Quote from: SJB on January 27, 2025, 23:57:04The fact that the N150 with DDR4 RAM (the photo clearly says DDR4 on the RAM chip) is only slightly slower than an N100 with DDR5 RAM is a marginal gain given DDR4 will be about 7% slower than a unit with the same processor but with DDR in a single RAM chip configuration.
Not sure what INTEL are playing with as they have produced a refresh where they have marginally increased the clock speed so if the chip gets more wattage it can give a marginal increase in performance at the expense of being less energy efficient per watt of power.
Might have been better to have released an 6 or 8 core unit but with ability to use dual RAM slots with a faster DDR5 memory speed say 5600 MHz combined you'd get an uplift worth having. And provide those who need a bit more power while not consuming a high wattage in the process.
One can but hope that Intel pump's development into the N range where you can have a small, light, inexpensive computing unit for general web browsing, video playback and office like duties that's also energy efficient. Looks like you have to get the 11 gen Intel U NUC series and lower the P1 to 25 and P2 to 15 watts at 2-3 times the price to get double the performance of the N100 chips. Shame as the N100 have a really low idle power draw of 6 watts.
You're missing the point, the N range isn't meant nor will it ever be a top performer, there's a whole range of more expensive chips Intel offers for that - I don't understand all this complaining, it's a 6W chip for basic use, it's never going to replace a mainstream PC for anything.
Intel could add more cores (in fact there is the N305/N355 with 8 E cores available), next thing you know you'll be complaining about the cost increase.