Benchmarks for Intel's Cedar Trail netbook platform leaked

By on August 29, 2011, 10:30 AM

Earlier this month we heard that Intel would be delaying the launch of its next-generation netbook platform until November due to a graphics driver issues. Nevertheless those looking forward to Intel's upcoming 32nm Cedar Trail Atoms can now have a first look at their expected performance thanks to some leaked slides posted by VR-Zone.

Cedar Trail-M includes two new CPUs, a 32nm-based Atom N2800 operating at 1.86GHz and the N2600 at 1.6GHz. The core architecture remains unchanged, so clock for clock CPU performance should be the same as previous Atom processors, only with higher clock speeds and lower power consumption due to the die shrink.

According to the slides, this gives the N2800 only a slight advantage over the dual-core Atom N570 while the Atom N2600 is slightly slower. Compared to the Pine Trail Atom N450/455 both Cedar Trail chips will perform considerably faster, but of course that is to be expected, as the older Atoms are single-core parts.

In terms of graphics performance the lone 3DMark06 benchmark shows that both new chips are superior to their predecessors, though the N2800 is by far the more impressive. VR-Zone says the higher score is mostly a factor of GPU clock speed, as the Atom N2600 and N2800 will reportedly have GPU clocks 2-3 times higher than Pine Trail.

Unfortunately, there are no side-to-side comparisons with AMD's Brazos platform but it doesn't seem like Intel will catch up on the graphics front -- not to mention the 28nm Krishna and Wichita APUs should push AMD further ahead in this segment sometime next year. Where Intel's Atom should deliver is in its improved battery life and better power consumption; two key features for anyone considering a netbook.




User Comments: 6

Got something to say? Post a comment
mosu said:

3DMark 2006?!!! Come on, no DirectX11?

Guest said:

I'm getting real sick of hearing the AMD vs Intel graphics articles. It would be a different story if Intel just got into graphics a year ago, but they didn't. Like damn, Intel put graphics on chip before AMD/ATi - a GPU company. AMD only had to announce and wait 6 years to finally produce their offering. I'm all for competition, but I'm not gonna feel sorry for AMD. That's juss effin business. You fail, you lose. I think AMD needs to pick a real fight... like say, with their CPU's, against a CPU company.

*hey mosu, Intel graphics don't do DX11, remember? You should have said, "Come on, no 3DMark Vantage?"

mosu said:

Hey, courageous Intel fanboy, I was pointing that Intel does not have a functional DX11 compatible chip yet!

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Guest said:

I'm getting real sick of hearing the AMD vs Intel graphics articles. It would be a different story if Intel just got into graphics a year ago, but they didn't. Like damn, Intel put graphics on chip before AMD/ATi - a GPU company. AMD only had to announce and wait 6 years to finally produce their offering. I'm all for competition, but I'm not gonna feel sorry for AMD. That's juss effin business. You fail, you lose. I think AMD needs to pick a real fight... like say, with their CPU's, against a CPU company.

*hey mosu, Intel graphics don't do DX11, remember? You should have said, "Come on, no 3DMark Vantage?"

Sick of seeing how an AMD APU whoops the bejesus out of a useless Intel Atom with the new offerings that doesn't have much more to offer than its predecessors?

I don't care what manufacturer makes what, all I know is that you get more for your money with an AMD APU inside a Netbook.

And yes I would rather have an I7-2600K for my desktop.

Competition breeds excellence, fanboys breeds ignorance.

R3DP3NGUIN R3DP3NGUIN said:

sarcasm said:

Competition breeds excellence, fanboys breeds ignorance.

Well said!!!

Desktop wise, I myself seem to always tell people who want the fastest CPU to go with Intel, even though my system is AMD based.

Guest said:

I wish I could see a benchmark that somehow correlate performance per battery life in a meaningful way (or in a way that a computer-challeged person like me can understand in a single snapshot.) Only reason why I buy netbook is for a long trip (~10hr flight) so that i can continuously work or watch video the whole time. Any netbook that lasts less than 6 hours under load is useless in my opinion.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.