Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tomshardware review: Intel Atom 230 vs Athlon 64 2000+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 15, 2008 3:46:41 PM

This is a review of the Intel Atom vs Athlon 64 2000+.....AMD victorious

Article: Friday 15 August 2008 by Bert Toepelt
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,rev...

Review Quotes:

Quote:
With the development of the Atom processor, Intel introduced a totally new chip design that consumes very little energy. AMD had to strike back, and did so by clocking down its Athlon 64, employing the K8 micro architecture, down to the lowest possible frequency of 1 GHz


Quote:
Conclusion: Athlon 64 Is More Economical, Faster, And Quieter


Quote:
In our Munich lab’s duel of the energy-savers, the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ beats the Intel Atom 230 in energy consumption and processing power. Each of the systems was based on a desktop platform


Quote:
The energy-saving solution from AMD offers more possibilities: it has three times as many SATA ports, possesses better onboard graphics performance, and can also support two monitors. Unlike the Intel solution, an HD resolution (1920x1200) with high picture quality is possible through DVI/HDMI ports


Quote:
In terms of noise level, AMD can again beat the Intel solution: in our test the AMD energy-saving platform was able to run without a fan. Due to the high energy consumption of Intel’s chipset, the Atom board requires active cooling for stable and error-free operation


Quote:
AMD currently offers the most energy-saving desktop platform on the market


Not looking good for Int-hell...

AMD4Life!!
August 15, 2008 4:09:32 PM

When I first looked at the article, I thought someone had dug up a 2000+ chip from seven years ago and was testing it against the Intel Atom. :lol: 

After that, I got the feeling that AMD had purposely dug out a chip that could be downgraded enough to win. Wait! That's what AMD did do. :heink:  Whatever, it worked and AMD now has a spot where it can say its the best, at least temporarily. For gaming enthusiasts though, these chips from AMD and Intel are all but meaningless.
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 4:27:40 PM

It's just a short matter of time before the AMD 780g reaches mini-iTX. Jetway already has an nVidia 8200 chipset mini and I feel certain that Intel is working on one for G45.

What will be interesting is if AMD can adapt split power planes and core timings (a la Puma) and really give that Athlon some gas ...

Might need a little 'fanage' for that - lol
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 5:03:51 PM

the funny thing is, intel spent so much money on devolopin a new 4W procesor, but amd did it with a underclocked 7yr old cpu. and did it better.

hahahaha.......
its lik when nasa spent millions of dollar to make a pen that will work in space, when the rusians simply used a pencil.(not sur if its a true stori, but wateva)
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 5:12:34 PM

First, the atom is actually lower power than the AMD CPU (which they admit), but the chipset is the limitation - it is the reason the Intel uses more power and needs a fan. Intel is fixing this.

Second, the russians and nasa both used pencils to start. The space pen was developed independently from NASA by fisher, and both NASA and the Russian space program started using the pens.

See here
August 15, 2008 5:22:17 PM

No, first, as far as I know, a cpu needs a MB to facilitate it. I don't think you can hold Atom in your hand and have it do anything. Of course the chipset is the limitation, but as of now Intel has nothing to counter AMD's platform, which is highlighted here. As you say, Intel is fixing this, but AMD is also fixing something (some things). This is also Int's 45nm HK/MG while AMD has 65nm SOI.
August 15, 2008 5:34:14 PM

This says it all:
Quote:
The Achilles heel of the Intel system is its old system platform with the 945GC chipset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipset , while AMD offers a more modern 780G platform.


Not to mention, they were comparing a microATX boards features to a miniITX.


Although this is very impressive: The AMD chip without a fan maxes out at 55c

As soon as they move that platform to a miniITX board, they will have a winner!
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 5:51:16 PM

cjl said:

Second, the russians and nasa both used pencils to start. The space pen was developed independently from NASA by fisher, and both NASA and the Russian space program started using the pens.
[/url]


thnx for the update....i neva really tried to varify that story

now......a cpu by itself is nothing.....u need a chipset to run it.....and if u want to 2 compare power requirement there is no real point looking into the cpu only......u hav to look at the consumption of the WHOLE platform. and the fact remains, that intel chipset used was striped off many basic elements (which were inded not required).basically a custom chipset FOR the atom. but 780G is a general chipset wit all features.
so i gues when amd actually tailors a chipset, it will consume even less power.

NOTE: one misleading point in the article:
-amd chipset consumes <1W at idle....but 12W on load.
-intel chipset consumes 22W on load (not sure bout idle requirement)
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 6:27:13 PM

I think its interesting how we are comparing a chip that was meant mainly for UMPCs and the such to a desktop CPU.

I think its a mistake for Intel to release Atom for desktops unless they have a chipset made just for it with the same ideals behind it.

But now Atom is getting bad reviews because its in a market its not meant for. I wounder how well it does in the UMPC market though....
August 15, 2008 7:38:23 PM

I think it's intersting how a platform meant mainly for UMPC's, consumes more power than one meant for a desktop.
August 15, 2008 7:52:00 PM

For your information, 945GC is NOT the platform for UMPC or MIDs (which Atom was designed to do). Its a cost-down approach for Netbooks like EeePC.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 7:52:29 PM

piesquared, You fail to realize that this specific Atom is using a different platform than the one made for UMPCs. This one is specifically made for desktops using a desktop chipset that is MUCH older than the 780G that AMD has.

I think that if it was a chipset made just for Atom using the newer 45nm process it would use much less power.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2008 8:04:19 PM

^+1 for above 2 posters.
August 15, 2008 8:26:05 PM

And Im sure if this was a Deneb based cpu, itd win all out. Fact is, Intel currently has nothing to counter this. They may eventually, but for now, theres nothing. It loses, admit it. This reminds me of the Intel V8, heheh. AMD just slapped together a rig, and put the slap down on Intels newest cpu
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 8:41:24 PM

^Um what? We never said Intel didn't lose. We are stating that this chip, ATOM, is made for the UMPC market. Yes overall Intels system uses more power but the CPU itsel is unmatched.

And what the crap rig is this AMD beat?
August 15, 2008 8:53:26 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And Im sure if this was a Deneb based cpu, itd win all out. Fact is, Intel currently has nothing to counter this. They may eventually, but for now, theres nothing. It loses, admit it. This reminds me of the Intel V8, heheh. AMD just slapped together a rig, and put the slap down on Intels newest cpu


You got that backwards. Intel slapped the V8 concept together to counter AMD's Quad FX, FASN8, system. The concept latter turned into Skulltrail.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-v8.html

And AMD's system didn't slap anything down, unfortunately. Quad FX could not beat down a single socket quad core, and FASN8 never really materialized. In fact, it was slower than AMD's single socket solutions, as well.
Quote:
First of all, the performance of a dual-processor platform built with two dual-core Athlon FX processors turned out lower than that of the competitor’s solutions built on quad-core Kentsfield CPUs. We have seen this in all test applications throughout the entire session.

Secondly, Quad FX platform is often slower than the regular Socket AM2 system with a single CPU because of the higher memory subsystem latency. NUMA technology that proved highly efficient in servers turned out to do more harm than good in the desktop space.

Thirdly, from the performance-per-watt prospective Quad FX platform loses not only to Intel Kentsfield based solutions but to all other platforms as well. The sky-high heat-dissipation and power consumption of this platform also set specific requirements to power supply units, system cases and system cooling.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx_14.html#sect0
August 15, 2008 9:09:49 PM

No, I got it right. The V8 slapped the FX down, and this thrown together rig slaps the ATOM. Like I said, Intel doesnt currently have anything better, and it BARELY wins in power consumption, which turns into a loss when you add their crap componants in. They havnt been able to make bluray work good yet, on any platform, its been stripped down of extras, and it still isnt there, as the AMD solution is closer. Unless Intel shows it can do graphics, the ATOM is doomed. Their chipsets are meant for doing computation, not gfx, its plain to see. And theyre inefficient, using way too much power. What good is a cpu, without its chips? If those chips bring the rest of the system down, it doesnt matter. Right now, Intel makes good cpus, but has yet to show it can do a complete platform, whether its this form or desktop. Oh, they CAN do it, but the gfx performance is crap, the mobos tend to cost more, and the total system suffers from it, both in power and performance
August 15, 2008 9:21:46 PM

Haha, can it beat athlon xp 2000+?
August 15, 2008 9:24:48 PM

Let's see how AMD will do in this sector.
August 15, 2008 9:54:50 PM

At least as good as the skulltrail. Look, ATOM is decent, it bests VIA, does better by a tad in power than AMD, but its everything else that bringing it down. Intel has promised, swore, wished and hoped for a gfx solution. Its never come about. For years Intel has barely gotten by in gfx, and claiming they dont need to. Well, this just may turn out to bite em in the arse. Larrabee wont help this, at least not right away. Not until theyve lrearned a few things, trial and error wise. Maybe ATOM itself will be that trial, but currently, ATOM needs better support than its getting
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 10:24:33 PM

^This is a old IGP though. You can't judge based on one thats about 2 years old. I think if it had a G45 it would do better.

But still I think its stupid to use a UMPC based CPU for desktop purposes. Thats considering that it doesn't include all the same instructions that the Athlon 64 2000+ has. Heck this is like comparing a Via CPU to a Intel Core 2 for desktop uses.
August 15, 2008 10:33:45 PM

You sure could compare Core 2 to Nano. Since this article, as it clearly states, is about competing platforms on power consumption, just grab the Core 2 cpu and platform that has similar power consumption to that of Via or AMD. Perfectly valid. I'd like to see that myself.
August 15, 2008 10:37:05 PM

The more you can do, the better theyll sell. If say, both VIA and AMD come out with UMPCs that can do bluray, and Intels solution cant, thats a huge advantage. A selling point. People will want these options, Im sure. Im not convinced with this one. This isnt for business, its mostly recreation. And like Ive said, surfing, using apps, fine, but graphics, ouch
August 15, 2008 11:20:54 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
At least as good as the skulltrail. Look, ATOM is decent, it bests VIA, does better by a tad in power than AMD, but its everything else that bringing it down. Intel has promised, swore, wished and hoped for a gfx solution. Its never come about. For years Intel has barely gotten by in gfx, and claiming they dont need to. Well, this just may turn out to bite em in the arse. Larrabee wont help this, at least not right away. Not until theyve lrearned a few things, trial and error wise. Maybe ATOM itself will be that trial, but currently, ATOM needs better support than its getting


Again, keep in mind that the current Atom Netbooks are not the market Atom was designed for. Sure, as Netbook's CPU, its relatively weak due to a much looser power consumption requirement. However in UMPCs, or even MIDs, the size of Atom as well as its low power consumption makes it a very attractive option.

That's why I think Tom's article is slightly flawed. Sure, you can still compare between Atom, Athlon 2000+, and Nano, and see Atom being slapped left and right. However given that Atom was designed to fit in places normal CPU wouldn't fit, it does give Atom an edge in terms of competitiveness. That's something Tom's did not investigate, or mention.

I'm not sure if you can put an Athlon 2000+ and a 780G chipset in a UMPC or MID. Netbook, yes, but probably not UMPCs.
August 15, 2008 11:28:49 PM

Thats true, interesting to see if they try. AMD/ATI has potential in differing markets/abilities, they just never get them rolling. Will the 2000 be a skulltrail or something bigger (smaller) ?
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 15, 2008 11:49:20 PM

^Maybe AMD will be able to at 45nm but they would also have to do what Intel did and make the die very small by taking off all the newer aspects that a Core 2 for instance has.

piesquared, you missed my point. My point is in terms of comparing the same type of chips is not right here. I was saying that Atom is made for a different market than Althon 64 is and that it shouldn't be in even notebooks.

If you feel like comparing Core 2 to Nano on power usage thats great. But in terms of performance/watt I am damn sure the Core 2 will wipe the floor with Nano because Core 2 has a lot more advanced instructions and features.

As for THG I think they forgot that Atom has the advantage of being flippin cmall. Its package is probably not that much bigger than a AMD CPU and I am sure Intel plans on even smaller Atoms in the future which could help bring us better performance in things such as PSP, cell phones and so forth.
August 16, 2008 12:01:01 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Again, keep in mind that the current Atom Netbooks are not the market Atom was designed for. Sure, as Netbook's CPU, its relatively weak due to a much looser power consumption requirement. However in UMPCs, or even MIDs, the size of Atom as well as its low power consumption makes it a very attractive option.

That's why I think Tom's article is slightly flawed. Sure, you can still compare between Atom, Athlon 2000+, and Nano, and see Atom being slapped left and right. However given that Atom was designed to fit in places normal CPU wouldn't fit, it does give Atom an edge in terms of competitiveness. That's something Tom's did not investigate, or mention.

I'm not sure if you can put an Athlon 2000+ and a 780G chipset in a UMPC or MID. Netbook, yes, but probably not UMPCs.


What’s going on again cross platform comparisons again? Jebus guys why does it always have to turn into a retarded match with the epée idiots?

1. Atom is currently incorporated in the new EeePC not the old one with the small screen but the new one. (That means its selling which can't be said for the Nano and 2000+)
2. It was highlighted by Intel themselves that the overall platform isn't "perfect" yet due to the older chipset it’s currently using. (It’s the plan to integrate it all into one very small die so ya it kind of sucks)
3. Can the Nano and the A 2000+ be built into those designed spaces like the EeePC or variants like it? Can they meet the "total" system electrical and thermal limits? (The entire platform)
4. Why was the test done? To highlight that desktop variant HTPC silicon vs. 1st gen in order dual issue silicon meant for ultra portables being beat? Why we all knew that before they even tested that a desktop variant processor would be more effective.
5. Why are we still discussing what we all know already?
6. How is this relevant to our market segment known as desktops, HTPC's, servers, and workstations?
7. How does this affect the entire industry at large? Does it have value to discuss something that will have a refresh in 8-14 months?
8. I still fail to see why this is being argued at all its pretty common knowledge since Intel even said it’s a "incomplete" platform.
9. Will the fact the A 2000+ beating be Atom mean 90% of you will get laid within the next 90 days?
10. Does this mean Baron will buy 100 A 2000+'s because of their superior performance/watts value over the Atom?
11. Is the A 2000+ really AMD's secret weapon to battle the Core2's?
12. How many of you have seen sunlight in the last 1000 days?

August 16, 2008 12:16:21 AM

spud said:
12. How many of you have seen sunlight in the last 1000 days?


umm.. I can't exactly be truthful about that.

Edit:

But but I know what sunlight is. I do.. I do. It's bright.. ya.

Edit:

Forgot to ask... does having wallpaper as sunlight count?
August 16, 2008 12:24:36 AM

Its a cpu thats going to be used in a very large market segment, thats growing by leaps and bounds. Why would Intel bother if it didnt hold potential? Refreshes are nothing but a part of life for these types of systems. Its the companies mentioned, as a whole thats interesting. Not for e-peens, but for profit. The question that comes to mind is, will Intel acually deliver a gfx solution thatll work ? Integrated or not, it needs a boost, and Im saying Intel gfx as a whole. This just brings out their weakness in this area. And yes, it is important in workstation and desktop, and even UMPC for that matter. All things Ive touched on. Now, was the article incomplete? Yes. Was it misaimed? Not sure. Since it maybe being sold, theres really nothing to compare it to, so we get this. Does it mean that VIA or AMD can do this as well? Possibly.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 16, 2008 12:35:05 AM

^The GFX solution may be successful on the UMPC market. But thats to be seen as it has to make due with what they are using.

I am sure what its meant for it will do great.
August 16, 2008 12:42:22 AM

spud said:
What’s going on again cross platform comparisons again? Jebus guys why does it always have to turn into a retarded match with the epée idiots?

1. Atom is currently incorporated in the new EeePC not the old one with the small screen but the new one. (That means its selling which can't be said for the Nano and 2000+)
2. It was highlighted by Intel themselves that the overall platform isn't "perfect" yet due to the older chipset it’s currently using. (It’s the plan to integrate it all into one very small die so ya it kind of sucks)
3. Can the Nano and the A 2000+ be built into those designed spaces like the EeePC or variants like it? Can they meet the "total" system electrical and thermal limits? (The entire platform)
4. Why was the test done? To highlight that desktop variant HTPC silicon vs. 1st gen in order dual issue silicon meant for ultra portables being beat? Why we all knew that before they even tested that a desktop variant processor would be more effective.
5. Why are we still discussing what we all know already?
6. How is this relevant to our market segment known as desktops, HTPC's, servers, and workstations?
7. How does this affect the entire industry at large? Does it have value to discuss something that will have a refresh in 8-14 months?
8. I still fail to see why this is being argued at all its pretty common knowledge since Intel even said it’s a "incomplete" platform.
9. Will the fact the A 2000+ beating be Atom mean 90% of you will get laid within the next 90 days?
10. Does this mean Baron will buy 100 A 2000+'s because of their superior performance/watts value over the Atom?
11. Is the A 2000+ really AMD's secret weapon to battle the Core2's?
12. How many of you have seen sunlight in the last 1000 days?



Spud,

Just think "9-inch" and you'll know why its being discussed ;) 
August 16, 2008 12:49:45 AM

So, MMM wrote the article?
August 16, 2008 12:54:24 AM

lol at the absolute double standards. You all make it soo easy to hold Intel in such low regards. So now this comparison is invalid since the popular opinion seems to be that this isn't what Atom was intended for? Even though Intel obviously disagrees with everyone here, witnessed by the very fact that there is a MB in volume that supports it as such? If Intel didn't want the comparison, and thought that it couldn't compete, why spec such a platform to begin with?

Well would it be alright with everyone here if Intel's top of the line desktop chipset was compared against AMD's top of the line desktop chipset? 790gx compared with G45? Or are they not comparable either? Well, as it turns out they must not be. Because not a single review of 790gx had any comparison of G45. (there might have been one actually, but I can't seem to find it).

August 16, 2008 1:06:31 AM

My point has always been that Atom was not specifically designed to be used in Netbook, unlike Athlon 2000+ and Nano. However since it is still being used in low cost PC segment, it is still valid to compare them. However Tom's did not mention the fact that Atom was in fact not designed for such applications. Therefore by bringing it to the desktop with a chipset not specifically designed for this application, Tom's did not do a good job at bringing every competent to the best light as possible.

As for 790GX and G45 comparison, to a degree they're compariable. However since they differ in microarchitecture, with G45 integrated a memory controller, it might be not best to directly compare them. The result will likely be skewed up by the performance of the CPU anyway.

But yes, 790GX is a much more capable chipset, in terms of graphical performance, than G45. However G45 has also improved a lot from its predecessors.
August 16, 2008 1:09:55 AM

First of all, the people that were actually discussing this were discussing this. Other people come in and ask why? Who cares if they dont see the pertinance as to why. They dont/arent discussing it anyways. If you want to contribute, go ahead. If its not worth your while, then move on. Other sites/forums think this is for a netbook. Now that opens up this article as being legit and meaningful. Why would Toms have written it if not? I keep hearing its meant for 1 thing, and every decent site has reviewed it as something else. Now which is it? All those sites wrong? Or, is the ATOM simply way more limited than being let on?
August 16, 2008 1:16:42 AM

...or that most sites simply do not have the hardware to test Atom in its designed settings. How are review sites going to test UMPCs and MIDs, when there's no other competition than Atom?

August 16, 2008 1:21:23 AM

jaydeejohn, it's baffling isn't it. Apparantley everyone else is right, and Intel themselves are wrong. Who knew. I guess Atom is only meant for situations where it wins in whatever comparison. *baffled*

yomama, i've had this discussion elsewhere also about IGP's. What I don't understand I guess, is if G45 isn't comparable to anything, what does that mean? That it's in a class of it's own, and by default, owns that segment since there can be no legitimate comparison? Come on now. That's really reaching. What the heck can we compare it to? What can we compare Atom to? Hell can we compare anything to anything anymore unless they are identical and Intel comes out on top?
August 16, 2008 1:55:45 AM

Isnt there available HW made by Intel to run it? Isnt that what theyre using? And what benches would be needed to highlight ATOMs abilities? There arent any? And nothing else could run them but ATOM? I understand what youre trying to say, but accross the board, ATOM fits several niches, ones that both VIA and AMD also fit. So they use what Intel currently has,AMD and VIA. They run a spectrum of tests that show its abilities vs the othe 2. Now, how come this isnt apples to apples? And whos to say Bobcat wont do exactly what ATOM does? And VIAS final product as well? Sure, theyll all look different later on, but thats then not now. At least it gives us glimpses into performance, or are the glimpses weve gotten for Nehalem pointless and useless too? Since we know itll look completely different from what weve seen thus far.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 16, 2008 2:18:13 AM

piesquared said:
jaydeejohn, it's baffling isn't it. Apparantley everyone else is right, and Intel themselves are wrong. Who knew. I guess Atom is only meant for situations where it wins in whatever comparison. *baffled*

yomama, i've had this discussion elsewhere also about IGP's. What I don't understand I guess, is if G45 isn't comparable to anything, what does that mean? That it's in a class of it's own, and by default, owns that segment since there can be no legitimate comparison? Come on now. That's really reaching. What the heck can we compare it to? What can we compare Atom to? Hell can we compare anything to anything anymore unless they are identical and Intel comes out on top?


Its not about Intel coming out on top. I myself said I think that Intel is dumb for putting it out in a market its not meant for considering that it does not have a lot of the advanced features and instructions a desktop chip like the Athlon 64 2000+ has that helps its performance in desktop apps.

If AMD had a more comparable chip for the UMPC market I would be more interested but since its bacically comparing a desktop chip to a UMPC chip it feels useless to me as I know which one will win and thats the chip made specifically for desktop apps.

Personally I don't like your attitude as it seems you like to try to spread flames. Your first comment was pretty ignorant to the whole picture and the whole picture is that this is not a desktop chip, its using old chipsets and is obviously not in its final form.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Isnt there available HW made by Intel to run it? Isnt that what theyre using? And what benches would be needed to highlight ATOMs abilities? There arent any? And nothing else could run them but ATOM? I understand what youre trying to say, but accross the board, ATOM fits several niches, ones that both VIA and AMD also fit. So they use what Intel currently has,AMD and VIA. They run a spectrum of tests that show its abilities vs the othe 2. Now, how come this isnt apples to apples? And whos to say Bobcat wont do exactly what ATOM does? And VIAS final product as well? Sure, theyll all look different later on, but thats then not now. At least it gives us glimpses into performance, or are the glimpses weve gotten for Nehalem pointless and useless too? Since we know itll look completely different from what weve seen thus far.


No the chipset they are using for it right now is NOT made specifically for Atom and is quite old. Its the 945GC which is almost 2 years old if not older. In fact this was a preliminary chipset that was made for the transition from Pentium D to Core 2, meaning it supported both and was released as the first true Core 2 chipset with support for the 1066FSB with the P965 being high end.

Why to me it is not apples to apples is because the chips are not made for the same thing. Atom is a UMPC chip and is missing a lot of things that desktop chips need like OoOE (Out of Order Execution) and more. They did that in order to scale the chip down and cut power consumption in order to create a new market (and one that sounds very interesting none the less) of Ultra Mobile PCs that will probably include WiMAX support and allow for a new age of smaller, faster and better mobile net PCs.

Of course as I said before Intel decided to release it in the desktp/netbook market so thatstheir own decision but with knowing the details of the chip itselfs makes me know its a mistake and not compareable with what THG compared it to. But as it is Intel decided to do it this way.

Of course I will be more interested to see how the true final system that they have planned and when (if) AMD decides to creat a more compareable chip to compete in the UMPC market.
August 16, 2008 4:10:19 AM

Quote:
Personally I don't like your attitude as it seems you like to try to spread flames. Your first comment was pretty ignorant to the whole picture and the whole picture is that this is not a desktop chip, its using old chipsets and is obviously not in its final form


Well since we're being so honest here, I don't particularily like your attitude either. The fact remains, that nobody here, aside from a few of the knowledgable, wish to compare anything that show's Intel's disadvantages. lol and spread flames? If that's what you call agreeing with an article posted on this very website. It seems to me it's more a case of you not wanting to this gain any traction. Very curious.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 16, 2008 4:34:02 AM

^And you are knowledgeable? None of your post have been constructive. I never once said the article wasn't viable. I said in my eyes its not a good comparison because they are each made for two completely different things.

You are trying to obscure from the fact that the Athlon 64 2000+ is a desktop chip and that Atom is a UMPC chip lacking 2 things: 1. its not even running with the complete hardware made for it and using a very old chipset and 2. the Atom is at a major disadvantage with the fact that it does not have all the same featureset as a traditional desktop chip.

I don't care about this article because its comparing apples and oranges. Its like comparing Cell and a CPU. Both completely different, Cell can only do IOE and CPUs can do OoOE. Each work great in their prospective arenas but pit them vs eachother in the other back yard and you see different results than expected. Cell wont do as well in desktop computing but still blows x86 CPUs away in F@H.

Now once we can see either 1. the full Atom platform with the chipset designed for it or 2 a comparison of another chip made for UMPC this is just a article that states the ovbious: How well would a chip not made for desktops do?

Easy answer: not very well. Power wise, I would expect a AMD system to still come out on top since it has a IMC which lowers the power usage on the chipset and as well they are using a much newer chipset than the Atom platform currently has. Now change it to a newer chipset based on th 45nm production and give that to Atom and I am sure it will mix things up a bit.

And as for my first part, for someone whio is trying to state I am not knowledgeable you sure do like to talk and what comes out makes it seem like you don't have knowledge. Yes Atom is using 45nm High-K/MG which is why when you compare CPU power consumption Atom easily beats the A64 2000+ but the chipset Intel is using is still old 65nm non HK/MG.

The chipset is what adds the most to the power usage. Atom itself only uses 4w idle and not much more under load.
August 16, 2008 4:50:13 AM

Maybe someone can help me.

I am still not sure if to buy the Celeron 220 or the AMD 2000+. I am trying to build a File Server to Download and keep my electric Bill LOW.

Also I am trying to have like 6+ HDDs. I already have a POWER HUNGRY DESKTOP

Also where to buy the Processor... Because I can't find either the 220 or the 2000+ online. (Well.. from my usual online stores.)
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2008 5:22:22 AM

jimmysmitty said:

You are trying to obscure from the fact that the Athlon 64 2000+ is a desktop chip and that Atom is a UMPC chip lacking 2 things: 1. its not even running with the complete hardware made for it and using a very old chipset and 2. the Atom is at a major disadvantage with the fact that it does not have all the same featureset as a traditional desktop chip.

I don't care about this article because its comparing apples and oranges. Its like comparing Cell and a CPU. Both completely different, Cell can only do IOE and CPUs can do OoOE. Each work great in their prospective arenas but pit them vs eachother in the other back yard and you see different results than expected. Cell wont do as well in desktop computing but still blows x86 CPUs away in F@H.

And as for my first part, for someone whio is trying to state I am not knowledgeable you sure do like to talk and what comes out makes it seem like you don't have knowledge. Yes Atom is using 45nm High-K/MG which is why when you compare CPU power consumption Atom easily beats the A64 2000+ but the chipset Intel is using is still old 65nm non HK/MG.

The chipset is what adds the most to the power usage. Atom itself only uses 4w idle and not much more under load.


firstly: IF it works while fullfilling all the power\whatever other requirements, it work......m sure my no one wont care if his UMPC has a desktop or a UMPC cpu in it.coz he needs his gadget to do its job and it dos

Secondly: if intel dosnt have a chipset that fully customized for the chip y din intel make one.im sure they had enough money to do that....atom is low in power consumption becoz it has missing codecx or sumthin (acording to intel) so y cant they remove the useless parts of the chipset and then market it. no one was pushing them to market it now, because amd never really had any plans.n via is too small to be a threat.

Third: like i said before, atom has low TDP because it is missing some common instructions. intel said thats the way they could reduce TDP. now if amd can reduce power by simply reducing clock to minimum and still be faster, AND have a complete set of instruction(wheather required or not) and betters the TDP, its a huge achievement given they hav achieved (what intel could not) with a 7yr old achi. y does this acheivement disqualify amd from competing in this segment is beyond me. HERE, all we need is a internet browser or sumthing that will last longer on battery. AMD platform not only lasts longer, it betters performance by a heathly margin

forth: and 780G is HK\MG????

fith: AGAIN: what good is a cpu witout its chipset. do u only buy a cpu when u want to build a new PC or do u get a chipset too.

August 16, 2008 6:08:34 AM

I mentioned Bobcat. Everyone acts like they dont know what that is. Hmmmm. AMD will have a better solution soon. Will it be slightly altered to compete in this arena? Not sure. I know for a fact Intel has had lots of problems with their chipsets concerning DX10/Bluray playback and the like. I know theyve made promises of increasing their abilities to 10x, but theyre failing, behind schedule miserably. Being that this is a specialized chip, for a special environment, the chipset will play a prominent role in its abilities, especially with it being more or less a SOC, right? All Im saying, and seeing is, its not that impressive in ability, and I havnt seen anything chipwise for this, or anything else chipwise from Intel that impresses regarding being able to do non assissted decode. AMDs chipset is superior, always has been in these areas. All Im saying again is this. Intel has made its living selling crap IGPs. It owns the gpu sales because of this. But those same IGPs fail this chip, and theres no alternative, and only promises which have been long coming , from Intel
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2008 7:40:12 AM

sarwar_r87 said:
firstly: IF it works while fullfilling all the power\whatever other requirements, it work......m sure my no one wont care if his UMPC has a desktop or a UMPC cpu in it.coz he needs his gadget to do its job and it dos

Secondly: if intel dosnt have a chipset that fully customized for the chip y din intel make one.im sure they had enough money to do that....atom is low in power consumption becoz it has missing codecx or sumthin (acording to intel) so y cant they remove the useless parts of the chipset and then market it. no one was pushing them to market it now, because amd never really had any plans.n via is too small to be a threat.

Third: like i said before, atom has low TDP because it is missing some common instructions. intel said thats the way they could reduce TDP. now if amd can reduce power by simply reducing clock to minimum and still be faster, AND have a complete set of instruction(wheather required or not) and betters the TDP, its a huge achievement given they hav achieved (what intel could not) with a 7yr old achi. y does this acheivement disqualify amd from competing in this segment is beyond me. HERE, all we need is a internet browser or sumthing that will last longer on battery. AMD platform not only lasts longer, it betters performance by a heathly margin

forth: and 780G is HK\MG????

fith: AGAIN: what good is a cpu witout its chipset. do u only buy a cpu when u want to build a new PC or do u get a chipset too.


1. umm?

2. GPU decoding of video formats? Is that what your saying?

3. Atom is in a more power efficient but slower in-order arch. Work must be done in a line first to last instead of anytime with the out-of-orders

4. No

5. Chipset is critical. More important than CPU for me... A solid chipset many be the buying difference...
August 16, 2008 7:41:20 AM

jimmysmitty said:
The chipset is what adds the most to the power usage. Atom itself only uses 4w idle and not much more under load.


Indeed. While it's interesting to know that a current underclocked AMD system can have lower power consumption and better performance than an Atom system, it's kind of silly in a 'CPU vs CPU' benchmark to mark the Atom down against the Athlon because it's connected to a crappy chipset that takes far more power, even though the actual CPU takes half the power of the AMD CPU.

Similarly, it's no surprise than 'an Intel transistor takes more power than an AMD transistor' when the Atom is clocking that transistor 60% faster and at a higher voltage. Performance-wise it appears to getting more work from each transistor, and with less power overall.

That said, Intel better be releasing a new chipset with better features and lower power consumption soon...
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2008 8:02:14 AM

*nods* a chipset is part of the platform... has to be unlike a discrete GPU
August 16, 2008 8:31:01 AM

Well since everyones intent on this argument, lets do another comparison.

Whats the cost of the AMD system compared to the intel system.

Frankly, even though the intel is dirt cheap with mobo included (sub $70 USD), I would by niether, but instead buy a via based system for UMPC/mobile (automobile) PC as they have been working the low power automotive PC side for a fair time, and have the power requirements down to the point that the PSU is the size of a quarter.

August 16, 2008 8:32:53 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, MMM wrote the article?


No, 9 inch and MMM were/are different people.

Thundermans tactics are disturbingly similar to 9-inches though. Come into the forum, drop a bomb, and run away
August 16, 2008 9:04:39 AM

This isnt really a bomb. People are just to touchy here. This can and should be discussed. There are problems for ATOM, not so much the cpu, but the platform/chips. These problems have to be addressed before Intel has a good working product here. Id like to know what people know about such progress. Id like to know if either AMD or VIA has something better coming down the chute soon. This should be discussed, and people should allow fair criticism of whomever manufactuer it is. I dont care if theyre the fanboi from hell. I dont care if they work for someone. These forums are actually stunted and shunned because of these attitudes. Either be man (or woman) enough to have a decent conversation about things like this, or just come out and paint yourself whatever fanboi color from the get go, and then we can ignore them.
!