First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced

Lam1969 writes "IDG News Service reports NEC will release its first laptop based on Intel's Yonah dual-core processor in the first quarter of 2006, for just under $2,000. According to AnandTech, Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption."

Comments

Re:Great

[The Lost Supertone]

From Apple after MacWorld San Francisco

Where's the battery backpack ?

[Gopal.V]

What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.

A dual-core laptop processor sounds overkill. For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box.

Anyway, good to see Intel go back to the original P3 designs with all this. P4 really sucks totally - hyperthreading or no hyperthreading.

Re:As for the laptop itself

[TubeSteak]

NEC said the LR900 will be based on Windows XP Home Edition, come with 512MB of main memory and a 100GB hard-disk drive. It will have a 14.1-in. LCD, DVD Super Multi drive (DVD-R/+R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW/+RW), 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The machine will weigh about 2 kilograms, and the battery will provide enough power to last about four hours.

NEC intends to put the machine on sale sometime in 2006 for around $1,945 in its basic configuration

This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

I wonder about the small monitor, RAM and XP Home though. I guess you have to make some compromises to keep the $$$$ down.

Less Power Consumption then AMD X2 a desktop CPU

[Fallen Kell]

Come one guys. I sure wouldn't be flaunting the it consumes less power then the AMD X2 spec too much. You are compairing a "MOBILE" CPU core against a "DESKTOP" CPU core. The only reason Anandtech used the AMD X2 as the benchmark and not the mobile Turion CPU is because the dual core Turion CPU's are not out yet, so comparing the performance of the Yonah dual core system against a single core just didn't make sense. Its like saying that a cellphone CPU uses less power then a laptop CPU.

Re:As for the laptop itself

[rolfwind]

As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?

Many people don't want PC Towers of any size anymore, they'd rather have a notebook. Just like they don't want CRT montiors vs. LCD. Or normal CRT TVs vs. Plasma. Etcetera. For many reasons - aesthetics. It's easier to move (Americans move an average of every 7 years). It takes up less space, for a cramped apartment or just to dispose of (something Europeans think a lot about in both cases).

Thus, the notebook isn't a on-the-go computer anymore (Why pay for 2 computer systems anyway if you aren't a gamer, etcetera.) It's the main computer. This is reinforced by the fact that notebook sales exceeded PC sales for the first time this year.

BTW, dual-cores aren't only handy for rendering. They are handy for responsiveness, it's most obvious when a process hogs the CPU and makes everything else slow to a crawl - including but not only when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie. On a dual-core, that's not a problem.

Re:Less Power Consumption then AMD X2 a desktop CP

[the eric conspiracy]

Not to mention that Yonah is a 65 nanonmeter part and doesn't offer 64 bit extensions. If you are looking at a laptop in the 2006 timeframe I'd strongly consider waiting for either the 2nd gen 65 nm Intel part (I forget the core name) or the 65 nm Turion dual core due later in 2006. Both will be seriously better than Yonah.

Re:Great

[fermion]

Although I am really bummed that the Mac is going to hobbled by a legacy processor with legacy hacks, I think we will have fun playing the game of who has the computer with more value. As has often been suggested, when comparing major vendor to major vendor, Apple has never really been overpriced.

Take this for instance. The NEC machine is 2000, with 512Mb, 100 Gig, 14 inch screen, and the other bells a whistles n would expect. The only real weakness is that it priced with XP toy, so it will cost $150 to get the pro version. Why anyone would sell a $2000 machine with XP home is beyond me.

OTOH, a current mac with similar specs is also $2000. When Apple moves to intel, we can assume that they will stay with these similar specs and similar price. Therefore we can expect to get a Mac, possible with a bigger screen, but smaller hard disk, not to mention built in Airport, for the same money. To make matters better, the extra $150 goes a long way to putting 1 gig RAM in slot A, which leaves the other slot free for an additional gig. And of course lets not forget that XCode and WebObjects are now free.

I am sure we will see Dell undercut the price with tricks such as rebates and the XP Home maneuver, but in the end list prices for the MS Window machines are sure to continue to be higher.

Re:Yawn

[NerveGas]

"and AMD isn't exactly innovative, it's just the underdog"

    While other companies put the memory controller on the CPU and gave the CPUs low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnects, you *do* have to hand it to AMD for actually bringing that to commodity-level hardware. And you have to shake your head at the fact that Intel, who traditionally has enjoyed smaller, better manufacturing capabilities, *could* have done it significantly earlier than AMD, but just didn't care to try anything new. I can't fathom why they would sink billions into R&D on the Itanium, when there were plenty of options of real, proven advances that would have been much easier, faster, and cheaper.

steve