This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intel Atom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
http://www.intel.com/technology/atom/index.htm anyone know more details about the Centrino, or are they just the same thing? NeoDeGenero ( talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Benchamoneh ( talk) 10:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)...Intel® Centrino® Atom™ processor technology, a collection of chips enabling amazing Internet experiences in pocketable devices.
"A 1.8 GHz Atom processor's single thread performance is equivalent to its predecessor Intel A100 " - how's the performance of a 1.8GHz cpu possibly equivalent to a sub GHz cpu? I think some clarification might be needed. Anton 24.201.100.166 ( talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Early tests showed Atom had 2 processors in Windows task manager.It was therefor believed the atom dualprocessor was a dual core version. However Atom Diamond ville is a single core processor! With hyperthreading enabled it may seem like there are 2 processors in taskmanager.
So far intel has said no word about releasing a Atom dualcore version anytime soon!
-cheers H.E. Hall ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is nonsense - you could merge Pentium into Personal computer like this.-- Kozuch ( talk) 19:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, keep them seperate. Colinstu ( talk) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge templates deleted.-- Kozuch ( talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this page clearly knows nothing about x86. x86 is the INSTRUCTION SET. Internally since the Pentium Pro all x86 processors have been RISC, with decoders to turn CISC insructions into RISC operations. Thats really basic stuff. Read the excellent anadtech article. I'm on holiday, and do not have time to sort this nonsense out now. Sorry.
81.192.137.26 ( talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That backward compatibiltiy while having some costs helps ensure that DOS 1 still boots on the fastest IA32 processor out there, so it's not all bad. ;-) Regards, Andromeda451
The background section is confusing, since it comes immediately after the introduction, and tracks historical rumours (even ones which have proven incorrect). Some speculation is still written in present tense, like "This seems to strengthen speculation that Diamondville is simply a lower-cost[...]". It would be better to add more info before, and move the history (if it is at all needed). Say, one should explain that "there are these two processor lines, which have different codenames, Diamondville and Silverthorne, referring to the same architecture in different variations, one for a target of Diamondville, one for target of Silverthorne" (this is just to give an idea). -- Blaisorblade ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So far the Intel Atom is using the i945G-chipset, which has several times the Atom's power consumption and thus makes it unattractive as a platform. I would like to see a mention of this fact here. What good is a 2Watt processor if it needs a 10+Watt chipset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.237.60 ( talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the Tegra really competition. Its a ARM part, with no IA32 compatability. ARM has always low power consumption devices and most likely much better W/cycle, MIPS/W and FLOPS/W etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.216.45 ( talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Intel is making ARM a competitor by entering into the market space traditionally dominated by ARM. That being mobile devices, smartphones, and tablets. In this space, x86 compatibility means nothing and so isn't relevant. Intel has clearly stated it's intentions to push Atom in the mobile market. See here So, Intel themselves have made ARM / Tegra performance comparisons valid and relevant to this discussion. CG - Jan 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.250.241 ( talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is incredibly hard to read and follow caused by a few problems. Primary of which is there is very little overview information to provide context for the reader. Instead the article plunges into technical details with full jargon. There should be much more context to ease the reader in. I'm not really so up on the details of all this but I'll try to help where I can. This platform seems poised to be more and more important, particlularly if it keeps getting improved. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How does the performance of the 1.6ghz atoms currently common in netbooks compare to the "Celeron M ULV 353" used in earlier netbooks? Plugwash ( talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
nVidia slides on
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/25/nvidia.ion.2.leak/
indicate that the next version of Atom will require Intel graphics, locking out nVidia's Ion platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no lock-in. There are, now, some n450 (pineview) based devices running third party graphics. It will either offload certain processing to the extra graphics or disable the integrated GMA on the CPU. While you are forced to have the GMA included, on devices where only the GMA is present, a significant power savings is seen over older generation netbooks. In fact, the netbook I, personally, have (with a pineview cpu) has been tested successfully with a broadcom addin card. 173.74.245.34 ( talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've found two PNGs available for the Atom logo, but I didn't upload them because I'm not completely sure about their copyright :/ Here are the URLs:
* http://www.infotechgallery.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2590 (Big One!) * http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/intel-atom-cpu.png
-- ;) Peregrino ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, I made some major changes to the page and would appreciate a second look by those who are knowledgeable about this CPU and platform
- Moved ARM information to competition section
- Replaced reference to brand-specific Nvidia Tegra product in the "competition" section with information on ARM's competing platform which is used by Nvidia, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc.
- Added information on competition between future Atom platform "Lincroft" and next-gen ARM Cortex-A9 based CPUs
- reworded some other sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterspan ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I just added the flag dubious about the ARM performances because there are two mistakes: 1) actually it's really hard to find a comparison apple-to-apple; if you know one, just link the reference 2) ARM and Atom are really different architectures, so similar results with syntetic benchmarks could mean nothing: old Pentium 4 Prescott has similar integer performance of POWER 5 processors, but nobody thinks that you can use a Pentium 4 instead of POWER5 in mainframe applications
I know that it's a widespread belief that Cortex A8 will compete with Atom but actually there is no evidence of this, so it's more a commonplace (for someone a hope, I think) than a real fact.
Thank you! =)
http://androidandme.com/2012/01/devices/hands-on-with-the-lenovo-k800-the-worlds-first-intel-atom-z2460-powered-phone/ Quoting from that article: "happened to have Quadrant installed on it, so we launched it up and discovered that the Intel Atom Z2460 chip on the Lenovo K800 scored a 3489. Naturally, we’d like to stress that benchmark numbers don’t necessarily reflect real-life use scenarios, but they do give us an idea of what kind of performance we can expect from a handset. Since Quadrant is only optimized for single-core devices, we’re not surprised at all to see that the Intel Atom Z2460 scores a lot higher than the quad-core NVIDIA Tegra 3 powered devices." And this is still a 2012, 32nm process Atom processor (so I guess practically a hack using existing Atom designs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.56.37 ( talk) 08:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LPIA links here, but is not explained. -- Nomeata ( talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The bit about availabilty "Atom processors are not yet available to home users or system builders, although they may be obtained preinstalled on some ITX motherboards." the cpu's have been availabe to home builders from the, there are dozens of montherboards availabe, and have been for at least a year.
Clarified as "not available to home users or system builders as separate processors" 87.185.207.97 ( talk) 03:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yakacm ( talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mainboards with an NVidia chipset and an onboard NVidia 9400 video card are marketed as ION - but that's not limited to Intel Atom CPUs, NVidia announced it for other processors, including the VIA Nano -- 195.14.235.189 ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This CPU was seen in the field but is not listed on Intel's Spec Finder site:
cpu family : 6 model : 28 model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU K510 @ 1.66GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 1662.309 cache size : 512 KB Cores: 2 Hyperthreaded: yes
I guess this "K" series is very new and should be added to the page, but I cannot find any public docs on it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefros ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Many other Intel processors such as the Celeron, Pentium, Core i and Xeon series can be installed and upgraded in-situ, by an unskilled person, without soldering, using a motherboard socket or slot. This article implies that the Atom cannot be used in this manner, that it requires soldering directly to the motherboard and cannot be upgraded without electronics skills, but the article could be improved by a knowledgeable person making this directly clear (or, if untrue, explaining how unskilled upgrades can be performed). Andrew Oakley ( talk) 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any knows limit to the pixel resolution of the internal Atom D525 Graphics? I can not find graphics specs at Intel's processor site. Would be interesting to know if the resolution is limited to 1920 x 1080 and 2048 x 1152 screens can not be used in native mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.18.148 ( talk) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
PowerVR -> "Intel uses the SGX 535 as its GMA 500 and GMA 600 integrated graphics for their Atom platform"
As far as I am informed, there are only some very crappy Linux drivers for this hardware. The manufacturer himself Imagination Technologies doesn't care for Linux at all. Simply google for linux driver PowerVR or for SGX 535 linux drivers
The Linux drivers by intel are reported to be quite good, but how mature are the drivers for the PowerVR?
E6xx - http://ark.intel.com/products/series/52490
full Atom info - http://ark.intel.com/products/family/29035 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.231.66 ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
d2500 has 400mhz gpu according to http://ark.intel.com/products/59682/Intel-Atom-Processor-D2500-(1M-Cache-1_86-GHz) new d2550 may has 640mhz gpu http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012010501_Intel_publishes_specs_of_Atom_D2550_N2650_and_N2850_CPUs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.46.168 ( talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The information in the section about 64bit support is outdated and probably refers only to older models. I have a netbook with N2600 Cedarview (MSI U180) and 64bit Ubuntu runs fine.
Please explain why you seem to believe that erasing valuable and difficult to obtain information is useful to Wikipedia and humanity at large? Is it that you simply can't be BOTHERED checking before you erase? If so - retire from Wikipedia. Seriously - let the work be done by others that will put more effort into researching changes rather than simply erasing other's work
In the specific case of the Intel Atom CPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom
Please explain why you reverted my changes to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatool ( talk • contribs)
Let me understand this - you seem to be indicating that you will revert any page that includes unsourced material? Is this your justification for reverting my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatool ( talk • contribs)
I'd appreciate answers to the following. These are important questions - and directly lead to an understanding of your function at Wikipedia.
So: until this is resolved: LET THE INFORMATION STAND on the basis of:
Humphrey: please answer the preceding questions that you ignored. These are not difficult - and there are only two of them. For simplicity I have reproduced them here:
I also add the following two questions to challenge your judgement of "reliable"
I have asked you (twice) to answer two relatively simple questions. Both times you have ignored my request - without any explanation. Indeed - much of your "work" appears to be done with very little to no explanation other than some blithe references to global Wikipedia policy.
ANSWER THE QUESTION(s) below - from there I'm happy to proceed based on your answers. These are reasonable questions directly related to the function that you appear to be trying to perform in relation to the Intel Atom web page.
As mentioned - there are at LEAST two people (myself and another) having an issue with the Atom processor and it's lack of 64 bit support. You appear more than happy to ignore clear screen shots of "no 64 bit support" - which you can see with your OWN EYES. Yet - you still want to remove the information as "not having a reliable source".
I doubt that you'll find Intel, Asus nor other laptop manufacturers will want to admit that they're disabling it in the BIOS (or removing it on the Atom CPU). I have asked them, and will continue to press Intel and Asus for answers - but it'll take longer than "a few days".
Be aware - I'm now downloading Wikipedia - and all of its page delta log information.
I want to determine just how much damage you've been doing by unwinding other people's updates. Pragmatool ( talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I am presently analysing the Wikipedia-wide impact of Humphrey's erasures through analysis of this page history dump: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20120802/enwiki-20120802-pages-meta-history1.xml-p000000010p000002162.bz2
Frankly: my "faith" in his "goodness" is broken. I'm questioning these activities under the microscope of "has the nett reliable information published by Wikipedia been increased or decreased by Humphrey's actions?"
Pragmatool ( talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record: here's the Intel statement on 64/32 bit. Asus are yet to respond. This is as close as I've come to a 'verifiable source' at this point - and it's hopelessly wishy washy.
We have received your request. From here, we can confirm that the instruction set for the Intel® Atom™ Processor N2600 is 64-bit. However, please keep in mind that the compatibility with the Operating Systems will be also related to the motherboard or chipset. Normally on mobile systems as notebooks, the system manufacturers will limit the features and usage of the processor. Also, you should contact the manufacturer for the proper technical support and advise on the supported Operating Systems.
I'm guessing this is because Intel sells these "32 bit" only processors at a lower price to manufacturers. The Intel website (and previously the Wikipedia entry) were misleading / not revealing the full truth to state "64 bit" as the instruction set. Pragmatool ( talk) 00:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Pragmatool ( talk) 08:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey - Your simplistic approach to "improving" Wikipedia by doing NOTHING but undoing other people's edits is quite probably doing considerable harm (removal of useful information) as it is good (removal of added information that's incorrect). There will be NO place within the Wikipedia hierarchy of pages that suitably informs the reader of the unsupported nature of 64 bit on some Atom-powered machines. Most readers - up to and including people that are reasonably familiar with CPU architectures - will RELY on sources such as Wikipedia for information. As such, I believe the following criteria should be set for content that covers topics / issues such as this one.
Given these criteria I would state that your "improvements" to the article:
Hello.
To help resolve this dispute, I'd like to offer a third opinion.
A hover-on description by Intel in the same page re-confirms that Intel 64 subsystem is responsible for 64-bit computing. Including these information in a Wikipedia article, with the support of the aforementioned source, is allowed."64-bit computing on Intel® architecture requires a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, operating system, device drivers and applications enabled for Intel® 64 architecture. Processors will not operate (including 32-bit operation) without an Intel 64 architecture-enabled BIOS."
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 22:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have assembled what I hope are enough citations to put this issue to rest. There is now a section on 64-bit support that contains multiple cites and attempts to clearly differentiate between different issues (which CPUs contain Intel 64 hardware support, what role drivers play in 64-bit support, etc.). I realize that not all the cites used would be considered RS by all editors, but this is important information, and I believe the cites used are the best currently available. Therefore, I ask that any editor who has an issue with the sources please discuss here on Talk first and not delete anything without further discussion.
Shelbystripes ( talk) 05:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
For eg: The Core 2 Duo SU7300 outperforms the dual-core Nano.[35]
Appears completely unsubstantiated after reading the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.166.50 ( talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Intel Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Intel® Atom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Intel® Atom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intel Atom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
http://www.intel.com/technology/atom/index.htm anyone know more details about the Centrino, or are they just the same thing? NeoDeGenero ( talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Benchamoneh ( talk) 10:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)...Intel® Centrino® Atom™ processor technology, a collection of chips enabling amazing Internet experiences in pocketable devices.
"A 1.8 GHz Atom processor's single thread performance is equivalent to its predecessor Intel A100 " - how's the performance of a 1.8GHz cpu possibly equivalent to a sub GHz cpu? I think some clarification might be needed. Anton 24.201.100.166 ( talk) 06:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Early tests showed Atom had 2 processors in Windows task manager.It was therefor believed the atom dualprocessor was a dual core version. However Atom Diamond ville is a single core processor! With hyperthreading enabled it may seem like there are 2 processors in taskmanager.
So far intel has said no word about releasing a Atom dualcore version anytime soon!
-cheers H.E. Hall ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is nonsense - you could merge Pentium into Personal computer like this.-- Kozuch ( talk) 19:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, keep them seperate. Colinstu ( talk) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge templates deleted.-- Kozuch ( talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this page clearly knows nothing about x86. x86 is the INSTRUCTION SET. Internally since the Pentium Pro all x86 processors have been RISC, with decoders to turn CISC insructions into RISC operations. Thats really basic stuff. Read the excellent anadtech article. I'm on holiday, and do not have time to sort this nonsense out now. Sorry.
81.192.137.26 ( talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That backward compatibiltiy while having some costs helps ensure that DOS 1 still boots on the fastest IA32 processor out there, so it's not all bad. ;-) Regards, Andromeda451
The background section is confusing, since it comes immediately after the introduction, and tracks historical rumours (even ones which have proven incorrect). Some speculation is still written in present tense, like "This seems to strengthen speculation that Diamondville is simply a lower-cost[...]". It would be better to add more info before, and move the history (if it is at all needed). Say, one should explain that "there are these two processor lines, which have different codenames, Diamondville and Silverthorne, referring to the same architecture in different variations, one for a target of Diamondville, one for target of Silverthorne" (this is just to give an idea). -- Blaisorblade ( talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So far the Intel Atom is using the i945G-chipset, which has several times the Atom's power consumption and thus makes it unattractive as a platform. I would like to see a mention of this fact here. What good is a 2Watt processor if it needs a 10+Watt chipset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.237.60 ( talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the Tegra really competition. Its a ARM part, with no IA32 compatability. ARM has always low power consumption devices and most likely much better W/cycle, MIPS/W and FLOPS/W etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.216.45 ( talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Intel is making ARM a competitor by entering into the market space traditionally dominated by ARM. That being mobile devices, smartphones, and tablets. In this space, x86 compatibility means nothing and so isn't relevant. Intel has clearly stated it's intentions to push Atom in the mobile market. See here So, Intel themselves have made ARM / Tegra performance comparisons valid and relevant to this discussion. CG - Jan 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.250.241 ( talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently this article is incredibly hard to read and follow caused by a few problems. Primary of which is there is very little overview information to provide context for the reader. Instead the article plunges into technical details with full jargon. There should be much more context to ease the reader in. I'm not really so up on the details of all this but I'll try to help where I can. This platform seems poised to be more and more important, particlularly if it keeps getting improved. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How does the performance of the 1.6ghz atoms currently common in netbooks compare to the "Celeron M ULV 353" used in earlier netbooks? Plugwash ( talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
nVidia slides on
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/02/25/nvidia.ion.2.leak/
indicate that the next version of Atom will require Intel graphics, locking out nVidia's Ion platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 ( talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no lock-in. There are, now, some n450 (pineview) based devices running third party graphics. It will either offload certain processing to the extra graphics or disable the integrated GMA on the CPU. While you are forced to have the GMA included, on devices where only the GMA is present, a significant power savings is seen over older generation netbooks. In fact, the netbook I, personally, have (with a pineview cpu) has been tested successfully with a broadcom addin card. 173.74.245.34 ( talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've found two PNGs available for the Atom logo, but I didn't upload them because I'm not completely sure about their copyright :/ Here are the URLs:
* http://www.infotechgallery.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2590 (Big One!) * http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/intel-atom-cpu.png
-- ;) Peregrino ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, I made some major changes to the page and would appreciate a second look by those who are knowledgeable about this CPU and platform
- Moved ARM information to competition section
- Replaced reference to brand-specific Nvidia Tegra product in the "competition" section with information on ARM's competing platform which is used by Nvidia, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc.
- Added information on competition between future Atom platform "Lincroft" and next-gen ARM Cortex-A9 based CPUs
- reworded some other sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterspan ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I just added the flag dubious about the ARM performances because there are two mistakes: 1) actually it's really hard to find a comparison apple-to-apple; if you know one, just link the reference 2) ARM and Atom are really different architectures, so similar results with syntetic benchmarks could mean nothing: old Pentium 4 Prescott has similar integer performance of POWER 5 processors, but nobody thinks that you can use a Pentium 4 instead of POWER5 in mainframe applications
I know that it's a widespread belief that Cortex A8 will compete with Atom but actually there is no evidence of this, so it's more a commonplace (for someone a hope, I think) than a real fact.
Thank you! =)
http://androidandme.com/2012/01/devices/hands-on-with-the-lenovo-k800-the-worlds-first-intel-atom-z2460-powered-phone/ Quoting from that article: "happened to have Quadrant installed on it, so we launched it up and discovered that the Intel Atom Z2460 chip on the Lenovo K800 scored a 3489. Naturally, we’d like to stress that benchmark numbers don’t necessarily reflect real-life use scenarios, but they do give us an idea of what kind of performance we can expect from a handset. Since Quadrant is only optimized for single-core devices, we’re not surprised at all to see that the Intel Atom Z2460 scores a lot higher than the quad-core NVIDIA Tegra 3 powered devices." And this is still a 2012, 32nm process Atom processor (so I guess practically a hack using existing Atom designs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.56.37 ( talk) 08:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
LPIA links here, but is not explained. -- Nomeata ( talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The bit about availabilty "Atom processors are not yet available to home users or system builders, although they may be obtained preinstalled on some ITX motherboards." the cpu's have been availabe to home builders from the, there are dozens of montherboards availabe, and have been for at least a year.
Clarified as "not available to home users or system builders as separate processors" 87.185.207.97 ( talk) 03:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yakacm ( talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mainboards with an NVidia chipset and an onboard NVidia 9400 video card are marketed as ION - but that's not limited to Intel Atom CPUs, NVidia announced it for other processors, including the VIA Nano -- 195.14.235.189 ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This CPU was seen in the field but is not listed on Intel's Spec Finder site:
cpu family : 6 model : 28 model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU K510 @ 1.66GHz stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 1662.309 cache size : 512 KB Cores: 2 Hyperthreaded: yes
I guess this "K" series is very new and should be added to the page, but I cannot find any public docs on it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefros ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Many other Intel processors such as the Celeron, Pentium, Core i and Xeon series can be installed and upgraded in-situ, by an unskilled person, without soldering, using a motherboard socket or slot. This article implies that the Atom cannot be used in this manner, that it requires soldering directly to the motherboard and cannot be upgraded without electronics skills, but the article could be improved by a knowledgeable person making this directly clear (or, if untrue, explaining how unskilled upgrades can be performed). Andrew Oakley ( talk) 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any knows limit to the pixel resolution of the internal Atom D525 Graphics? I can not find graphics specs at Intel's processor site. Would be interesting to know if the resolution is limited to 1920 x 1080 and 2048 x 1152 screens can not be used in native mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.18.148 ( talk) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
PowerVR -> "Intel uses the SGX 535 as its GMA 500 and GMA 600 integrated graphics for their Atom platform"
As far as I am informed, there are only some very crappy Linux drivers for this hardware. The manufacturer himself Imagination Technologies doesn't care for Linux at all. Simply google for linux driver PowerVR or for SGX 535 linux drivers
The Linux drivers by intel are reported to be quite good, but how mature are the drivers for the PowerVR?
E6xx - http://ark.intel.com/products/series/52490
full Atom info - http://ark.intel.com/products/family/29035 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.231.66 ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
d2500 has 400mhz gpu according to http://ark.intel.com/products/59682/Intel-Atom-Processor-D2500-(1M-Cache-1_86-GHz) new d2550 may has 640mhz gpu http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012010501_Intel_publishes_specs_of_Atom_D2550_N2650_and_N2850_CPUs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.46.168 ( talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The information in the section about 64bit support is outdated and probably refers only to older models. I have a netbook with N2600 Cedarview (MSI U180) and 64bit Ubuntu runs fine.
Please explain why you seem to believe that erasing valuable and difficult to obtain information is useful to Wikipedia and humanity at large? Is it that you simply can't be BOTHERED checking before you erase? If so - retire from Wikipedia. Seriously - let the work be done by others that will put more effort into researching changes rather than simply erasing other's work
In the specific case of the Intel Atom CPU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom
Please explain why you reverted my changes to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatool ( talk • contribs)
Let me understand this - you seem to be indicating that you will revert any page that includes unsourced material? Is this your justification for reverting my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatool ( talk • contribs)
I'd appreciate answers to the following. These are important questions - and directly lead to an understanding of your function at Wikipedia.
So: until this is resolved: LET THE INFORMATION STAND on the basis of:
Humphrey: please answer the preceding questions that you ignored. These are not difficult - and there are only two of them. For simplicity I have reproduced them here:
I also add the following two questions to challenge your judgement of "reliable"
I have asked you (twice) to answer two relatively simple questions. Both times you have ignored my request - without any explanation. Indeed - much of your "work" appears to be done with very little to no explanation other than some blithe references to global Wikipedia policy.
ANSWER THE QUESTION(s) below - from there I'm happy to proceed based on your answers. These are reasonable questions directly related to the function that you appear to be trying to perform in relation to the Intel Atom web page.
As mentioned - there are at LEAST two people (myself and another) having an issue with the Atom processor and it's lack of 64 bit support. You appear more than happy to ignore clear screen shots of "no 64 bit support" - which you can see with your OWN EYES. Yet - you still want to remove the information as "not having a reliable source".
I doubt that you'll find Intel, Asus nor other laptop manufacturers will want to admit that they're disabling it in the BIOS (or removing it on the Atom CPU). I have asked them, and will continue to press Intel and Asus for answers - but it'll take longer than "a few days".
Be aware - I'm now downloading Wikipedia - and all of its page delta log information.
I want to determine just how much damage you've been doing by unwinding other people's updates. Pragmatool ( talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I am presently analysing the Wikipedia-wide impact of Humphrey's erasures through analysis of this page history dump: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20120802/enwiki-20120802-pages-meta-history1.xml-p000000010p000002162.bz2
Frankly: my "faith" in his "goodness" is broken. I'm questioning these activities under the microscope of "has the nett reliable information published by Wikipedia been increased or decreased by Humphrey's actions?"
Pragmatool ( talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record: here's the Intel statement on 64/32 bit. Asus are yet to respond. This is as close as I've come to a 'verifiable source' at this point - and it's hopelessly wishy washy.
We have received your request. From here, we can confirm that the instruction set for the Intel® Atom™ Processor N2600 is 64-bit. However, please keep in mind that the compatibility with the Operating Systems will be also related to the motherboard or chipset. Normally on mobile systems as notebooks, the system manufacturers will limit the features and usage of the processor. Also, you should contact the manufacturer for the proper technical support and advise on the supported Operating Systems.
I'm guessing this is because Intel sells these "32 bit" only processors at a lower price to manufacturers. The Intel website (and previously the Wikipedia entry) were misleading / not revealing the full truth to state "64 bit" as the instruction set. Pragmatool ( talk) 00:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Pragmatool ( talk) 08:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey - Your simplistic approach to "improving" Wikipedia by doing NOTHING but undoing other people's edits is quite probably doing considerable harm (removal of useful information) as it is good (removal of added information that's incorrect). There will be NO place within the Wikipedia hierarchy of pages that suitably informs the reader of the unsupported nature of 64 bit on some Atom-powered machines. Most readers - up to and including people that are reasonably familiar with CPU architectures - will RELY on sources such as Wikipedia for information. As such, I believe the following criteria should be set for content that covers topics / issues such as this one.
Given these criteria I would state that your "improvements" to the article:
Hello.
To help resolve this dispute, I'd like to offer a third opinion.
A hover-on description by Intel in the same page re-confirms that Intel 64 subsystem is responsible for 64-bit computing. Including these information in a Wikipedia article, with the support of the aforementioned source, is allowed."64-bit computing on Intel® architecture requires a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, operating system, device drivers and applications enabled for Intel® 64 architecture. Processors will not operate (including 32-bit operation) without an Intel 64 architecture-enabled BIOS."
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 22:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have assembled what I hope are enough citations to put this issue to rest. There is now a section on 64-bit support that contains multiple cites and attempts to clearly differentiate between different issues (which CPUs contain Intel 64 hardware support, what role drivers play in 64-bit support, etc.). I realize that not all the cites used would be considered RS by all editors, but this is important information, and I believe the cites used are the best currently available. Therefore, I ask that any editor who has an issue with the sources please discuss here on Talk first and not delete anything without further discussion.
Shelbystripes ( talk) 05:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
For eg: The Core 2 Duo SU7300 outperforms the dual-core Nano.[35]
Appears completely unsubstantiated after reading the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.166.50 ( talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Intel Atom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Intel® Atom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Intel® Atom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)