Intel: NVIDIA ION adds "unnecessary additional cost"

ThraxThrax 🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
edited December 2009 in Science & Tech
Intel: NVIDIA ION adds "unnecessary additional cost"

Comments

  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited December 2009
    There are much more innovative ways to get multimedia capabilities that will continue to provide lower power and longer battery life.

    Dear Intel,

    Please implement them before opening your big mouth. My N280-based netbook tends to choke on even some 720p content.

    With love,
    Lordbean
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2009
    The suggestion is that netbook makers can tack on a Broadcom HD decoder chip, rather than opt for ION. That's all well and good, but Flash cannot be accelerated on the Broadcom chip, so it's basically useless to consumers when they can get ION which will do 1080p <i>and</i> Flash.

    Intel is barking up the wrong tree on this one.
  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited December 2009
    I don't believe I've ever taken note of any netbook model that actually comes with said broadcom chip. Maybe that's just me though.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited December 2009
    I read that the ION only consumes 1 watt more under full graphics load vs. atom (which just chugs at 1 watt less).

    Who is Intel fooling?
  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited December 2009
    Obviously a lot of people, because ION isn't anywhere near as common as 945GM.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited December 2009
    lordbean wrote:
    Obviously a lot of people, because ION isn't anywhere near as common as 945GM.

    Well, thats because the netbook market is flooded with cheap crap, and the only way to compete is to be cheap.
Sign In or Register to comment.