Intel Atom

Bay Trail and beyond are decent but usually paired with shitty components (emmc, WiFi etc) that doesn't help their reputation

I can only speak to the newer Celerons being passable.

You can make a lot of the comparisons through Intel ARK. The numbers should speak for themselves. My gut feeling is that they're still garbage though.

>>62040379
>>62040379
>For example, is a 2016/2017 Atom that much shittier than a Core i5 from like 2012?
It is about 350% faster. On the other hand, it uses 2 watts while the i5 uses 95 watts.

Even modern atoms are barely enough for casual webshitting.

>>62040379
Intel thinks that slow means fast, hence their Xeon brand being named after an inert gas, and their low-power chips being named "Celeron" and "Atom".

>>62040454
I assume you mean the i5 is faster

File: Gemini-Lake-Block-Diagram.jpg (102KB, 538x464px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 538x464px

Gemini Lake will be amazing for low power architecture

>>62040538
Yeah. I own a netbook with a Z3735F and a mini PC with an x5-z8300. Former is used for webbrowsing, 2D emulation and etc. Latter is used as a cheap file server.

>>62040379
They are pretty good now for basic shit like web browsing, baytrail has core2duo performance paired with an usable GPU

Do not buy any Baytrail or Braswell/Cherry Trail powered product, their GPUs are old and no longer supported much by Intel

Baytrail uses Ivy Bridge's Gen7 GPU and Intel hardly releases any driver updates, same with Braswell's Broadwell Gen8 GPU, hardly any driver updates

Both GPUs also don't have updated hardware decoders that can handle HEVC Main10 & VP9 10bit