Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers

Tags:
  • Processors
  • Power
  • AMD
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 8:10:04 AM

Our German lab recently bought itself an AMD Athlon 64 2000+ processor, which only consumes 8 W of power. Clearly, this would make for a good face-off against Intel's energy-efficient Atom.

Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers : Read more

More about : athlon atom duel energy savers

August 15, 2008 9:09:15 AM

Yeah Tom's now AMD/ATI fanboy
Score
-12
August 15, 2008 9:16:52 AM

oh please, spare me those kind of crap...

clearly the 780g platforms owns any nvidia/intel chipset to date.

about the article:

this is a winner, i mean this is like the ultimate HTPC setup you can ever have.no heat/power worries just plain movie enjoyment :D 
Score
4
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 15, 2008 9:17:27 AM

Believe it or not, my Sempron 1100 OC could kill the ugly Intel Q9550+ :lol
Score
-8
August 15, 2008 9:25:36 AM

wow... good choices for matching mobos... why even take the time to write these articles? If you're comparing HTPCs that are low cost, efficient, and fast enough for encoding and decoding then do it with the right gear. Don't tell me that an ultra mobile processor just got pwned by a desktop chip unless they figured out how to make that desktop chip fit in an ultra mobile form factor.

It doesn't make sense to compare them on those terms unless your entire argument is based on wattage and not actual form factor performance.

I will say that it would be interesting to find out what combination of low cost parts makes the most reasonable HTPC as far as performance/cost goes (with watts and temps included in case we could passively cool these babies).
Score
-10
August 15, 2008 9:32:56 AM

Nice article.. surprising to see AMD doing better than Intel ATOM
Score
5
August 15, 2008 9:44:52 AM

Tom's choice of AMD hardware is a bit shortsighted in my opinion.
There exist a lot more options that the matx board of his choice.

Let me name some of the MINI-ITX boards there are for AMD AM2 AM2+:
- Albatron KI690-AM2
- AOpen NMCP68ST-LA
- JetWay NC62K-LF
- MSI Fuzzy 690T

Allricht they employ a different chipset than the 780G but still very competetive as i derive this information from a dutch hardware magazine that tested these boards against intel's solution and especially the AOpen and MSI boards beat the crap out of intel's D201GLY2 board.
Score
7
August 15, 2008 11:45:11 AM

see this is what AMD is all about!!!!!!!!!!!

Intel - produces first generation, limited, expensive and unflexible setups, AMD creates a cheaper flexible option for the masses, which kicks Intel back in line.

This opens the low power platform up to all new ideas, and allows vista to run properly thanks to the video performance etc, and ram support.

Nice one AMD!
Score
3
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 12:08:22 PM

Wow! great, I hope next time, in 45 nm AMD will bring 2 phenom in one socket and become the new Phenom X8(like Intel pentium D) its just kick the new Intel Core i7. He, he, he...
Score
-10
August 15, 2008 12:46:19 PM

I agree with photoguru, this is a pointless comparison. If you don't use the same form factor, i.e. mini-itx for both of them then what's the point? Unless if you want to disregard size and only compare performance/watt. However, since the whole point of the ATOM is to go 'smaller'... yeah, whatever.
Score
3
August 15, 2008 12:47:27 PM

I must say I'm a bit surprised at the results. It's good to see that perhaps there's more life (and use) left in Athlon64s than we'd previously thought, if they make ideal low-power CPUs. Likewise, it's a surprise to find a place where AMD trumps Intel in the performance-per-watt sector, which is always important; I can perhaps imagining chips like the 2000+ and Atom being used for low-maintenance servers and datacenters, where PPW has always outweighed raw performance, since it's infinitely easier to buy more chips than to upgrade the local power grid.

Now, if only Intel would develop an Atom-specific chipset that didn't consume copious amounts of memory. If AMD can get low-end GPU power sufficient for high-def decoding (regardless of what the CPU is) in under a single watt, certainly Intel could make a chipset that can handle all that is done by the 945GC and its laughable GMA 950 in even less power, since we're talking a less-complex design that has considerably less graphics power on hand, as well as the fact that Intel has access to 45nm production right now, while AMD is still stuck with 55nm. If only the chipset for an Atom didn't have several times the thermal envelope of the CPU...
Score
1
August 15, 2008 12:53:49 PM

@photoguru...

Well, the article clearly mentioned the price differential between the two platforms. Although I don't have direct information on the chipset die sizes, for the processors themselves, the Athlon is going to be much more expensive to produce, and the motherboard for it, too. So yeah, the two products are in different price classes. As far as comparing the platforms though, it is a fair comparison if you are interested in the lowest-power platforms the two companies are offering right now, because Intel just doesn't have an Atom board with the same features out. So if someone wants a low-power board/processor, these would be two of the main choices, and if you do a comparison based on that, the Athlon seems like a pretty good deal if you are not space-constrained.

@apache_lives:

Lets be fair, at least in this instance, the AMD solution, while more flexible, more powerful, etc., is not a cheaper option. I do like the fact, though, that K8 still has some life in it.
Score
0
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 12:57:28 PM

this actualy still is a niche amd beats intel in hehe. pretty good there chipset uses amazingly little power and so dous there energy efficient athlon. i hope they might launch there deneb soon. no i dont think it will strangle the core i7 but it might deliver good preformance for an affordable price.i dont have 999 euro to pay for some core2 extreme you know im not rich but if you want to support me feel free to give me one :D 
Score
0
August 15, 2008 1:00:27 PM

@photoguru: The article has nothing to do with building the best HTPC or form factors.
The article is clearly about AMDs soon to come answer to Intels Atom, the AMD Athlon 64 2000+, and how it on existing hardware(a Gigabyte 780G motherboard) can beat the Atom in both energy efficiency and processing power.
I admire guusdeklers work finding AM2 boards in the mITX formfactor to answer photoguros complaint, however there is no need to use the less effective 690t chipset when boards like the J & W Minix 780G-SP128MB Mini ITX 780G Motherboard allready provides a mITX motherboard based on the 780G chipset :) 
Score
3
August 15, 2008 1:41:39 PM

Bert and Theo spend all their time trying to flame Intel. Any article they write is slanted that way.
Score
-7
August 15, 2008 2:08:07 PM

$90 for the 2000+? That seems ungodly expensive for what it is. I guess it's a cherry-picked single core to be able to lower the Vcore that much.

Also, a little editing goes a long way, on the test configuration page the graphics card (8800GTX) claims to have 786MB 384-bit GDDR4 ram. I don't think so .... :p 
Score
3
August 15, 2008 2:13:55 PM

Every time I see a new article about the Atom, I get my hopes up that there will be an actual comparison to others in the MiniITX market. Every time I get my hopes up, I am disappointed with benchmarks using apples and oranges. Where is VIA in all this? They have been doing MiniITX long before Intel, and the boards include their own manufactured CPU.

I guess I can keep dreaming.
Score
3
August 15, 2008 2:19:48 PM

Hmm... I'm usually more interested in the fastest, latest, greatest thing out there, but this article has me interested more in how efficient these things can get... as a prospective notebook purchaser.

Nice article... Clearly in favor of the AMD, which performs better and uses less power... there's no fanboy there. I'll be interested to see how efficient the AMD's can get when (or if) they go to 45nm production.
Score
2
August 15, 2008 2:26:41 PM

While the motherboard comparison is a bit odd, seeing as they are in vastly different classes. There is one thing people do seem to be overlooking.

The 780g motherboard, which contains a hell of a lot more graphics power and expansion capabilities. Is much more energy efficient than Intel's, stripped down ITX model which is being sold with their super energy efficient processor.

Its a massive oversight on Intel to create a so-called energy efficient solution, with an obviously very energy IN-efficient motherboard.

If AMD is serious in this market they could easily make a 'lite' version of the 780g, (If they were to half the SATA ports, and cut back on some of the expansion slots, ITX sizing the 780g would be a cinch).

Now if only they could get their high performance parts up to par as well :p 
Score
3
August 15, 2008 2:33:24 PM

Score one for AMD when they so desperately need it.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 2:39:01 PM

Welcome to SOI. ;) 
Score
1
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 2:47:04 PM

My Athlon 64 X2 4000+ can do 1.2ghz with 0.9 volt.

I use 1200mhz@0.9 volt if cpu is less than 20%
I use 2400mhz@1.2 volt if cpu is more than 20%

Switching with crystalcpuid.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 2:50:49 PM

Ok could someone explain to me why Tom's Hardware keeps saying that the Pentium Dual Core has VT? I've been to Intel's website a million times...only the E6000 and E8000 series have VT. If I am wrong please show me where you found your information. Thanks.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 4:40:38 PM

Wow, talk about unbiased: 0.95W TDP for 780G / 22.2W TDP for 945G. That's amazing!

Of course, according to this digit-life.com review the 0.95W is for idle, at full power it's 11.4W (I couldn't find a page on AMD's site that told me this). According to the 945G spec (which was pretty easy to find on Intel's site) the 22.2W is assuming 2 x 667MHz Dual channel DDR2 memory sticks, 1066MHz FSB, and 400MHz graphics core speed, operating at 99C temp. and running real world worst case power intensive applications in a stress test. And adding a margin to account for variations in manufacturing.

To recap: the direct comparison chart for power consumption shows the absolute minimum possible power consumption at idle with nominal values for the AMD chipset compared to the absolute maximum power consumption at full 100%-stress-test-worst-case-scenario load with maxed out frequencies and DRAM loading for the Intel chipset.

Yeah, the 780G IS a lot more energy efficient than the 945G, but it's NOT 23.38 TIMES more energy efficient!
Score
-1
August 15, 2008 4:58:21 PM

760G is 12W on load....true
again, 760G is not built to be used with this cpu. it has options that a ultra mobile cpu is not suposed to hav, ie:p ci-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
Score
2
August 15, 2008 5:14:58 PM

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?
Score
0
August 15, 2008 5:21:59 PM

^^^I meant much more power efficient, not hungry, yet still gave much better benchmarks...
Score
0
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 5:29:56 PM

"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.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 5:52:41 PM

sarwar_r87760G 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

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.
Score
-1
August 15, 2008 5:54:42 PM

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.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 6:19:05 PM

BaladenRe: 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.


-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.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 6:21:55 PM

my point with 7yr old cpu is that no money wen to RnD to recreate the athlon 2000+.jus cost of production.
intel spent a lot
Score
0
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 6:44:05 PM

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.
Score
2
August 15, 2008 6:57:08 PM

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.
Score
0
August 15, 2008 7:10:01 PM

Now I wanna see an AMD netbook based! Nice article!!
Score
0
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 7:22:30 PM

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.
Score
1
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 7:32:38 PM

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?
Score
0
August 15, 2008 7:38:55 PM

barathnNice article.. surprising to see AMD doing better than Intel ATOM

Only comment not made by a jackass,I think.
Score
-2
August 15, 2008 7:49:19 PM

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.
Score
-1
August 15, 2008 8:02:20 PM

dvmoo7Not 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.


CORRETION: its about $6 US per atom CPU to mfg!!!
Score
0
August 15, 2008 8:09:53 PM

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.
Score
1
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 8:16:48 PM

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.
Score
0
Anonymous
August 15, 2008 8:21:29 PM

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???
Score
1
August 15, 2008 8:32:47 PM

Quote:
Great news.AMD,All we need now is a neshitim killer.

Oh God! That's all this forum needs is another thunderman clone.
Score
-1
August 15, 2008 11:43:49 PM

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".
Score
-1
August 16, 2008 1:51:16 AM

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 :D 

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.
Score
-1
Anonymous
August 16, 2008 2:35:18 AM

Its too expensive. $90??? its better if you get a faster processor.
Score
0
August 16, 2008 3:17:33 AM

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.

Score
0
Anonymous
August 16, 2008 4:14:40 AM

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!
Score
0
August 16, 2008 4:49:36 AM

Well should have compared the Atom with the Via Nano.
Athlon vs Atom not really that good of a comparison
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!