I know it is a bit early to be certain, but the comments section brought up the issue of price. Many of them state that they are (bizarrely) targeting way more expensive devices than Chromebooks and the like. Since I first heard about this I just always assumed this was targeting barely above atom processors, making the lowest end Core chips the lowest value, and replacing them once they get these new processors right.
The biggest problem with the Atoms is single core performance, and this fixes it. A slightly less disappointing Atom is the best they can hope for by adding only 1 big core. Business machines, AIO’s, and entry level HTPC’s costing slightly more than an Atom, keeping the power (and heat) efficiency would be great for lots of specific use cases. People buying cheap and not needing the horsepower could be happy with it. It would be absurd If they price themselves out of the only market they could be useful in. I had previously been looking forward to this and Atom architecture advances, but not for a premium price.
Time will tell, but they seem to want to hit all the premium market segments with their Ultra Low Power solutions, but I don’t think they will get traction given ARM is a reality in many solutions with that low of a power requirement.
Is it just me or that comparison chart makes the Atom look sad? The difference is minimal, you can just use a different governor or cap the frequency of the Core and get the same performance at slightly (2-3 percent?) increased power usage