Intel Atom CPU Review

[Guest]

Intel's Atom is designed for portable devices. We look at the technology behind the Atom, and at the CPU's power consumption and performance.

Intel Atom CPU Review : Read more

 

[anonymous x]

wow, 107 on 3D mark06

 

[joefriday]

Celerons have significantly lower frequencies than Atom? umm...no. Only the ULV celeron M has a lower freqency. Modern notebooks start with Celerons at least 1.6GHz, more likely 1.86GHz, and are built on the much more modern Merom architecture, which have at least a 10% IPC advantage over the old Dothan architecture. No, atom is nowhere NEAR a modern Celeron in performance. Nice try though.

 

[joefriday]

Also, Why not have a Celeron 420 by now? Are you telling me that THG, with all its money, can't budget in a $30 CPU for comparative testing?

 

[joefriday]

After reviewing the article, I can say I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Atom platform (at least the current desktop derivative). If anyone can remember, THG did a $300 PC build using now ancient Celeron Ds and AMD Semprons. One thing that I find amazing, is that those old rigs both use LESS power than this Atom desktop rig.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-300-pc,1546-10.html

 

[randomizer]

Don't you people understand that Atom is not a desktop processor? You can't compare its performance to a desktop processor fairly because that's not what it is designed for.

 

[joefriday]

This Atom CPU is on a desktop board. That means it's fair game, especially when the processors being compared are also comparable in price.

 

[randomizer]

It's on a desktop board, woopdedoo. If you could get your mobile phone processor to run on a desktop board would you compare it to an E2160?

 

[joefriday]

Who cares what the Atom CPU is SUPPOSED to be. It is right now, in this review, on a desktop-oriented package, built to compete with low power consumption desktop computers. It fails miserably in that regard, as it is neither low power consumption, nor competitive. In your ridiculous example, if I had a mobile phone processor on a desktop board, and it ended up consuming more power than an E2160/motherboard combo that costs the same amount of money, all the while performing much worse than the e2160, I would call the mobile phone cpu on a desktop motherboard either A FAILURE or AMD. Take your pick.

 

[apaige]

So, for the Intel Atom, you do use an updated version of Sandra, but not for the Phenom. You compare it to the VIA C7, a 3 year-old CPU, but not the VIA Nano, which will be available in the same timeframe as the Atom. You don't provide graphics for power consumption, despite the Atom being designed for low power consumption; surprise, the old C7-M system draws less power.

Biased much?

 

[Guest]

Not sure that Nano's are really available yet, still a newer mini-itx based C7 (say EPIA-M700) would have been better, since you would be looking at even less power than the one used and the VX800 will end up used with the Nano. The D201DLY[2] would have been good to compare to, would also give some idea how the Atom would go paired with SiS chipsets.

 

[Crazy-PC]

Why not benchmark with other mobile CPUs like Intel X-scale and the mobile CPU from TI etc Atom would be more make sense to use on small mobile device rather than notebook.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Don't you people understand that Atom is not a desktop processor? You can't compare its performance to a desktop processor fairly because that's not what it is designed for.[/citation]

His point was that it's not only less powerful than "comparable" desktop CPUs, it also takes more power, which pretty much defeats the meaning of being used as a CPU in portable applications. His point is that this CPU is unimpressive in every area you could apply it versus what's already there. Nice try, Intel.

 

[Guest]

VIA Nano powered by Nvidia GPU in mini-itx play game: Crysis and Bioshock.

 

[Guest]

??? INTEL ATOM vs. VIA NANO ???

 

[Wheat_Thins]

Where the heck is the performance / watt comparisons. The entire point of this processors creation is performance / watt and its missing from your benchmarks! Please Add!

 

[mmc4587]

Dude, please correct your Cinebench R10 charts, they are screwed up.

 

[joefriday]

His point was that it's not only less powerful than "comparable" desktop CPUs, it also takes more power, which pretty much defeats the meaning of being used as a CPU in portable applications. His point is that this CPU is unimpressive in every area you could apply it versus what's already there. Nice try, Intel.

Don't get me wrong...I do think the Atom probably has a decent performance per watt for the CPU itself, but this platform being tested, the entire rig, is where it disappoints. I don't know if it's all in the PSU inefficiency or what, as Anandtech's review of the ASUS Eee Box put power consumption at below 20 watts under load, using a seemingly comparable hardware list (but with a DC power brick, instead of a conventional power supply).

 

[enewmen]

Good article.
Still don't know if it's POSSIBLE to run Vista64 on a Atom.
I'll wait for the next-gen of eee PC clones. Then I'll get a better idea of real-world performance.

 

[Guest]

NVIDIA Tegra is much Better
It would be interesting to see their response at the Intel Atom Processor Launch Event on June 3rd, 2008*. In the meantime, let's take a look at what the NVIDIA Tegra is all about... why ? lets see
* an 800 MHz ARM CPU,
* a HD video processor,
* an imaging processor,
* an audio processor,
* and an ultra-low power GeForce GPU
for father information plz go to http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=549&pgno=0

 

[doomsdaydave11]

Yay the Poulsbo processor is named after where I live . There is only one Poulsbo... so it must be. I'ma go out and buy one now.

 

[asdasd123123]

Pair that with a 8w AMD northbridge and you would be talking..

 

[randomizer]

Once Intel gets its 45nm chipsets out this thing will be much better for power consumption.

 

[wh3resmycar]

good thing i held back on buying the asus eee pc. a faux-duo atom version is more appealing, imo.

 

[nirgal]

So... No actual real-world comparison against C7? That's weak.
And where is the Geode comparison?