We compare an Intel Atom and Core 2 Duo E2160 CPU. How well does it perform? Are there serious power savings?
First Look: Intel's Atom CPU : Read more
First Look: Intel's Atom CPU : Read more
- Status
Thanks for the review but I think that it would be more appropriate to compare the Atom to older processors like P4s or especially Pentium Ms. If the Atom is as fast as, say, one of the first Pentium Ms or a Dothan then I think that would be a testament to it's usefulness and would provide a glimpse of the possibilities of the devices that would use it.
velocityg4
Glorious
- Nov 21, 2006
- 5,390
- 471
- 46,440
I would like to see how much energy the atom uses in the notebook form factor and how that compares to mobile Core 2 processors and turion's.
Though given the speed I have no use for something this slow unless it is thrown into small thin tablet form factor the size of an 8 1/2" x 11" notepad so that I could carry it and use it like a clip board. Then have it either save the hand written notes or have them translated to typing. For less than $300 with an 8+ hour battery life, otherwise I would just continue carrying a clipboard.
Also how would this perform against an 8 core Skull Trail with 1600mhz DDR3 and dual 9800GX2's is SLI (assuming I did not need an nForce northbridge
)
Though given the speed I have no use for something this slow unless it is thrown into small thin tablet form factor the size of an 8 1/2" x 11" notepad so that I could carry it and use it like a clip board. Then have it either save the hand written notes or have them translated to typing. For less than $300 with an 8+ hour battery life, otherwise I would just continue carrying a clipboard.
Also how would this perform against an 8 core Skull Trail with 1600mhz DDR3 and dual 9800GX2's is SLI (assuming I did not need an nForce northbridge
)wow, i knew it wouldn't be better then Core architecture but i didn't expect it to be so bad.
The NetBurst architecture CPUs are about twice as slow compared to C2D (taking only 1 core into account), so it seems NetBurst arch. is better. (i know theres a huge difference in power consumption, but this is not what i care about).
The NetBurst architecture CPUs are about twice as slow compared to C2D (taking only 1 core into account), so it seems NetBurst arch. is better. (i know theres a huge difference in power consumption, but this is not what i care about).
Set up a cloudbook (c7 1.6) and an eee (Cele 900) with as similar components (1GB RAM, same HDD...) as possible and see how it compares. I want to see if these will offer the needed boost over the current netbooks. If so I would finally be able to justify buying one.
I cannot believe they're are using this chipset with a "power efficient cpu" as the reference design motherboard. They should have either waited for the G43 (which I believe is 45nm) or used a Sis chipset.
It is definetly making me lose interest. As it currently looks, the D201GLY2 Celeron 220 (1.2ghz) mini ITX motherboards with the SiS chipset look equally promising power consumption wise yet have the edge for performance.
I am hoping one day a company will release either of these with a different chipset with SATA 2 and support for SATA multipliers and/or a PCI-E 1x or 4x slot. It would make for a decent NAS, especially if it was packaged like the Shuttle K45.
It is definetly making me lose interest. As it currently looks, the D201GLY2 Celeron 220 (1.2ghz) mini ITX motherboards with the SiS chipset look equally promising power consumption wise yet have the edge for performance.
I am hoping one day a company will release either of these with a different chipset with SATA 2 and support for SATA multipliers and/or a PCI-E 1x or 4x slot. It would make for a decent NAS, especially if it was packaged like the Shuttle K45.
It would be fair also to note that the atom is NOT dual core. also that the 945 north bridge used consumes more power per specs the the cpu by 3-4 fold. hence the large active cooled heat sink on it and the little one one the cpu.
[citation][nom]Preytor[/nom]Then way is it that the pic of the Atom without the heatsink is right beside the large heat sink, which is covered by a fan...[/citation]
Yeah they got it wrong, that HSF is for the northbridge. It is the same way on the Intel reference design.
I wish Intel would have introduced a low power chipset along with the atom, then they might have a good platform for people building embedded devices but the height/power requirement seems a problem for that sort of thing. Graphics performance would have to be reduced but the people who buy this sort of thing usually don't care about graphics performance.
Yeah they got it wrong, that HSF is for the northbridge. It is the same way on the Intel reference design.
I wish Intel would have introduced a low power chipset along with the atom, then they might have a good platform for people building embedded devices but the height/power requirement seems a problem for that sort of thing. Graphics performance would have to be reduced but the people who buy this sort of thing usually don't care about graphics performance.
I'm hoping the in-depth review will compare some apples to apples. A comparison to the single core Celeron 220 (17W TDP)which it's supposed to replace might prove a little more telling.
Also, I'm hoping to see testing of the processor on a more mature platform and more specific to the actual intended (945GSE?) use for the Atom. I don't think anyone would seriously pair an Atom processor with a Raptor hard drive. I can see why you might do so to limit other system bottlenecks when doing outright performance benchmarks but it doesn't really make sense in terms of real world power consumption and usage.
I'm expecting to see the Atom (4W TDP for the N230 "Diamondville" Atom in the preview) in sub-notebooks, mini-pc's and the like, geared toward very simple things like internet access, and word-processing. It's clearly a very different beast with very different intended uses than the dual-core E2160 (65W TDP) which was meant for entry-level desktops. Also curious how the dual-core atom(8W TDP) performs and scales.
I think there's a consensus here that this stacked preview only raises more questions than it answers. If anything, it's pretty amazing this little single-core processor performs as well as it does. 1/3rd the performance of a dual-core budget desktop processor, 1/3rd the die size (something just north of 25mm^2 versus 111mm^2 for the 2160) and 1/16th the expected TDP. You've certainly whetted our appetite with this amuse-bouche. I look forward to the full review.
Also, I'm hoping to see testing of the processor on a more mature platform and more specific to the actual intended (945GSE?) use for the Atom. I don't think anyone would seriously pair an Atom processor with a Raptor hard drive. I can see why you might do so to limit other system bottlenecks when doing outright performance benchmarks but it doesn't really make sense in terms of real world power consumption and usage.
I'm expecting to see the Atom (4W TDP for the N230 "Diamondville" Atom in the preview) in sub-notebooks, mini-pc's and the like, geared toward very simple things like internet access, and word-processing. It's clearly a very different beast with very different intended uses than the dual-core E2160 (65W TDP) which was meant for entry-level desktops. Also curious how the dual-core atom(8W TDP) performs and scales.
I think there's a consensus here that this stacked preview only raises more questions than it answers. If anything, it's pretty amazing this little single-core processor performs as well as it does. 1/3rd the performance of a dual-core budget desktop processor, 1/3rd the die size (something just north of 25mm^2 versus 111mm^2 for the 2160) and 1/16th the expected TDP. You've certainly whetted our appetite with this amuse-bouche. I look forward to the full review.
wild9
Distinguished
- May 20, 2007
- 527
- 0
- 18,980
Could someone please tell me why I should but this platform, instead of an AMD system with an AMD/ATI chipset capable of HD acceleration?
If power consumption of the processor is critical then I'd simply use Powernow! or vastly under-clock the processor core/s. The price of this Intel solution is not that good compared to the competition and I think it would leave people wanting, especially with the likes of Vista. I think you're actually paying over the odds for out-dating, under-powered stock.
If power consumption of the processor is critical then I'd simply use Powernow! or vastly under-clock the processor core/s. The price of this Intel solution is not that good compared to the competition and I think it would leave people wanting, especially with the likes of Vista. I think you're actually paying over the odds for out-dating, under-powered stock.
[citation][nom]jorberg[/nom]I don't understand - I thought Atom was supposed to be the next generation of processors from Intel. Why are they slower?[/citation]
To Jorberg - It's not really intended to be the "next" generation of desktop processors. It's better described as a new segment of ultra-low power, very low cost CPU's for smaller form factors.
To Wild9 - If you want a decent media PC on the cheap, an ATI chipset is hard to beat. This platform is geared towards a different usage pattern and audience. I think by the time the platform matures, it'll use significantly less power than any of AMD/ATI's current offerings (even underclocked) and should cost a lot less as well. I could easily imagine less than 50W total to operate this platform under full load. A low power AMD/ATI 780g system would probably be close to 45W just idling. Remember though, this is comparing two very different systems with very different performance and price.
To Jorberg - It's not really intended to be the "next" generation of desktop processors. It's better described as a new segment of ultra-low power, very low cost CPU's for smaller form factors.
To Wild9 - If you want a decent media PC on the cheap, an ATI chipset is hard to beat. This platform is geared towards a different usage pattern and audience. I think by the time the platform matures, it'll use significantly less power than any of AMD/ATI's current offerings (even underclocked) and should cost a lot less as well. I could easily imagine less than 50W total to operate this platform under full load. A low power AMD/ATI 780g system would probably be close to 45W just idling. Remember though, this is comparing two very different systems with very different performance and price.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,736
- 236
- 57,490
pavelbonev
Distinguished
- May 12, 2008
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,736
- 236
- 57,490
Maybe they should have tried running folding@home on an iPhone and compared the PPD, that would be a pretty fair comparison.
Hey Randomizer, the cpu they reviewed was the N230 "Diamondville" Atom processor which is meant for laptops and even some very low-end desktops and mini-itx form factors.
The other more well-known Atom processor that most people talk about is the "Silverthorne" which is designed to work in a thermal envelope of 0.6W-2.5W. That's the processor meant for ultra-portable laptops and mobile internet devices (MID's). The processors in the Silverthorne subset of Atom processors are prefixed with a Z.
The Silverthorne processors are actually smaller and more expensive due to better die packaging and lower power consumption. The Diamondville is actually less efficient (not necessarily lower performing) and a derivative of Silverthorne. Due to the size increase and higher running voltage and TDP, the Diamondville is actually better suited for larger devices and won't carry the premium of devices that use Silverthorne.
This is probably another point the article should have been more clear about.
The other more well-known Atom processor that most people talk about is the "Silverthorne" which is designed to work in a thermal envelope of 0.6W-2.5W. That's the processor meant for ultra-portable laptops and mobile internet devices (MID's). The processors in the Silverthorne subset of Atom processors are prefixed with a Z.
The Silverthorne processors are actually smaller and more expensive due to better die packaging and lower power consumption. The Diamondville is actually less efficient (not necessarily lower performing) and a derivative of Silverthorne. Due to the size increase and higher running voltage and TDP, the Diamondville is actually better suited for larger devices and won't carry the premium of devices that use Silverthorne.
This is probably another point the article should have been more clear about.
Joe_The_Dragon
Distinguished
- Sep 19, 2006
- 512
- 0
- 18,980
"The complete Atom platform (i945 motherboard + 1 GB DDR2-667 + Raptor 74 GB HDD) consumed 59W, while the Pentium E-based platform consumed 78W."
I would suggest measuring the total watt using a laptop 2,5" HD instead of a power hungry Raptor, since it is more likely that the buyer is interested in building a system as power efficient as possible.
I use a Jetway mini ITX motherboard with build in CPU, a PICO power supply, 1 GB DDR2 RAM and a 2,5" SATA HD. Everything is plugged into a device in the wall power socket that measures the power consumtion and it says only 18-20 watts. It's fairly slow though, but it works perfectly as a media server.
/Alex
I would suggest measuring the total watt using a laptop 2,5" HD instead of a power hungry Raptor, since it is more likely that the buyer is interested in building a system as power efficient as possible.
I use a Jetway mini ITX motherboard with build in CPU, a PICO power supply, 1 GB DDR2 RAM and a 2,5" SATA HD. Everything is plugged into a device in the wall power socket that measures the power consumtion and it says only 18-20 watts. It's fairly slow though, but it works perfectly as a media server.
/Alex
Reynod
Administrator
- Mar 26, 2007
- 14,921
- 16
- 42,215
What a crap processor - more than three times slower than the lowest core2 cpu and the platform overall only used 17 watts less?
This is a dismal failure across all parameters:
performance
power savings
innovation.
Obviously all Intel did was shed circuitry for the cache and wherever else they could and try to drop the Vcc as much as possible.
Not much thought put into this adventure Paul ??
Pity the Toms reviewer didn't have the nads to tell it ho it is ... they are only brave when it comes to reviewing AMD products.
Intel scares the pants off THG !!!
This is a dismal failure across all parameters:
performance
power savings
innovation.
Obviously all Intel did was shed circuitry for the cache and wherever else they could and try to drop the Vcc as much as possible.
Not much thought put into this adventure Paul ??
Pity the Toms reviewer didn't have the nads to tell it ho it is ... they are only brave when it comes to reviewing AMD products.
Intel scares the pants off THG !!!
thefumigator
Distinguished
- Jul 3, 2005
- 142
- 0
- 18,680
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Display no signal when 1440P or higher full screen gaming- Started by Wouter_U
- Replies: 3
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 11
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram