Why did the Intel Atom fail?

First Intel sold their ARM manufacturing to Marvel. Second, they stopped the Intel Atom production. Have both corporate boards and women/minorities/LGBT destroyed tech firms from innovating?

Attached: intel-atom-windows-creator-update-feature.png (650x300, 32K)

Atom is pretty much a dead end. When you downclock a Kaby Lake Core M to 4W SDP, it's around 2-3x faster across the board.
Price is 10x more though, unfortunately.

Intel didn't stop Atom production though. They recently released their new Goldmont Plus based designs.

I fell for the Intel meme in my smartphone.

It memes alright.

I have a theory that Intel and Microsoft contributed to the Atom being as despised as it is and to it being forever underpowered.

It all began in 2008 with the first ever netbooks - the 7' and 8' Asus EeePCs were all the rage - tiny super portable computers running Linux or Windows XP allowed end-users to use the internet and conduct light work from literally anywhere.

Then came the mistake - the newer-age 10' netbooks sporting an assortment of highly clocked Atoms (N270, N280) hit the market, but Microsoft insisted that they all ship with their brand-new shiny operating system, Windows 7. The result was horrible: Windows 7 was far too heavy for the measely Atoms to function properly and this resulted in buggy, laggy, unresponsive and overall unpleasant systems. Linux or Windows XP would have functioned just fine.

Just as the market was stutteringly taking off, Apple swept in and released their iPad, which offered everything that the netbooks didn't - sleek, well-designed systems that felt good to use. Although it was focused more on media consumption rather than production, the iPad still allowed basic productivity work on the go such as writing emails and editing basic documents.

As the market shifted towards iPads and a newer market for tablets in general, the Atom line just never had the traction it needed to further its development. OEMs continued to release chronically underpowered devices, but they were never popular. Ultimately, Intel tried to shift its focus to tablets and phones, but the Atom line couldn't deliver the low clocks and TDPs needed for that market and thus fell into obscurity even more.

t, user who used a dual-core Atom machine as a main driver throughout college, and whose entire family used unerpowered netbooks for a long time. Surprisingly, I still use my old netbook on occasion.

>t, user who used a dual-core Atom machine as a main driver throughout college, and whose entire family used unerpowered netbooks for a long time. Surprisingly, I still use my old netbook on occasion.
They are enough if you don't use win7 or other bloatOS on them. They are just not normy friendly

1024*600
That's what killed them for me.

>They are enough if you don't use win7 or other bloatOS on them. They are just not normy friendly
Precisely. The first thing you and I would do to a brand new netbook is change the OS or at least de-bloat it. That's NOT what the other 80% of potential customers would do. They'd rather just buy something that was slick and user-friendly out of the box.

>1024*600
>That's what killed them for me.
1366x768 isn't all that much better, but we're stuck with it probably until the year 2100.

Because xeon ate quadro


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Attached: 04582C68-288D-4584-B91E-5AE8304D1618.jpg (225x245, 23K)

They still make Atom and just call it Celeron. What was actually killed was some ultra low power shit that shouldn't have existed in the first place and shouldn't have adopted the Atom name, either. Intel's naming scheme is fucking terrible.

Not quite. The design is based on the research by the atom team, but it's a separate design.

The design is more similar to the previous short execution pipeline pentium. It's a lot less shit than it used to be, but still pretty shit.

I loved doing weird stuff with atom devices, crazy cooling systems, overclocking, trying to replace the soldered ram or emmc. Atom was the ultimate autism for people who don't need dedicated and expensive "little autismo" kits in form of rpi. Also it actually ran windows and android, managed to run games and was decent for video playback. My Teclast x89(?) still runs great.

But celerons aren't super ultra low power like atoms were.
>RIP Chinese tablets with whole day of battery.
Also celerons devices cost way more despite being equally weak.

This is pretty close.

It was basically Windows Vista 2: Intel atom boogaloo

OEMs heard Intel had cheaper chips and said "hey let's put those in computers and charge 300 bucks for them like we always do! Free money!" because they are stupid greedy bastards who didn't care what the chips where actually for, the result was an extremely underpowered platform that everyone fucking hated.

A low power cell phone cpu should have never been put into full featured machines in the first place. Had the chips not been x86 they might have been alright, the ability to run stock Windows made OEMs do absolutely stupid things with them.

Also I checked the "usual suspect's" website, and Chinks adopted tactic of adding gpus to celeron laptops, which makes no sense.

Overall, replacing atoms with celerons was a mistake.

>300 bucks for them like we always do!
I'm in the white pajeet country. Atoms were always under 200$. And trust me all devices here are devices that didn't sell in richer countries.

In pajeet lands things are a bit different.

Here normal fag idiots walk in best buy and they have only the shittiest of choices to choose from, starting with the 300 dollar atom, the next step up at the time was a single core Celeron for 350, yes they still make single cores. All of the computers are both old and underpowered no matter what, and people do buy that shit because they don't know what a "jiggahurt" is. which is exactly the problem, these shitty devices are all that is stocked and sold because they get the highest margin off of them. All low end devices in brick and mortar stores are practically a scam, it's an idiot trap.

Don't even get me started on wall Mart.

Stuff above i7 is rarely available in stores but still atoms are literally thrown at people. Especially 2in1s are sold for 150$, even the "best" models with g3/styluses etc don't pass 200$.
You're more likely to get an i3 or a celeron version of mid-budget laptops for 300$. They also add stuff like ssds and loads of gadgets like bags, mice, headphones, yearly office license for "1$" etc to these.

>i3
> for 300
Wrong
>ssd
Wrong, and besides we aren't even talking about what you can get today, this was like 5 years ago.

Go find me a 300 dollar i3 laptop with an ssd, a year of office, a free mouse and a carrying bag, good fucking luck.

Atoms were essentially internet-connected typewriters. Shame the only proper usage in them was in the tiny thinkpad line. Fucking 12h battery life and 11" 1280x800 display in 2008 was pretty sick, too bad it was like 1500€ new.

The Atoms are slightly faster than the Celerons and Pentiums of the same generation, but has way lower power consumption.
I suspect that they cut off Real Mode, 16bit features and replaced it with InstantGo, since I couldn't for the life of me get the Simcity 2000 installer working on my BayTrail machine yet it works fine on my older Atom N270 netbook both running Windows 10 32bit.

I have a GOLE1 which is a 5" tablet(?) thing. I love it a lot.

What's the battery life? Unfortunately they hiked the price on the Gole, used to be $99, now it's like $199.

~4 hours of use. I am thinking about velcro strapping a powerbank to the back of it.

They came up with something better.

Attached: core-m.png (2250x3000, 127K)

thats entirely different. core m is underclocked + undervolted core i architecture.

Atom never went away, they renamed it to N- and J-series Celerons and Pentiums. Although they no longer really follow the original concept of a very simple, very cheap, low power x86 CPU.

Nxxx/Jxxx based shitboxes still outsell Core M based ones.

>thats entirely different
That's why it's better. It accomplishes what Atom was supposed to do and does it better.

Attached: core m.jpg (1200x674, 72K)

Bought a chuwi hi10 plus with a x5 8350 atom any it works well enough for what it is, and has great battery life too

What happened to Marvell tho

>It accomplishes what Atom was supposed to do and does it better.
The original Atom was supposed to be tiny (in terms of silicon) and cheap first and foremost. Core M doesn't do that since its die is bigger at 14nm than dual-core Atom was at 45nm, and just as expensive as regular Core i.