Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers

[knowom]

All right according to this utility below a E7200 at 911MHz running at 1.12v runs at 20W pretty decent now wonder how it benchmarks in comparison to processors from the review.

http://extreme.outervision.com/tools.jsp

 

[raider37]

The AMD platform holds promise, i wouldnt mind using this setup in a media center pc or a basic web surfing and music computer with windows XP running on it.

 

[BertrumPantyshield]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly sure that the Atom is already passively cooled, and that the fan is over the chipset. If that is the case i don't know what is happening with the temperature results. I still agree with pretty much anyone, the 780G annihilates the crappy 945C. Shame they put it with the Atom, you could probably lose 10W without the shitty chipset, and manufactured at 45nm.

 

[Guest]

where can I buy one of these? I am googling around and coming up dry

 

[Guest]

I have AMD Athlon X2 5000+ Black Edition and it works at 1Ghz with 0.8V. The motherboard i am using is a MSI K9N NEO V3 with la latest beta bios. The cooling sistem is pasive ant at full load the CPU does not pass 20'C. I calculated that using the CPU at that speed an voltage, it only consumes aprox. 20W

 

[Guest]

I don't get it. What's the point of crippling a lexus and then claiming its better than the hyundai? In the end, those who can afford the Athlon-based computers will want the full featured version, and everyone else will buy the atom-based ones.

 

[Guest]

Although surprised at first,when looking at the benchmark results, it seems obvious the Atom clearly wins in several benchmarks; not only in Winrar. So I don't understand why mention AMD Wins. Obviously noone is going to disable HT on the Atom!

A second thing I might say is that the AMD clearly lacks in memory speed for some reason. I wished some explanation could be given about that, since I don't remember FSB of each processor, and memory core speed out of my head.
The 1066Mhz memory clearly benefits the celeron.
I know it may be useless, but how would the results be if this test was run on 533Mhz memory speed for all processors?

Another mention in the article says,that one can have HD resolution 1900x1200.. something, but does that mean you can play back HD movies?
Playing back DVD already gets you 67%CPU.
I know the Atom can run DivX/XviD compressed 720P movies, but not 1080P.
Test results will be appreciated!

About the use of a 'single-phase controller', can one disable the mounted controllers by unsoldering and removing them (leaving only one or two on the board)?
Also, suppose the single-phase controller goes up in smoke because of inserting a too power greedy processor, or wrong settings of the FSB,wouldn't it make more sence to use a dual-phase controller, to prevent damage,and yet still maintain a good performance of the system,and compatibility with multiple other processors out there?

The problem with the AMD processor is that it's single threaded, and boottimes will be slower with this processor than with the Atom.
People usually boot their pc more often than compressing MP3/video, or rendering images with their lower powered internet system.
It'slike trying to run Futuremark's Vantage on it. Doesn't make sence.
Ifyouwanna try a benchmark for lower powered machines, 3Dmark '03 and '05 make more sence.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom][object HTMLSpanElement][/nom]Unknown[/citation]
If AMD releases this same processor on 45nm it would more then outperform the Atom.
Give it a faster memory controller,a tad more L1/L2 cache, AMD's HT technology, and some powersave options, let it run on 1,2Ghz, and intel's left in the dust with their Atom.
This all for the same 8W TDP.
Problem is AMD is stuck with their heads in their asses, focusing too much on the faster processors trying to keep up with Intel there.
All the while forgetting this market where Intel probably makes the largest profit off!
The Atom processor I read, should cost $5 to manufacture it. Intel sells it for 90$(Diamondville with powersaving steps)!
The same price as AMD's Athlon 64 model used in the test here.

 

[Guest]

you do realize that there's a 780G itx around somewhere made by j&w right?ight?

 

[archibael]

There's nothing wrong with this article except perhaps the premise.

The Atom 230 platform is designed for price and form factor; power consumption is at best a tertiary concern or Intel would not have used the 945 chipset. If it's competitive in cost and FF, it will be successful in the targeted space unless its performance is grossly out of whack for what you're paying. And it's not.

The Atom Z5 platform, on the other hand, is made for low-power operation. The chipset used there (Poulsbo SCH) is optimized for ~2-3W operation and provides a much different result in terms of power. Would be interesting to see a comparison which included the Z5... but then, you'd be making matters worse because you'd be going even further down the "not the same form factor or market" trail.

Bottom line:
Atom 230: optimized for cost and form factor, power nice to have
Atom Z5: optimized for power and form factor, cost nice to have

The article tested the Atom 230 for power and hand-waved away form factor. The results were interesting, but ignored critical things like the target market segment. One could assert that it's partially Intel Marketing's fault for using one name ("Atom") to describe platforms which are physically and electrically significantly different but which happen to share the same CPU architecture. Perhaps it has been enough to confuse people.

 

[lupin_iii]

I can't seem to find the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ anywhere online for sale. Is it not released yet?

 

[Guest]

"Compared to Intel’s Atom, which runs at 1.6 GHz, the Athlon 64 2000+ is clocked at 1 GHz—60% lower"

This calcul look strange for me...
Nice article but sadly, months after, the athlon 2000+ isn't available in any store... then we can say atom overpown the athlon because at least he exist.. (in addition the dual core is out since 2 months).

 

[Guest]

man... this just confirms what i have personally known all along. my amd Duron Mobile chip (progressive clocking from 333.33mhz to 1.3557ghz) runs faster and colder than any of the intel P4 cpu's clocked at 2.4ghz and up! i still don't know why people continue to go with the underperforming power wasting intel chips. AMD all the way!!

 

[jasonoldy69]

But the price difference between DIMM and SODIMM makes the Atom the cheaper choice

 

[jasonoldy69]

I purchased both the GA-MA78G-DS3HP motherboard and ADF2000IAV4DR processor, last year, along with some Western Digital Green HDDs. As a home web server/media server, it is effortlessly cool, quick and cheap to run - dead happy. I'd build another one, but the components are so rare nowadays.