Intel Aims at the Mainstream

We can easily make arguments for faster processors in most desktops and notebooks, but we're on the verge of computing being far more ubiquitous than that. Our desktops and notebooks have gotten so fast that we demand similar functionality and responsiveness from all electronic devices we use on a regular basis. The most frustrating until recently was the smartphone; smartphones have become more complex in the types of tasks we require of them, yet their interfaces have hardly given us the PC-experience we're used to. Apple attempted to change this with the iPhone but there's still much room for improvement. We've seen the same sorts of problems on more conventional consumer electronics. Blu-ray players that cost as much as PCs yet take longer to boot up and are beyond sluggish when interacting with menus. We can run Half Life 2 at 200 fps but we can't make the UI on a TV respond quickly to button presses on a remote control?

The problem is that most of the CE industry is quite commoditized and we're quickly headed for a world where LCDs become cheap enough that it makes sense to have multiple surfaces in a room that can act as displays. There's no room for a powerful CPU that costs hundreds of dollars in TVs, Blu-ray players or even simpler devices like portable GPS units.

The processing power required by the interface on a television, the software stack on a GPS, or even the non-decoding components of a Blu-ray player can easily be handled by even the cheapest desktop processors. The question isn't "can we" make these devices faster, it's what's the bare minimum CPU we need to make them faster.

Such a CPU would have to be low power, low cost but without sacrificing performance.

You could argue that the sorts of applications we're talking about can easily be satisfied by something as slow as a Pentium III, or maybe even the first Pentium M perhaps? And this is where Moore's law comes into play.

A few years ago, the Pentium III, Pentium 4 and Pentium M were all just as expensive to make as today's Core 2 Duo processors. These days their transistor counts pale in comparison to the 400 - 800 million we're talking about on desktop CPUs. Within 2 years we'll be at over 1 billion transistors on a desktop CPU that costs less to manufacture than the original Pentium processor. But if we looked at it from another angle - is it possible to build a microprocessor that offers the performance of the original Pentium M but make it cheap enough to use in commoditized consumer electronics and make it low power enough to be run without a heatsink?

Index What AMD Taught Me: x86 Everywhere
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • adntaylor - Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - link

    On that chart with price / power, you need to be clearer...

    For price, you show the combined price for CPU + Chipset. For power, you say just the CPU... so 0.65W for the CPU... but you're conveniently ignoring the >2W figure for the chipset!!! This absolutely flatters Intel wherever possible.

    AMD are just as misleading - they describe the Geode LX as "1W" which excludes the non-CPU core parts of the chip (which is an integrated CPU + GMCH)

    Just please be honest - the figures are out there in the Intel datasheets... it takes 10 minutes to check.
    Reply
  • Clauzii - Friday, April 04, 2008 - link

    I still have a PowerVR 4MB addon card, runnung in tandem with a Rage128Pro. Quite a combination w. 15 FPS in Tombraider. Constant(!) 15FPS, that is..

    Amazing what they actually achieved back in 95!
    Reply
  • Clauzii - Friday, April 04, 2008 - link

    Ooops!

    Totally misplaced that. Sorry.
    Reply
  • wimaxltepro - Friday, April 04, 2008 - link

    The Atom represents a shift in processor architecture that is the most dramatic departure for Intel since introduction of x86 processors... the philosophy of how computing itself occurs from centralized processors to distributed processing based on an extension of the popular x86 instruction set.

    The Atom is not about the immediate prospects for the Atom or Nehalem products: we will likely see members of Intel's new product family be used in embedded applications in consumer products and in areas where specialized communications processors are more the rule. While not optimized for use in specific networking applications, the products capitalize on the wide range of support available in IT/Networking to develop common functions that leverage the low cost, low power/processing capability to be used as a common denominator for a wide range of applications.

    Intel has been built on the 'Wintel' architecture: massively integrated chips needed to handle the massively integrated operating systems and applications of Windows (and Apple) environments. The Atom allows migration and broadening out from that architectural motif to a very highly distributed architecture. So, the increased parallelism found in the internal chip architecture is enabling of changes in external system architectures and device applications that go well beyond the typical domain of Intel.. and right into the domain of 'personal wireless broadband' and SDWN, Smart Distributed Wireless broadband Network.

    The decisions about in-order vs. out of-order instruction streams, memory architecture, I/O architecture have been made in light of the broad vision for how computing, networking and, out of hand, how wireless enabled broadband networking including WiMAX will occur. This should be understood for what it represents as a shift in direction for Intel both in response to broad industry shifts and as a trend setting development.
    Reply
  • jtleon - Friday, April 04, 2008 - link

    Thanks to all the flash player ads, etc., a mobile web device will continuously avoid switching to low power states. Thus one could argue that advertising will be carbon footprint enemy of the internet's future. This is already becoming the case for desktop/laptop machines.

    Without such continuous (arguably wasted) consumption of CPU power, then Intel's engineered power management might have a significant impact on the value of the Atom.

    Regards,
    jtleon
    Reply
  • 0WaxMan0 - Friday, April 04, 2008 - link

    I am definatly much impressed and enthused by intels work here, the future looks interesting esp for those of us who like low power cross compatible computing products.

    However I have to point out that a low power modern x86 cpu has allready been done infact 4 years ago with AMD's Geode. While technically much weaker than the Atom and with out any where near the scalability (single core design etc.) the Geode has been available in the same TDP ranges for a good long while. Take a look here http://www.amdboard.com/geode.html">http://www.amdboard.com/geode.html for some old stuff.

    I do hope that the Intel name and hype makes more of an impact than AMD managed.
    Reply
  • whycode - Thursday, April 03, 2008 - link

    Does the TDP quoted include the chipset? Or is that CPU only? Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Thursday, April 03, 2008 - link

    Anand, the Pentium M does not feature Macro Ops Fusion. Its Core 2 Duo that started Macro Ops Fusion. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 03, 2008 - link

    You're correct, I was referencing micro-op fusion. I've made the appropriate correction :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • squito - Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - link

    Am I the only one shocked to see that Poulsbo is a 130nm part... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now