Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Atom vs Celeron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 29, 2008 2:29:26 AM

How would you compare these 2 processors?

From what I've read,the Atom uses less power,but therefore is less powerful at the same freqency (EEE PC benchmarks dont show that much of an increase from the 900 mhz Celeron to the 1.6ghz Atom). But the power usage is the big factor for the mobile products.

Now in reference to the article on the main page about the 'Mini PC for under $80,it reviewed a motherboard with a 1.2 ghz Celeron. But theres also a model with the 1.6 ghz Atom processor. In the case of these 2 mini ITX motherboards,whats the more powerful processor?

I would guess the Celeron,but I'm not sure. It seems to me,the Atom is good for low power usage,but the Celeron is a more powerful processor. So is it safe to conclude the following?-

Atom for mobile products (low power usage,longer battery life)
Celeron for desktop products (a slightly more powerful CPU,maybe?)

Now,like I said,im not sure which of those 2 processors is more powerful,but I would guess the Celeron,least with single threaded apps,I dont know weather it has HT or not,I know the Atom does.

Also,link to the 2 motherboards on newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

More about : atom celeron

July 29, 2008 2:36:55 AM

u mean athlon or atom
a c 126 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 2:45:19 AM

^Um the Atom will use much less power than the Celeron. Thats what its made for. Something like 5w while idle.

In terms of power the Atom you are looking at is between a 1.2GHz and 1.6GHz Pentium M (much better than the Celeron 900MHz).

So short the Atom is a better choice.
Related resources
July 29, 2008 3:34:35 AM

The Celeron 220 in the mobo you linked to is Conroe-L based, much faster than the Celeron in the EEE and much faster than any Atom. However the Atom would use far less power.

perez8434 said:
u mean athlon or atom


lolwut
July 29, 2008 2:55:41 PM

OOH intel Atom! NVM
July 29, 2008 7:08:36 PM

The atom is a processor designed for phones and super low power devices.
The Celeron is a core-due type with all it's cache cut off running at lower frequencies.

Go with the Celeron.
An atom wouldn't even be on the same chart if you want to benchmark it as I think benchmarking an Atom would almost defeat it's purpose as it is not constructed with performance in mind.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2008 7:32:28 PM

will14 said:
The atom is a processor designed for phones and super low power devices.
The Celeron is a core-due type with all it's cache cut off running at lower frequencies.

Go with the Celeron.
An atom wouldn't even be on the same chart if you want to benchmark it as I think benchmarking an Atom would almost defeat it's purpose as it is not constructed with performance in mind.

The difference isn't quite as extreme as that - the higher end, hyper threading atoms are competitive with a much lower clocked celeron. The 1.6GHz atom is about even with a 700-800MHz celeron IIRC. The celeron is certainly faster, but the Atom is not complete garbage.
a c 108 à CPUs
July 29, 2008 8:39:07 PM

Quote:
According to the Super PI test result, the Atom at 1.6GHz is a little bit faster than the old Intel Pentium III-M “Tualatin” at 1.13GHz, but slower than the laptop-use Intel Celeron M “Dothan-512″ at 900MHz


http://laptoping.com/intel-atom-benchmark.html


Preliminary benchmarks have VIA's Isaiah besting Intel's Atom
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/18/preliminary-benchmar...


THG benchmarking
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Atom-Efficien...
July 29, 2008 8:54:12 PM

What i would really like to see is an Atom-multi-core CPU. Given it's power consumptions, production cost and cooling requirements, i would buy one right away for my file-servers etc.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2008 11:06:40 PM

I think (and I could be misinterpreting it - it isn't all that clear) that the one marked "Intel Atom 230 Hyper-Threading" is showing the percentage improvement in each of those apps with hyper threading enabled as compared to hyper threading being disabled. The other chart is showing how much faster each of those other CPUs (sempron and celeron) is than the Atom.
a b à CPUs
July 31, 2008 9:01:50 AM

atom withs its HT cant compete with celeron.....

even via nano is better than atom in both performance and power
a b à CPUs
July 31, 2008 4:48:19 PM

The Via Nano pulls quite a bit more power than the Atom does, and they aren't really designed for the same thing.
a c 99 à CPUs
August 1, 2008 2:03:12 PM

will14 said:
The atom is a processor designed for phones and super low power devices.

The Atom is designed for devices smaller than most standard notebooks (anything 11.1"/3 lbs and bigger) but larger than PDAs and smartphones. Even a small standard notebook like my 12.1" unit I am typing on right now can dissipate 20-25 W of heat decently but PDAs and smartphones struggle with dissipating more than 2-3 watts as they are passively cooled. An Atom + 945GMS setup dissipates about half what a Core 2 Duo ULV + 945GM/GM965 in small notebooks do but it dissipates several times what the MIPS and ARM SoCs plus wireless chipsets in phones and PDAs dissipate. That pretty much relegates the mobile Atom to Eee-type subnotebooks and UMPCs with 5-10" screens and a weight of about 1 pound to 3 pounds. I will bet that quite a few mobile Atoms also find themselves in car-based PCs as well.

The desktop version of the Atom is seems to be marketed toward high-power embedded uses such as arcade-type video games, video poker machines, and Internet kiosks. The performance requirements are too much for the typical ARM and MIPS embedded chips but not high enough to require current low-end desktop parts for the purpose. You might also see the desktop Atom be used in industrial control devices. The consumers that buy finished ITX Atom desktop boards will most likely use them in situations where they would currently use AMD Geode, VIA C7s for small file servers, Web servers, firewall/router, DNS server, login server, home automation, SDTV and music playback, or any use that one might have otherwise used an old Pentium II or Pentium III or an AMD K6/K7 unit for.

Quote:
The Celeron is a core-due type with all it's cache cut off running at lower frequencies.


The Celeron still has 512 KB L2. A cacheless Celeron 220 would most likely perform slower than the Atom. Just look back at the old PII Covington Celerons with no L2 cache. The famous Mendocino "A" Celerons that came afterwards had 128 KB L2 on-die and were about twice as fast per clock as the no-L2 Covingtons.

Quote:
Go with the Celeron.
An atom wouldn't even be on the same chart if you want to benchmark it as I think benchmarking an Atom would almost defeat it's purpose as it is not constructed with performance in mind.


The Celeron would be a better choice if you need very much performance as it's quite a bit faster. But if you are running something like a small file server or firewall that needs very little processor power, the Atom setup is more efficient and easier to cool. There is also nothing wrong with benchmarking the Atom. I'd be thrilled if I could see a benchmark under Linux as I have seen none so far.
a b à CPUs
August 1, 2008 3:53:04 PM

Well, I have an Atom based EEE (901), and I have been running Ubuntu on it since I got it. I could run a couple benchmarks if you want.
a c 126 à CPUs
August 1, 2008 6:17:42 PM

Ohhh.... new name for it: CelerAtom or Atomeron. Its like a Celeron only tiny.....
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2008 12:11:56 PM

I can't see the point of Atom in desktops...

a 4850e @ 1.6GHz undervolted to 0.8v and on integrated 740G graphics would easily rival the Atom. In fact, I'd like THG to compare that. "Challenge the Atom"

I've got my Athlon down to 0.9V but its the 690G that keeps power consumption up. The 740G should be able to lower power consumption as it is a die shrink...

Even if you disable a core it will beat the Atom really badly.
August 2, 2008 1:45:30 PM

amdfangirl said:
I can't see the point of Atom in desktops...

a 4850e @ 1.6GHz undervolted to 0.8v and on integrated 740G graphics would easily rival the Atom. In fact, I'd like THG to compare that. "Challenge the Atom"

I've got my Athlon down to 0.9V but its the 690G that keeps power consumption up. The 740G should be able to lower power consumption as it is a die shrink...

Even if you disable a core it will beat the Atom really badly.


For the price of an 9150e i can buy two to three itx mainboards with an integrated Atom. It should be pretty clear that the performance is not the same but for applications that don't need FOUR cores it is a really nice and cheap chip.
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2008 1:58:31 PM

True, but performance wise the Athlon would win... good point except the Nano is meant to target the same price point...
August 2, 2008 10:31:09 PM

amdfangirl said:
good point except the Nano is meant to target the same price point...

It is but if you compare the prices of itx mainboards you will notice that the nano easily costs twice as much.
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2008 10:38:40 PM

So then, I suppose we have a market for the Atom.

Your really smart. I didn't really think of price.
August 3, 2008 12:12:18 AM

amdfangirl said:

Your really smart. I didn't really think of price.


Nah, not smart. More like cheap.
June 10, 2009 11:12:18 PM

jimmysmitty said:
^Um the Atom will use much less power than the Celeron. Thats what its made for. Something like 5w while idle.

In terms of power the Atom you are looking at is between a 1.2GHz and 1.6GHz Pentium M (much better than the Celeron 900MHz).

So short the Atom is a better choice.


NO!! Atom has no out-of-order execution therefore unless the software is lined up perfectly (which is not) Celeron will have higher "real life" performance even at lower clock speed! Check benchmark that focus on "time to completion" not the "calculation/sec".
June 11, 2009 7:10:26 PM

TL2008 said:
NO!! Atom has no out-of-order execution therefore unless the software is lined up perfectly (which is not) Celeron will have higher "real life" performance even at lower clock speed! Check benchmark that focus on "time to completion" not the "calculation/sec".


Back in the real world, the Atom 330 vs Celeron comparisons I've seen put them in the same ballpark so long as the software is multithreaded: the Atom won some multithreaded benchmarks and lost others, but was way behind on single-threaded benchmarks. I don't remember which particular Celeron models they were comparing against.
June 12, 2009 1:22:41 PM

Slobogob said:
What i would really like to see is an Atom-multi-core CPU. Given it's power consumptions, production cost and cooling requirements, i would buy one right away for my file-servers etc.


They have one. The Atom 330. Its been out for quite a while now.
June 12, 2009 3:22:46 PM

snarfies said:
They have one. The Atom 330. Its been out for quite a while now.


Yeah, but I don't think it was out when this thread was started :) .
June 12, 2009 3:54:44 PM

MarkG said:
Yeah, but I don't think it was out when this thread was started :) .


OH CRAP, a resurrected zombie-thread! Now I'm embarrassed! :pfff: 
October 8, 2009 12:35:55 PM

So atom is low energy cosumption but slow, celeron faster than atom and bigger power consumption right?
a c 203 à CPUs
October 8, 2009 12:52:40 PM

Correct; based on running a home server, mostly idle, 24/7 and electricity cost of $0.10/kWhr
Atom 330 would use $35 in electricity running for a year.
Celeron E3200 would use $48 in electricity running for a year.
E8500 would use $80 in electricity running for a year.
March 12, 2010 5:49:45 PM

Does this still hold true?

Celeron > atom

Thinking netbooks
March 15, 2010 9:53:52 AM

Atom 1.6GHz is batter than celeron. Bcz atom is good for multitasking.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2010 11:08:57 PM

technically the celeron
intel atom is based on a simpler instruction set that's similar to the original Pentium
on the other hand a
Celeron is nothing but a chopped up Core 2 with half the L2 cache and single core
in terms of operations per second the celeron wins
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 8, 2010 11:21:13 PM

performance wise, the Atom is roughly half the speed of a Pentium M at same clock
newest Penryn Celerons are half that that of a core 2 duo
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2010 1:14:37 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!