AMD says Hondo processor will only support Windows 8

AMD has said that its upcoming Hondo processor will only be in Windows 8 tablets at launch.

Speaking to The Inquirer, Steve Belt, corporate VP of ultra low power products at AMD, said,

This is a Windows 8 product, only. We're not doing Android on this platform, at least not now. [...] It is a conscious decision not to go after Android. We think the Windows 8 space has a lot of opportunity, there's plenty of TAM [total addressable market] there for us to go at. So we don't need to spread ourselves into other markets, we think Windows 8 is a great place to start. Down the road we may look at Android, right now we're focused on Windows 8.

So if you wanted to dual boot Android on a Windows 8 tablet you will have to avoid one with AMD's Hondo. This may be a disappointment to some, as ASUS' 18.4-inch desktop, the Transformer AiO, has shown the potential benefits of running both operating systems. While the device boots into Windows 8, it can transition into Android after the simple press of a button. The device can also be used as an all-one, or as a wireless touch screen display / ridiculously sized tablet.

AMD's Hondo chip has two cores and integrated Radeon graphics. It's built to provide a lower power as well as a lower cost alternative to other Windows RT device chips. The Hondo is AMD's first generation ultra-low power APU and is expected to launch this quarter.

Source: The Inquirer Images via: Microsoft, ASUS

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iPhone 5 lands over two million pre-orders in first 24 hours

Next Story

Huawei rumored to reveal Windows Phone 8 device Sept. 25th

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What kind of bullsh*t is this? It's like the CPU supports the OS? WTF? It's the other way around. That is, you write a driver for a CPU and voila, your OS supports that CPU.

Only way for Windows 8 to work on a desktop is desktops like the above. But that would kill the gaming rigs , so that would be a major bye bye for Windows 8. AMD isn't that great on gaming rigs. ATI was. Old ATI runs Rage just fine. Newer Nvidia doesn't. Think everyone is running Han Solo here. (Never tell me the odds) I'm hoping Windows 9 is better. Windows 8 I might buy the upgrade for but it's still got a major learning curve. And Surface sounds better anyway. The whole thing needs a touchpad. and that should be a min requirement. Maybe they can all come prepackaged with Zagg covers or something.... Otherwise it's gonna me a messy screen.

mahara said,
Why would I run Android?

Yeah exactly, why run Android when there's a superior OS bundled with the product.

PmRd said,

Yeah exactly, why run Android when there's a superior OS bundled with the product.

People like to tinker. Once you tell an audience they can't do something, they will make it their mission to make it happen.

hackintosh is a good example of that just like the last flagship Windows Mobile phone from HTC (HD2 I think it was), people have hacked Windows Phone on to it.

zeke009 said,
People like to tinker. Once you tell an audience they can't do something, they will make it their mission to make it happen.

Ah... a game, eh?

zeke009 said,
People like to tinker. Once you tell an audience they can't do something, they will make it their mission to make it happen.

There are Playbooks, Kindles & Touchpad fully tailored for that.

I've been told by people in the know that it's due mainly to the new power states introduced by Win8.
This had to be licensed to x86 cpu makers in order to be successful.
Intel's clover-trail is supposedly the same.

Lot of OS specific processors lately... hope this doesn't become the trend forever... make an instruction set that works across the board, not specialized, unless you absolutly need it

Everyone who has copy pasted this article has failed to mention the only reason for this is that Android is 99% run on ARM devices, and this is clearly an x86 chip. The only reason that Intel's x86 chip is "compatible" with Android is that they emulate ARM when you try to run an app only compiled for ARM.

Of course this chip is compatible with x86 Android. Its just a regular x86 chip. Linux will work on it too.

Ryan Hoffman said,
Everyone who has copy pasted this article has failed to mention the only reason for this is that Android is 99% run on ARM devices, and this is clearly an x86 chip. The only reason that Intel's x86 chip is "compatible" with Android is that they emulate ARM when you try to run an app only compiled for ARM.

Of course this chip is compatible with x86 Android. Its just a regular x86 chip. Linux will work on it too.

Like the Intel chip, you can run Linux on it, but it won't be nearly as efficient with it's power usage.

You left out an important part of the title. "... At Launch". That changes the meaning entirely, since the chip will also support linux.

giantpotato said,
You left out an important part of the title. "... At Launch". That changes the meaning entirely, since the chip will also support linux.

They "may look at Android." That's about as noncommittal as it goes.

I'm not sure there's that much difference between Intel's and AMD's positions. I mean, I suppose you could read it differently, and say that Intel categorically refused, while AMD just handwaved around it.

But consider that all the Intel stories ultimately trace back to a quote in The Inquirer. Is there a recording? Is there a second source from another journalist who attended the same press conference? What did the Intel spokesperson actually say, as opposed to what the guy from The Inquirer jotted down?

Smart move! I know Microsoft re-engineered intel i3 to run the Surface Pro, i wonder if they did the same for AMD and provided them with the technology to tune their cpus for Win8

spudtrooper said,
Smart move! I know Microsoft re-engineered intel i3 to run the Surface Pro, i wonder if they did the same for AMD and provided them with the technology to tune their cpus for Win8

Why would they re-engineer something that already works? And where did you hear about this nonsense because everyone knows the surface pro has an i5

PmRd said,

Why would they re-engineer something that already works? And where did you hear about this nonsense because everyone knows the surface pro has an i5

You're right, its an i5, not an i3, but i still read somewhere that MS licensed the silicon from Intel to customize the chip for the Windows 8 APM/Sleep functions..

spudtrooper said,

You're right, its an i5, not an i3, but i still read somewhere that MS licensed the silicon from Intel to customize the chip for the Windows 8 APM/Sleep functions..

So um, "you read somewhere" = FACT.

spudtrooper said,

You're right, its an i5, not an i3, but i still read somewhere that MS licensed the silicon from Intel to customize the chip for the Windows 8 APM/Sleep functions..

You seem to be getting Intel confused with ARM. Microsoft did indeed take out an ARM architectural license back in 2010. Personally, I think this was for Xbox 720, but who knows, maybe it was for the Surface after all.

The fact that Microsoft took out an ARM license would certainly have "encouraged" Intel and AMD to pay Microsoft some more attention. Which might have led to the Clover Trail and Hondo chips being tailored for Windows 8.

PmRd said,

Why would they re-engineer something that already works? And where did you hear about this nonsense because everyone knows the surface pro has an i5


They are doing the same thing Apple did while unleashing the Air with intel Core 2 Duo processors. They are getting their own custom Core i5 CPU tailored for the Surface Pro. One of the reasons Surface Pro is launching in Jan. 2013.

Ricardo Dawkins said,

They are doing the same thing Apple did while unleashing the Air with intel Core 2 Duo processors. They are getting their own custom Core i5 CPU tailored for the Surface Pro. One of the reasons Surface Pro is launching in Jan. 2013.

And you got that information from? Not saying you're wrong

PmRd said,

And you got that information from? Not saying you're wrong

oh cut the crap. It's the same stuff i heard that Microsoft licensed the I5 sillicon and worked with intel to implement new power management functionality based on windows 8 changes so they could achieve battery and performance as expected. I can't for the life of me find all of the links, but i certainly remember it being talked about when surface was announced. I was totally floored that MS went so far as to work with silicon and not just pray their solution could be competitive if left to vars.

At this stage, it seems best to focus their resources to where they can have the best projected return. This seems to be a safe strategy.