Error
  • JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 24 November 2011 11:16

Intel Cedar Trail delayed yet again

Written by



No rush, next year is fine


Intel’s next generation Atoms processors have been delayed yet again. The 32nm Cedar Trail chips were set to launch sometime in Q3, but they were delayed and now it seems they have been delayed once again.

According to our friend Lars over at VR-Zone, no Cedar Trail products will ship in time for the holidays. Intel will officially launch Cedar Trail in late December,  which basically means 2012 for all intents and purposes. Cedar Trail experienced quite a few teething problems with graphics drivers, namely WHQL certification, which translated into a lengthy delay.

Although the new N2xxx series Atoms should easily outpace their predecessors, it is still unclear they will be able to hold their ground against AMD’s Brazos platform. AMD on the other hand has also run into a world of trouble with its 28nm APU plans, so the Cedar Trail mess won’t end up hurting Intel too much.

More here.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
0 #1 STRESS 2011-11-24 13:30
The reason there is simply no demand for Cedar Trail Intel might as well skip it and go straight to the next one.
 
 
-3 #2 faildozzer 2011-11-24 18:35
Quoting STRESS:
The reason there is simply no demand for Cedar Trail Intel might as well skip it and go straight to the next one.


of course they can - since no competition from that other failed company..whats they name...?that company who made epic fail with some kinda tractor cpu?oh..amd LOL :D
 
 
+3 #3 Jay 2011-11-24 19:11
Quoting faildozzer :
Quoting STRESS:
The reason there is simply no demand for Cedar Trail Intel might as well skip it and go straight to the next one.


of course they can - since no competition from that other failed company..whats they name...?that company who made epic fail with some kinda tractor cpu?oh..amd LOL :D


STFU...I bought a i3-2100 instead of FX-4100 based on reviews its only coz of retards like you I'm ashamed of running Intel....at least I have a AMD graphics card atm instead of lousy Intel graphics. What happened to your Larabee? OH wait! you know!
 
 
+3 #4 Super XP 2011-11-25 00:52
TO: faildozzer
You obviously don’t know what happens when there’s no competition. Without competition, nobody benefits. The stronger competitor will start to price fix where we would get CPU’s that should cost $200, cost as much as $600+. Is that what you want?
Bulldozer is not a fail per say. It’s a great new start for AMD. If AMD had enough available 32nm process CPU’s to sell, they would have completely SOLD out of Bulldozer(s).
IMO, benchmarks be dammed, for your everyday use they run fast and efficient. For your gaming needs, it does just as well as the competition. Gaming is all Graphics, so the CPU plays a minor role, though in Synthetic Benchmarks, they are manipulative and show false CPU performance. It is Real World that people should look at.
 
 
0 #5 Jay 2011-11-25 11:36
Hold on SuperXP I'll stop you right there. I agree competition benefits us consumers but really your sounding like a Intel hater/ AMD guy for sure. My friend owns a PC shop he has not sold 1 Bulldozer processor since he had the lot come 3 weeks ago. You talk about real-world/gaming performance? Why then does a Phenom II X4 840 i.e a cloned AthlonII X4 640 beat a FX-4100 Bulldozer in 95% gaming benchmarks? CPU plays a minor role yes then we should all be happy with a PentiumG620 or AthlonII X2 255. The fact is AMD screwed up with BD they cannot beat their previous generation chips comprehensively with a new chip. End of the day you can chrun out conspiracy theories or whatever fact will always remain that its a underperforming turd. Don't talk about efficiency its nowhere close to i3/i5.
 
 
-1 #6 evolucion8 2011-11-26 17:50
Quoting Jay:
Hold on SuperXP


Did you see the Battlefield 3 benchmarks where Bulldozer matches Sandy Bridge? Remember that in lightly threaded games, Bulldozer indeed is a fail like you said, but in multithreaded games and multithreading applications where all the software is heading, Bulldozer shows to be a respectable force. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2 and http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulldozer_gaming_performance_analysis/index10.html I said it again, multithreaded games xD
 
 
-1 #7 Jay 2011-11-26 23:57
Quoting evolucion8:
Quoting Jay:
Hold on SuperXP


Did you see the Battlefield 3 benchmarks where Bulldozer matches Sandy Bridge?


I'm not talking about the FX-8150. I have clearly mentioned a FX-4100. I don't know about you or anyone else I will never spend more than $130 on any CPU ever even if it does my laundry or dishes coz In 10-12 months time it's going on eBay for half price. Simple as that. I'm referring to a i3-2100, FX-4100 & Phenom II X4 on same clock as FX-4100. i3 is slightly slower than FX-4100 but it makes up in power consumption. FYI both are on 32nm so Intel still has a far efficient/superior architecture. Both have 2 cores as in modules & 4 threads.
 
 
0 #8 evolucion8 2011-11-27 05:14
Quoting Jay:
I'm not talking about the FX-8150.


I invested for a i7 2600K for the sake of longevity and performance in my video encoding/gaming tasks. But indeed, FX-4100 is slightly slower than even a Phenom II X4 that costs around the same, the i3 is a no brainer unless if you are using some heavy multithreaded tasks where the real 4 cores of the Phenom II X4 will be put in good use. (Same for FX 4100)
 
 
0 #9 Jay 2011-11-27 21:07
Quoting evolucion8:
i3 is a no brainer unless if you are using some heavy multithreaded tasks where the real 4 cores of the Phenom II X4 will be put in good use. (Same for FX 4100)
I'm not getting how u guys keep getting into AMD's marketing BS. FX series is not real 4 cores its 2 modules with 4 threads. Rest talk is a marketing ploy by AMD nothing else. i3 even destorys a FX-4100 in multithreaded apps on stock/clock-clock. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/ Cinebench is as multithreaded as u can go. I will not listen to people saying FX-4100 shines at multitasking when its an epic failure. AMD needs some sense they dieshrink the Phenom architechture & let go of this BD mess. Simple as that.
 
 
0 #10 Jay 2011-11-27 21:09
Quoting evolucion8:
I invested for a i7 2600K for the sake of longevity and performance in my video encoding/gaming tasks.
well certainly u made a wrong choice or money is no issue to you. Coz only those guys will upgrade to a high-end SB when IB is coming in 3-4 months unless you bought ur i7 4 months ago.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments