Total Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 2010
|
18-35 watts is way out of the ba
18-35 watts is way out of the ballpark. We need something more like 1 watt, so we can put it in a small box with no fan. Sorry, Intel - you still don't get it.
Posted on 2010-01-13 08:31:20 at 2010-01-13 08:31:20
|
|
Total Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2010
|
35 W? You are smoking something
35 W? You are smoking something. (Or you dropped a decimal, twice. 
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36331
2.5W...still 'way outside your margin, but not the 18-35W--that's laptop range. Unless you dropped that aforementioned decimal...but methinks perhaps your ARM tattoo is showing.
Posted on 2010-02-03 13:29:08 at 2010-02-03 13:29:08
|
Total Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 2009
|
Hey, that's good!
Hey, double-digit wattage is good for Intel! Sure, it's not for everybody, but given the arcane complexity of the x86 instruction set, it's an improvement. It's sure a lot better than the company's "non-embedded" x86 processors.
Posted on 2010-02-03 17:05:28 at 2010-02-03 17:05:28
|
|
Total Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2010
|
What I'm saying is looking at th
What I'm saying is looking at the product link on the Intel site, there's an Atom N270 with a Max TDP listed at 2.5W. That's the thermal design target, right?
Double-digits, sure, but with a '.' in between.
MikPel's 18-35W was a targeted swipe at Celerons, (Conroe-L class, looking at the numbers on Wikipedia), which misses Atoms entirely. I followed the link you posted, Jim, and selected the embedded family to check. If s/he needs sub-watt, then certainly it's still too high, but 1.5x, not 15x.
-JK
Posted on 2010-02-04 01:02:28 at 2010-02-04 01:02:28
|
