something I consider much.

I saw at Walmart that those new Acer Timeline machines are out and about $600. Supposedly 8 hours battery.

 

[Zaphod]

Yeah. Had a play with one of those, but it got some rave "back to school" reviews in mainstream media here, sold out in a snap, and got its price jacked up a lot.

Now that Nano + Ion seems to be a non starter (performance wise, something in that vicinity would be about right for me), anyone know if AMDs "Tigris" is still on schedule to be out this year?

 

[pc999]

The Athlon Neo 1.6 single core is nothing magical. It's just what a Athlon 64 @ 1.6 performs like. It's not fast by desktop standards at all, but it is definitely faster than Atom by a decent bit.

If you're worried about having enough CPU power, just buy something with a C2D and be done with it. It will blow away Athlon Neo, even the new X2 variant, just like on the desktop.

True, thing is I do need the portability I do fear that anything less than 3h30-4h will not be enought, also is hard to get a small (12´-13´)and (relatevely) cheap notebook.

Yeah. Had a play with one of those, but it got some rave "back to school" reviews in mainstream media here, sold out in a snap, and got its price jacked up a lot.

Now that Nano + Ion seems to be a non starter (performance wise, something in that vicinity would be about right for me), anyone know if AMDs "Tigris" is still on schedule to be out this year?

The Timeline could be a good choisse but it is too expensive (I only find it at 800+ euro) for me, at least for now, althought I am starting to grow some anti-corporate hate to Intel.

The Nano + Ion could be interessting, is there any netbook like that? Never saw one, I barelly see Linux netbooks anymore.

The Nano + Ion could be interessting, is there any netbook like that? Never saw one, I barelly see Linux netbooks anymore.

 

[pc999]

BTW

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ion-2-Platform-to-Support-VIA-Nano-in-2009-105031.shtml

Back then, a test platform, made out of a Nano-powered system and a discrete NVIDIA GeFore graphics card, was used to seamlessly run one of the most graphics-demanding gaming applications on the market, Crysis.

A 9400? At low settings meybe.

Now a nano+ion could be something really interesting... a 45nm dual core nano+40nm Ion would probably make a lot of people happy, I am sure that at a equivalent price and 4h+ battery (even being 1/2 of many netbooks) would have lots of market, that or anything inbetween.


Edit: Thats looks like a winner...


http://www.slashgear.com/via-dual-core-nano-3000-cpu-coming-2010-0128449/

VIA are planning single- and dual-core Nano 3000 processors each with very low power requirements, expected to begin to hit the market from late 2009. The single-core Nano 3000 CPUs will be made using 65nm processes, and offer integer and floating-point enhancement over the existing Nano 1000/2000 series chips; meanwhile the dual-core Nano 3000 will have a native dual-core design, be built using 45nm or 40nm processes and offer twice the performance.