Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
To photoguru and the other person that agreed with them about how this wasn't a fair comparison of the two platforms because different mobo types were used in the tests--I'd say that it lends even more weight to AMD the way the tests were run--the mobo used for the Athlon setup was much more power hungry than what is used with the Atom, yet the power consumption of the AMD setup was still lower than the Atom setup--which is what the article was showcasing. If you want them to use the same mobo type, then all you're going to see is better performance/watt for AMD.

Truth is, AMD can wipe Intel's previous years of R&D with a CPU that's nearly 2 generations old by simply underclocking it. That's no big deal.

The question is though, whether this will really do anything for AMD? It's a nice thing to be able to do, but will enough people be interested in it to support it? Wonder if ultra portable notebook manufacturers are going to pick this up and run with it or not?
 
"Compared to Intel?s Atom, which runs at 1.6 GHz, the Athlon 64 2000+ is clocked at 1 GHz?60% lower."

Based on my calculations that's 37.5% lower [(1.6-1)/1.6*100=37.5]. Or the atom runs 60% faster.

Where does Tom's recruit these writers? Every article I read has errors. Very, very, poor journalism.
 
[citation][nom]sarwar_r87[/nom]760G is 12W on load....trueagain, 760G is not built to be used with this cpu. it has options that a ultra mobile cpu is not suposed to hav, ieci-e, 6 sata,etc. plus it has 12usb.......so if u customize the 780G for this platform and leave out the extra bits, i am sure amd platform would be better off.only disadvantage for amd is that its not a minifactor.but the funny thing is, intel spent so much money on devolopin a new 4W procesor, but amd did it with a underclocked 4yr old cpu. and did it better. the question of using a "better efficient chipset favors" amd is not valid. becoz a cpu by itself is meaning less.....chipset is as important and there is no point saying atom requires less power, coz to run atom it reqires a chipset and the entire platform requires a "lot" more power than amd platform[/citation]
Re: customized chipset - Yes, AMD could make a custom chipset and cut out all the extra unneeded stuff, but so could Intel. The 945G isn't really made for the Atom, either. When Intel does get around to making a desktop chipset for Atom, it'll undoubtedly draw far less power than the 945G.

Re: 4yr old CPU - First, it's not a 4yr old CPU, it's a brand new CPU built on the latest fabrication process, using a 4yr old architecture. Second, the processor draws twice the power of the Atom, not less. It's the chipset that's making the AMD system more energy efficient than the Intel system, not the CPU.

Re: a "Lot" more power - It's not that big a difference. 1.7W at idle, 2.3W at full power. The AMD platform will cost less on the electric bill, but not a "lot" less.

Neither company has a proper "netbook/nettop" system yet. AMD has a low power optimized chipset, but an old CPU architecture shoehorned into a system type it wasn't designed for. Intel has a low power optimized CPU architecture, but an old chipset shoehorned into a system type it wasn't designed for. The AMD system comes out better because the difference in chipset power consumptions is higher than the difference in CPU power consumptions.
 
Yea, if Intel could put a newer, more efficient chipset on the atom boards, they would be amazing. I'm using one for a server running a few apps, as well as doing some network computing, performs as well, as my amd chip due to the hyper threading. besides the chipset, its an amazing little platform.
 
[citation][nom]Baladen[/nom]Re: customized chipset - Yes, AMD could make a custom chipset and cut out all the extra unneeded stuff, but so could Intel. The 945G isn't really made for the Atom, either. When Intel does get around to making a desktop chipset for Atom, it'll undoubtedly draw far less power than the 945G.Re: 4yr old CPU - First, it's not a 4yr old CPU, it's a brand new CPU built on the latest fabrication process, using a 4yr old architecture. Second, the processor draws twice the power of the Atom, not less. It's the chipset that's making the AMD system more energy efficient than the Intel system, not the CPU.Re: a "Lot" more power - It's not that big a difference. 1.7W at idle, 2.3W at full power. The AMD platform will cost less on the electric bill, but not a "lot" less.Neither company has a proper "netbook/nettop" system yet. AMD has a low power optimized chipset, but an old CPU architecture shoehorned into a system type it wasn't designed for. Intel has a low power optimized CPU architecture, but an old chipset shoehorned into a system type it wasn't designed for. The AMD system comes out better because the difference in chipset power consumptions is higher than the difference in CPU power consumptions.[/citation]

-athlon is actually 7 yr old...my bad.sori.
-whats the point of a cpu witout a platform...u wana compare power to see how long the battery will last and if m not mistaken, chipset will draw power from battery
-945G is a striped down chipset with no pci-e, limited usb, etc.
 
Great article and strongly supported with factual testing. No flame war. No bias. Who wants that anyway? I want to know!

There is a lot more trash that can be revealed about how the tek giant has been duping the public for a long time. Wander over to AMDzone - yes they are fans, but a lot of knowledge to back it up. Investigate what ntel compilers do to cripple amd cpu's - if not amd, then cripple to double process time. If that didn't exist, well then what's going on? I wonder?

If you want to support what does not support you, be your own guest - it's your choice. AMD is doing a lot more than what's shown here - and they are just the little guy - they have to show you before you will believe it - and if you will look, you will see. There's so much dirt going on in the background. I am only beginning to realize the enormity of it.
an7i7rus7
I am an AMD fanboy for ethical and personal reasons. I support what works for me, and not against me - I am just a normal everyday consumer who wants max bang for the buck, and wants to do clean, upfront, honest business. That seems to scare people somehow??? As a customer, I am always right. It's basic customer service, not customer hoseage.
Peace. More will be revealed.
 
I got THG beat with my Sempron LE-1100 setup. My rig idles at 37 watts! Although they win on max cpu consumption. I think mine is around 49 watts (at 1.9GHz though!).

Rig:
1. Jetway nvidia 6100-405 mobo: $29 shipped open box newegg.
2. Sempron Le-1100 1.9 GHz, undervolted/underclocked to 800MHz, 0.8 volt vcore idle/low power, and undervolted 1.9GHz, 1.1 volt vcore max load. $25 shipped newegg, retail boxed.
3. 2x512MB DDR667 ram: ebay special $10 shipped.

Total cost for mobo/cpu/ram: $65. Used 40GB 7200rpm seagate, HP pavilion 6835 case, Rosewill 200 watt mATX PSU, used DVD-RW drive finish off the rig. Great upgrade over the original 800MHz celeron/i810 graphics/128mb ram.
 
Since this is a comparison about power consumption, it doesn't need to be a comparison about ITX systems but the lowest power consuming platforms.
 
The only conclusion is that AMD is not interested nor late in oferring such solution as lower clocked CPU for small computers.
Even X2 model running at 1GHz would be a nice option to buy as small 'netbook'.
Second, how about Turion which is more energy efficient then Athlon?
Maybe it is not too much money (40 bucks) for such CPU for AMD?
 
[citation][nom]barathn[/nom]Nice article.. surprising to see AMD doing better than Intel ATOM[/citation]
Only comment not made by a jackass,I think.
 
Not Reality. First of all atom is cheaper to make (around $12-18 per CPU us dollars) than the Athlon. Second Atom is designed for a different market for devices like MIDs, netbooks and nettops, etc. Also, then next generation Atom will be or is designed to use in cell phones. So the Intel cost would be reduced even more. So even if the Athlon was twice the performer at half the wattage or better, this scenario would not be logical cuz of the cost concerns for AMD. With all the financial issues at AMD I don’t think they are really going to try to go after the very low end market with little profit margin.
 
[citation][nom]dvmoo7[/nom]Not Reality. First of all atom is cheaper to make (around $12-18 per CPU us dollars) than the Athlon. Second Atom is designed for a different market for devices like MIDs, netbooks and nettops, etc. Also, then next generation Atom will be or is designed to use in cell phones. So the Intel cost would be reduced even more. So even if the Athlon was twice the performer at half the wattage or better, this scenario would not be logical cuz of the cost concerns for AMD. With all the financial issues at AMD I don’t think they are really going to try to go after the very low end market with little profit margin.[/citation]

CORRETION: its about $6 US per atom CPU to mfg!!!
 
Whether it's AMD or Intel, let's face it folks...TH has not been the same and has drastically gone downhill since they sold out to this Bestofmedia group. Their credibility gets weaker and weaker by the day.
 
I thought the whole point of the ATOM processor was that it was small enough to be used in phones & whatnot.

Nobody's going to put a full size desktop processor into a phone.
 
Nice with this test and you call a winner, but what about VIA they have produced low power platforms for years where are they in the test???
 
Ok... you can boo me all you want. Here's what I'd like to see... two micro ATX boards (ASUS P5N-EM, ASUS M3A78-EMH) both having integrated video cards and similar specs. Throw in the lowest wattage processors with similar prices and specs for each company (I don't think Atom should be a part of it unless you're fixing to put the AMD processor in a tiny form like ASUS's Eee box). Then you can bench them and see what the differences really are in watts/performance.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who sees crazy for what it really is. Go ahead and throw a 3 cylinder engine from a Geo Metro into a SUV and see how poorly and inefficiently it "performs".
 
Is it me or is all this just a little silly? The only reason for the comparison is to see whos "greener", yet both systems strike me as an epic carbon WASTE.

Intel have created an ITX unit with few real applications other than fulfilling their aeons-old vendetta and finally pushing Via (their rival a loooong time ago) out of the CPU market entirely. There remains no conceivable use of combining ANYTHING low-power with any archaic Intel chipset anyway, so the ITX boards strike me as just more carbon waste. The only green Atom is one embedded in a third-party board.

Meanwhile AMD hardly wins any moral victory either - above is a solution for showing off and annoying Intel. And precious little else. First time I've ever seen a chipset utterly crippled by a CPU though 😀

If AMD were taking this at all seriously they'd have something a darn sight smaller and cheaper, and an ITX board to go with it - that would be green, as it would be both efficient and USEFUL. There's room above the UMPC niche for a low-power HTPC niche, but while the 780G is the chipset to fill it, there's STILL no CPU for the 780G below 45W TDP - the 2000+ is NOT a contender. Yes, the 2000+ fits in an AM2 slot, yet it probably shouldn't, as it has little use other than embedded in a UMPC/nettop role - the price and board size will sway ppl looking for low-cost webservers over to the ITX Atom.

AMD should have instead looked toward making an mATX (or, better yet, ITX) box with a CPU that could push along HD media without having an aneurysm. Probably a bit hungrier than Atom, but a cheaper, less stressed CPU that can actually serve as a real HTPC brain for far less energy.
 
Hey TomsHardware,

The charts were not translated from German. You guys left "ohne" instead of "without" where is describes if the Intel chip is with or "ohne" hyperthreading. Just wanted to bring it to you attention.

 
The Celeron 220 mini ITX mobo that was discontinued seems to be a very good overall performer. Atom at higher clock speeds is a weaker performer and so is the Athlon 64 2000. That, at $70 per mobo and CPU combo!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom