AMD confirms 'Atom-smasher' chip on its roadmap
But Intel's Atom issues mean there's no rush to release it
AMD will unfold its plan to take on Intel's Atom in November, newly promoted CEO Dirk Meyer said last night.
As Register Hardware has reported in the past, AMD's is currently working on a chip codenamed 'Bobcat', a single-core, 64-bit processor designed for low-cost laptops and Small, Cheap Computers.
Past leaks have indicated that Bobcat will debut with a 1GHz clock speed, 128KB of L1 cache, 256KB of L2 cache and an 800MHz HyperTransport link out to the rest of the system. Its on-board memory controller will handle 400MHz DDR 2 chips.
The whole thing is set to consume no more than 8W and sit inside an 812-pin, 27mm² BGA package. 8W is more than the Atom N270's 2.5W, but then the Atom has to be accompanied by a big old northbridge that consumes up to 6W.
Speaking after the announcement that AMD's made a $1.19bn loss and ousted the previous CEO, 'Silly Old' Hector Ruiz, Meyer mentioned the new chip, though not by name. He said the company will say more in November.
Why wait? Intel's having problems getting Atom chips out the door - the problem is not production per se, but limited testing facilities, the company says - and that's holding suppliers up. Asus is still using Celeron M chips in some of its Eee PCs - the 900 and 904, for example - while HP turned to VIA's C7-M chip.
Still, AMD's pause will allow it to see how Intel manages Atom alongside its Celeron line. This week, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said Atom will not replace Celeron, at least not for the moment.
His argument is that Atom is aimed at Small, Cheap Computers - Intel calls them "netbooks" and "nettops" - while Celerons are meant for low-cost machines.
There's clearly plenty of overlap, but we can see Intel wanting consumers to associate Atom with ultra-compact systems and Celeron with full-size, low-price boxes. But then isn't that what the revived Pentium brand was all about? And isn't the Core brand becoming ever more low-end?
COMMENTS
@ Andy Rock, the silly bugger
"AMD can't build reliable chips they never have and they never will."
What kind of stuff are you smoking pal? Are you talking out of your buttocks for lack of a brain?
AMD chips are actually more reliable than Intel chips when you look at the whole system because they consume less power and generate less heat, which means other components of the system are less likely to fail, for example capacitors won't be as likely to cook and fail.
I work for a company which built several thousand embedded micro servers with AMD Geode chips over the years and we had used Celeron and Via chips before that. Guess what, hardware failure rates have dropped by a factor of 4 when we switched from Celeron to Via and again it dropped by a factor of over 10 when we switched to AMD Geodes. Most of these system failures were related to heat in one way or another. Due to the low wattage and heat dissipation of the AMD Geode chips all those problems have virtually disappeared. So far, the return rate on the AMD based system boards is smaller than 2 in 1000 units. From our stats, AMD Geode based system boards are almost 50 times more reliable than Intel Celeron based ones. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a similar relation between wattage, heat and system failures on high power desktops and servers as well.
Anyway, your statement is total rubbish without any basis whatsoever.
@Jamie
"AMD can't build reliable chips they never have and they never will."
hmmm, i have a few of them. i've also built machines for people three or four years ago and they work just as well now as they did then. all on AMD. not that i'm fanboying AMD, though. just they were a cheaper alternative. i have a couple of old P4's that are still going from about the same period.
sorry, mate; all you got is an opinion. unless you have any references of studies to back that claim up?
RE: @ Matt Bryant
The problem is AMD need to fight the Intel marketing machine, and so they are talking up their "secret Atom-smasher" like it's the second coming. If they get round to launch and just release a Geode refresh - even if it matches Atom for performance and beats it on power, which it should - every one will say "so what's so special about that?" The problem is not a technical one, it's an image one - AMD need to not just keep up but get back ahead in order to rebuild their rep. A Geode with built-in ATi graphics would be a good start, delivered on time and without a mess of bugs, please.
@ Matt Bryant
what's wrong with a Geode upgrade? I'll take a Geode over any Intel chip anytime. We've been using them since before AMD acquired the designs from National Semiconductor and we have only had positive experiences with them. Power/performance ratio is excellent and price/performance is excellent, too.
@jeanl
"""Why not focus on smaller die mobile duo core run at 1.0 ghz neighbor with mere 1.5 W power?"""
Why don't we all just focus on 64 core mobile, small die chips that run 30GHz at 16 pico watts? Sounds better than the imaginary chip that you're on about.
And those Geode chips are kinda large, although they don't even require a heatsink, which is pretty excellent.
And I seriously don't see the point of a dual core on a umpc - waste that die space on cache, performance optimizations, or a memory controller.
