Saturday, August 20, 2011

September launch for Intel Cedar Trail scrapped

Intel has changed the launch date of its Cedar Trail-M platform that is targeted for netbooks from September to November. The reason for the delay is a problem with graphics drivers and failing certification for Windows 7. Cedar Trail is the code name being used for Intel’s next generation Atom chips built using the 32nm manufacturing node. A talking point over the Cedar Trail chipset has been that it represents the first netbook platform-based Intel 32nm technology. The platform is described as a unified architecture that packs the processing cores and the graphics processing unit on the same die. The graphics core includes support for DirectX 10.1 and hardware decoding capabilities for HD content, including MPEG2, VC1, AVC, H.264 and Blu-ray 2.0.

The battery life is said to exceed 10 hours. The new platform will carry Intel Wireless Music, Wireless Display, PC Synch and Fast Boot technologies.
So what is the specific problem causing the delay? LG Nilsson writing for VR-Zone says what is clear to him is that it is something fairly crucial, if Microsoft has determined that the drivers are not yet suitable for Windows 7. He said his best guess is that the glitch lies in media decoding.
Whatever the reasons, some best guesses and relevant insider insights will converge next month over what happened, what’s next and which dates to watch, at the Intel Developer Forum from September 13 to 15. One vendor that certainly cares about Cedar Trail is computer-maker Asus, a key brand name in netbooks. Asus has confirmed its support for Intel’s Cedar Trail platform. The company presented at Computex the Asus Eee PC 1025, its first Cedar Trail netbook. The machine features a 10.1-inch (1024 x 600) display and will be powered by a 32nm Atom CPU (N2600 or N2800). The Eee PC 1025C runs Windows 7.
Those familiar with the certification process reckon that submitting the drives for recertification, given the drivers’ complexity, will take some time.
© 2011 PhysOrg.com

No comments:

Post a Comment