Intel attacks Nvidia's Ion

now serioulsy its just a net book just chuck in a intel celeron m (1.4ghz) and 2gb of ram and a 300mb video card with windows 7 home premium intel should focus on gamers and forget netbooks heck the max price for a net book should be $250 and also why doesnt AMD do netbooks? and intel do laptops and desktops

I guess this eats into Intel's profit margin then nobody will buy more pricier chips. This will be the fate of games if Intel owned the graphics chips markets as this is Intel's attitude on low end processors as they will just not provide support. Intel is bad for the gaming community, want support good luck...

Is it possible that NV is looking forwards to chip sets for cloud clients? In that case a more modest cpu but good graphics might be just what the doctor ordered. It might be out from under Windows also if the executables downloaded from the cloud are Java or other interpreted, x86-free code.

Is anyone out there knowledgeable about the developing world of cloud clients? There is apparently tons of money being placed there including by Microsoft itself.

BENJI Comment:
"Netbooks are seen as devices for web-browsing, emailing, tweeting and other general purposes. General purposes that don't require or need more powah! Which is why the comments are so funny! Again, if you want a true multipurpose PC you buy a (enthusiasts) notebook or desktop PC that offers what you need. That's what they are there for!"

Sorry what webpages do you look at?

Last time i checked, flash takes the atom chips to another level!

On board intel:
80%-90% CPU Usage.

With Nvidia ION:
10-15%

I believe Intel is biting themselves in the a$$. How much money do they make from intel atom chip?

AT least before they're making money from chipset and cpu, now it's just cpu ..

Conclusion: Nvidia ION isn't a overkill, I would rather lose an hour on the netbook than to have a slow experience on the netbook, one more thing. Nvidia ION can support 4gb memory while intel supports 2gb, clearly who makes the better chipset?

Nvidia knows what the customer want and that is a device that can do the basic task, last time i check basic task these days include surfing the web, watch videos on youtube and writing e-mails.

Translation: We have nothing that can even remotely compete with Ion, so it isn't necessary. Remember, if Intel doesn't make it, you don't need it.

"Nanduri muttered that Ion will add too much to the cost of a netbook."

Me, muttering that Win7 does add too much to the cost of a netbook.

Why the hell would you want ION in a netbook (although portable EVE Online sounds good to me). ION is great for miniITX systems for use in home media systems, 1080p decoding in a box smaller than an icecream tub, that's where the ION platform shines (my home entertainment system is proof of that). Intel's just grumpy because it cant match Nvidia's graphics performance in the integrated graphics market.

Babality!!!!

If Intel can't compete, they'll poison the well. That is, until they catch up.

Remember when 64-bit processors from AMD were "overkill". That was until Intel came out with their own.

The market is moving to smart phones like the Iphone and the Droid. People are learning that they don't need a full PC for most things. Intel is trying to differentiate the low end from the high end. This keeps their high profit machine running. Problem is that chips are being made with ARM processors and the HD video processing. If they don't give people what they want they will lose the low end market.

Artificially curtailing performance of
netbook when it can go further and thereby achieve its maximum potential
is wrong.
Its anti consumer.
It limits the maximum return from a consumer's investment.
Also im a seller of laptops and netbooks.
A lot of those who bought the netbook for internet use are complaining about youtube hd being unplayable when they did buy it specifically for net usage thereby making its name netbook inaccurate.
Many of those who bought the netbooks
also wish for it to double as a portable all around media player yet it can do these things if only intel used the 4500hd instead of the 950.
The g35 4500hd conhsumes less power than the 950 too.

They could've done this from the start.
If intel is thinking about its revenues
can you blame the consumer to think about his own self interest also?

When i first started selling netbooks they sold well but now pickup is very slow coz they gained a bad reputation for being slow in everyday tasks.

And reputations last for years.
If intel only did the best for the atom right from the start they it would continue to be a best seller.
netbook sales at the retail front has slowed down even if you factor in the global crisis effect.

There are dualcore laptops with inte 4500hd gaphics selling for only 25% more than a netbook with better storage and memory.
Battery life is shorter but everyday tasks get done faster and with no gripes at all.

If I'm ever to buy one of those wretched little things it'll be one with Ion in it. Now, I've had several laptops with Intel integrated "graphics" and they blow. I want to at least be able to press "high quality" in youtube without watching some moronic slideshow. Intel should get its act together before they dare speak even Nvidias name.

A GTS 250 would definitely be an overkill. Something that can play a modest 3D game? Don't think so.

A Broadcom chip to play HD? WTF is Broadcom? As far as I know, they make wifi chips, not graphics accelerator chips. Will it run on linux? Will there be another "Poulsbo" that has crappy driver for windows and no drivers for linux? I think that that is what's going to happen. Intel should get their acts straight and either support Windows 100%, or become totally software-agnostic, because I see this move as pro-M$.

Besides, I doubt that the Graphics Media Decelerator 4500 + the mystic Broadcom chip will be less expensive than a single Ion chip. Oh, wait, Intel will offer some under-the-table rebates, and it will become cheaper. Been there, done that, nothing new, move along.

I call bullshit on all the 'it's a netbook, different market, not desktop' comments.

Just because you don't need a fast CPU, you definitely want a fast, good looking, responsive UI. And these need lots of GPU power today. (That also means they definitely want a good display.)

Uhhhh yeah... Go ahead and buy an Ion-based netbook if you want something that's MORE EXPENSIVE and have LESS BATTERY LIFE then the average vanilla netbook.

Who wants that? The clueless idiots who are complaining up a storm in the comments section.

Video decode is a no-brainer, obvious feature to include on a chip that will be used for internet browsing, like a netbook.

In addition, features like HDMI output are also very useful these days.

Intel's latest Atom offerings fail at both of these basic features.

One can't fail to notice that ARM SoCs offer these features at competitive prices, and soon-to-be-competitive computing power (dual-ARM Cortex A9s at 2GHz anyone?), with added features on top.

Instead Intel espouse using a motherboard-space-using external chip for something that is a core feature of a SoC, on a platform that is crowing about saving motherboard space. And on top of all that, they've removed their only chipset competition by integrating and dictating the GPU that Atom can be used with.

I mean seriously some of the comments are comical in nature. Netbooks are seen as devices for web-browsing, emailing, tweeting and other general purposes. General purposes that don't require or need more powah! Which is why the comments are so funny! Again, if you want a true multipurpose PC you buy a (enthusiasts) notebook or desktop PC that offers what you need. That's what they are there for!

Netbooks are for a different segment of users. Some of you are confusing netbooks with notebooks, LOL!

I'm OK id Nv wants to do this. If people want to pay more for a netbook with more features, they'll buy it, if they don't, they won't. They'll buy the cheaper netbook from someone else.

Ion improves some netbooks functionalities and reduces the performance gap between the laptop and destop for average consumer. This will canabalise further laptop/desktop CPUs. So, NVidia is doing a favor to this average consumer that Intel is opposing to the idea! Intel wants you the consumer to have: a desktop, a laptop, a netbook, ...

This is pure Intel Marketing BS and that is a pleonasm. AFAIK there is no way to get ION to work with Pinetrail anyway, as there is no FSB anymore - flame me if I'm wrong. Then there is also no HDMI on Pine Trail, which is of course a deliberate move by Intel. All Intel did is adapting their marketing mobbing tactics after having been successfully sued here and there.

Any PC bought in 2009 (not even talking 'bout 2010) should be able to play HD painlessly and output it on HDMI. Beeing it a netbook, notebook or whatever. Even a meager Z5x0 combined with Poulsbo plays HD painlessly using DXVA.

Obviously, adding a decoding chip is not going to make the driver situation less complicated.

Intel does have a point:
1. They are saying that they have a cheaper solution thus a cost savings for the consumer. Being this is a netbook and not a full blown out PC or enthusiast class notebook this is something consumers want!

2. They are also saying that it's "overkill" which I also agree with. Again, we are talking about netbooks here not enthusiast class notebooks and PCs! So there is no need for horse power when the typical user who buys a netbook won't need it or use it.

So to me I don't see this as an attack but points that make perfect sense for me. If you want a computer device to play games and watch movies then a cheap netbook is not something you would want. You need to be a tad more astute and look at either notebooks or PCs! </end

is tomorrow's minimum requirement.

'nuff said.

I have my own uses for Physx - and my ION (9400) is running at a 600/1300 clock rather than 450/1100. The Atom 330 dualcore is running at 2.1Ghz,4GB dualchannel 800Mhz ultra low latency RAM, 64GB SSD, using less than 40w under full load.
No one said anything about netbooks!

I don't really understand how the conclusions were drawn here. Intel advocates Crystal HD, which will also replace higher end laptops.

I agree with Intel. A netbook does not need a dedicated graphics processor. The Crystal HD allows for 1080P flash and video playback. And the atom is too slow for gaming anyway. Why should we be forced to pay more in price/power consumption for extra features a netbook doesn't need? A video accelerator makes a lot more sense than a dedicated GPU.

PhysX currently important on a netbook? Is that a joke?

If you really feel the need for a dedicated netbook GPU, knock yourself out. Pay the battery life penalty. I'll take my video decoder.

....that 85% of their main CPU line up is overkill but you don't see them mentioning that in the sales blurb!

Quit ragging on someone who is making your lacklustre products look usable when you cant do it yourself.

I guess the embarrassment is that the firm in question is Nvidia who have hardly had the 'innovator' crown for some years now.

The only "over-kill" has been the reaction by Intel's Special-Op "suits" whose job it is to find cracks in the opposition's armor. Nice try...but not this time. Now go away and eat some holiday-humble-pie.

I have yet to meet a consumer chipset whose power and practical abilities could reasonably be accused of delivering "over-kill." With the proliferation of demanding video apps and more complex operating systems flooding the market at an ever increasing rate, too much power is the LAST thing with which we should be concerned.

In my book, more is always better. Those who wish to buy a cheap Net-book with average power will always find dozens of models from which to choose--complete with Intel processors. The rest of us will gladly pay a bit more for some ramped-up "chip-tosterone." Yes, you heard it hear first..."chip-tosterone."

"Over-kill!" I say..."BRING IT ON." Thanks Nvidia.

ION is equivalent to a built-in 9400,
thus offloading PhysX to ION seems pretty much useless to me.

heck, I wouldn't even use a 9400 as physx dedicated as it would run like crap.

nVidia have removed support for Physx on the Ion since the last few driver releases, despite previously advertising Physx as a feature of Ion.
Having bought an Ion, I feel rather cheated that they have changed the rules, but I should have expected it really.

We don't want more powerful netbooks, we want a netbook that will do the basic stuff at a cheap price, $250 should be the top price for a device that can surf the web, do email, display youtube etc, prepare simple documents. If we want to play high graphics games, prepare interactive spreadsheets, write our latest novel then we will but a laptop as well!!

Yeah, liek who needs nextgen Physx, CUDA, DXVA, full DX compatibility when we have Intel's '90s GMA ?

No, instead, they just stick to it the most innovative corporation on this scene today; NV.

And: where's AMD in all this ? Wouldn't mind a bit of competition in this field. Intel, apparently, is not up to it in that they try and subvert the masses with bogus PR.