Tomshardware review: Intel Atom 230 vs Athlon 64 2000+

thunderman

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2007
107
0
18,680
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,review-31253.html

Review Quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not looking good for Int-hell...

AMD4Life!!
 

sailer

Splendid
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.
 
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
 

sarwar_r87

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2008
837
0
19,060
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)
 
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
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780
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.
 
This says it all:
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
13.png

As soon as they move that platform to a miniITX board, they will have a winner!
 

sarwar_r87

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2008
837
0
19,060



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)
 
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....
 
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.
 
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
 
^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?
 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780


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.
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
 
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
 
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
 
^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.
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780
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.
 
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
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790


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.