CJ, you're welcome to argue micro-architecture with someone who understands the subject enough to get into the nitty gritty details:
siliconinvestor.com
Otherwise, most of this conversation is past the point where I can have a two way conversation with you.
Re: At 65nm, the processor core for A8 occupies about 9mm^2. Are you claiming that the processor core of an Atom is smaller than that?
9mm2 under which configuration? There are lots of ARM implementations, and many checklist features which can be included or excluded to save space and/or power, such as L1 cache, L2 cache, media instructions, and other features. ARM has done a fantastic job with modularity, but raw size is really meaningless in the first place. Performance per area is much more relevant, and if you want to present me with a quantitative comparison - with links - that proves your point, I will be happy to see your data. However, most of your arguments seem like apples to oranges, and without providing the details, I think it's pointless to continue.
Re: "Why wouldn't the average end user prefer Windows?"
>> Because to include and support it, the costs are pushed up to about what a regular laptop would cost.
Complete bull. Here's a 10" Atom and Windows XP based Eee PC for $349.99 after rebate ($389.99 before), and it includes 1GB of memory and a 160GB drive. Also claims 7 hours of battery, but even 5 "real" hours would be great for consumers. Show me an ARM and Linux based Netbook with greater value.
newegg.com |
