Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Pentium 4 Vs. Atom: A Battle Of The Generations

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
July 16, 2010 6:21:01 AM

I, uh... wow.
Score
14
July 16, 2010 6:26:57 AM

Interesting comparison.And some of my friends still use Pentium 4s. I think that you could have also included Athlons from that time in this test.
Score
22
Related resources
July 16, 2010 6:43:45 AM

If you are looking for power efficiency and long battery life then atom well be a good chose
Score
-1
July 16, 2010 6:43:45 AM

So essentially both suck but, an ald P4 will be noisier and consume more power but an Atom will set you back a few hundred bucks.

I'd say if you have an old P4 lying about, keep that and put it somewhere you won't hear it. Environment-wise you'll save the energy and materials needed to build an Atom pc an money-wise the few hundred you save are more than enough to cover the costs of the extra power.
Score
22
July 16, 2010 6:54:36 AM

P4 was a travesty on good processor design towards the end. "just clock it higher bill, turn the fan up"

I'm so glad we could all get Athlon 64s instead.

It makes a little sick inside that I'm still using a pentium D (two P4s ducktaped together to make a dual core) in my 24/7 file server, and not one of these atoms.

Score
20
July 16, 2010 7:04:14 AM

I'd like to say the motherboard choice for P4 is bad. A board with onboard graphic should be used for apples to apples comparision. Please re-test the P4 with a 945/915/865/845 motherboard.
Score
22
July 16, 2010 7:34:40 AM

Lets match a Dual Xeon (Northwood core) against some of today's lower end machines.
The P4 3.0 Ht and higher can still handle everything except high end gaming. And actually on Activisions site minimum system requirements are a P4 3.0 and DirectX 9.0c to play call of duty 2 modern warfare and left 4 dead 2.
So I would call P4's "pathetic" yet.
Unless you are an elitist snob!
Score
5
July 16, 2010 7:57:18 AM

This was very interesting. It does bring back memories - I ran a Northwood 2.8GHz. Installed Windows 7 on it for fun a while back, but it was absolutely unbearable for me.
Score
2
July 16, 2010 8:15:40 AM

I dont know wahts all the buzz about but I have a 500 mhz celeron n it seems to work well for me. of course I have another computer so I dont use the celeron much. But if need be I only need to install those softwares that were designed those days of celeron , for instance I just have to choose office xp for my celeron and it works well. infact do we need the more expensive n latest ms office when our old ones can do the same thing effeciently enough?
Score
7
July 16, 2010 8:16:44 AM

Well, we already knew that the P4 design SUCKED at the time, it didn't get better with age - I mean, the DIY crowd at the compsci on my former campus never ever looked the P4 way: they all got Athlons. An Athlon XP 2800+ would kick a Northwood's behind in pretty much all tasks except video encoding while drawing only half its power. Let's not go the server way though, a 2003 Opteron overcame a Xeon so badly all of Intel's spin and illegal practices couldn't prevent AMD from taking a sizable share of the server (and enthusiasts) market.

Still, there's one glaring mistake, P4s did have SpeedStep: SpeedStep first appeared on Pentium III Mobiles chips, and a Northwood could actually clock down to 800 MHz when idle. The problem is, Northwood's SpeedStep implementation doesn't match more recent ones, and it may not be recognized by all OSes (I do know that Linux has a different clock manager module for P4s and for other Intel CPUs).
Score
14
July 16, 2010 8:36:56 AM

Well,

I am reading this and typing on a maxed out Northwood 3.2C and I just finished watching two hours of "Fox on Demand" and "PBS" on my 52" LG LCD (Thru a 4G WiMax Modem) without a hicough.

I finally broke down and cheaped out ... just took delivery of an Athlon-II x4 at ~2.8GHz for $100, because my HDV>>MPEG4 output renders were taking over 7 hours for "near lossless" renders.

I have a CoolerMaster with a speed knob that gets cranked, for renders and my Raptor (SATA-I) is the loudest part (when CPU fan is attenuated).

Wish I had the time and tools to clock my old system (Northwood) against this A2x4(OC) with Zahlman 120mm push-pull stack cooler and 4GB RipJaws 1600c7.

Anyway ... All my new fans are rated under 20dB noise and over 50CFM and I am dropping two Zotac 240GT passive (fanless) GPUs in an 890/UD3 mobo with an Intel G2 SSD (boot/apps) and two Spinpoint F3s, in removable mobile-racks (slide out hot-swaps), so I can go SILENT for live audio DAW recording and HTPC (when not streaming from the F3s.

... Like I said ... Would be fun to bench it against the Northwood but I don't have the time ... I am guessing/hoping, renders will run in one-third the time ... ANY GUESTIMATES ?

= Alvin Smith =
Score
-4
July 16, 2010 8:46:50 AM


How is it that you are running a 64 bit OS on the Northwood, a 32Bit proc ?

The MS compatibility page said I had to run Win7-32 ... what am I missing ?

Curently running XPP/SP2

= Al =
Score
4
July 16, 2010 9:07:48 AM

oh... the netblast architecture tested once again. oh joy!
i hated the p4 thing when everybody was a p4 zombie.
at that time i was working as a pc salesman at a local respectable company. p4 was expensive, power hungry and inefficient. it was at least 100$ more expensive than a comparable amd system. as we were mainly into intel mobos the intel platforms were less prone to rma. the boss was eager to sell intel because of the.... ummm.... intel incentives ;)  found out about this later. i sold the first athlon 64 system in the company. they did not burn me on a stake but they were close. did not have a easy time putting together a amd system as nobody knew much about athlon 64 but i hated intel sooo much.

p4 sucked, sucks and will still suck in the milenias to come.

oh... forgot to tell we have a magnificent test server at work running a xeon based on p4 architecture... and it is slow as snails.

good thing intel pulled their shit together and got the p3... umm core architecture out and that was a lot different.
Score
11
July 16, 2010 9:48:44 AM

Page 1, after convenience computing it says We Done.. should be We've done. But, nice article!
Score
3
July 16, 2010 10:25:04 AM

Great article.

Now to rant about low power PCs :p .
Score
2
July 16, 2010 10:35:28 AM

pojihPage 1, after convenience computing it says We Done.. should be We've done. But, nice article!

noticed that as well
Score
0
July 16, 2010 10:45:08 AM

Lame mp3 encoder: truly lame.
Score
2
July 16, 2010 11:16:24 AM

nice article, cements my decision with going the new dual core atom than buying a new LGA mobo for an old P4 mobo which just died.

for the same performance, i spent a little more for power efficiency, smaller size, less heat, and fanless and noiseless system. one thing i forgot though is that the new Atom Pinetrail dual core does not have the PATA interface anymore, i had to salvage a SATA drive here in my current system.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 11:25:41 AM

mitch074Well, we already knew that the P4 design SUCKED at the time, it didn't get better with age - I mean, the DIY crowd at the compsci on my former campus never ever looked the P4 way: they all got Athlons. An Athlon XP 2800+ would kick a Northwood's behind in pretty much all tasks except video encoding while drawing only half its power. Let's not go the server way though, a 2003 Opteron overcame a Xeon so badly all of Intel's spin and illegal practices couldn't prevent AMD from taking a sizable share of the server (and enthusiasts) market.Still, there's one glaring mistake, P4s did have SpeedStep: SpeedStep first appeared on Pentium III Mobiles chips, and a Northwood could actually clock down to 800 MHz when idle. The problem is, Northwood's SpeedStep implementation doesn't match more recent ones, and it may not be recognized by all OSes (I do know that Linux has a different clock manager module for P4s and for other Intel CPUs).


I agree with you regarding the performance differences, but the only Northwood Pentium 4s with speedstep were the Pentium 4 m (mobile). None of the desktop Pentium 4s had speedstep enabled until after the migration to socket 775 (around 2005).
Score
2
July 16, 2010 11:54:24 AM

what about heat? i know that you could fry eggs on those monsters

typo on components table "DDR dual : DDR2 ..."
Score
-4
July 16, 2010 11:54:35 AM

If by any chance you have a Barton + Clawhammer + new Sempron on AM3 then please feel free to do a processor battle amongst them. I for one am quite interested to see the difference in architecture on the AMD side
Score
5
July 16, 2010 12:08:44 PM

Very interesting. It adds a nice sense of scale.
I would also like to have seen a few older games (e.g. Diablo II era) thrown in there, or perhaps the sort of undemanding titles that might still keep monkeys (small kids) occupied on a rainy afternoon.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 12:52:01 PM

wheres amd in all this? this is their market, cheap as dirt!
Score
6
July 16, 2010 12:53:08 PM

Slugtium 4 who in their right mind still uses one to this day?
Score
-3
July 16, 2010 1:14:08 PM

king smpLets match a Dual Xeon (Northwood core) against some of today's lower end machines.


I have a dual Socket 604/E7501 Xeon board in my file server with two 3.20 GHz/2 MB Gallatins in it. They are basically the first P4 Extreme Editions but in Socket 604 guise and with a 533 MHz FSB rather than an 800 MHz one. Performance is 50-100% better than the 2.66 GHz/533 MHz Prestonias (basically P4 2.66B with HT) previously in the board and about 10-20% slower than my Socket 939 A64 X2 desktop.

So, I'd say that the dual Prestonia (Northwood) Xeons would beat the dual-core Atom D330 or D510 but lose to any modern dual-core desktop chip because the 533 MHz FSB frequently becomes a bottleneck. The big 2 MB L3 caches on the Gallatins help out a lot and they would keep up with some of the Celeron Dual Cores and some of the earlier low-clocked Pentium Dual Cores, but everything newer would be quite a bit faster. The Gallatins also suck down a bunch of power too, I predict the setup draws probably pretty close to 300 watts full-load. However, it's got the bus bandwidth the Atoms and low-end modern desktop boards don't, so it does its job as a file server very well. It also is a very solid board and has ECC memory support that no Atom or low-end desktop boards except for AMD CPUs on some ASUS boards have, so it has very high availability.

So in short:
- Dual Northwood-era Xeons will outperform Atoms.
- Dual Northwood-era Xeons will not outperform modern low-end desktop CPUs.
- Dual Northwood-era Xeons will use a lot more power than low-end modern desktop CPUs.
- Dual Northwood-era Xeons make better servers than low-end modern desktop systems.
Score
2
July 16, 2010 1:15:44 PM

We have 2 3.0ghz P4 systems at work and they are completely adequate for what we do. (Basic office tasks, e-mail, and graphing software) That said, I have an old 2.0 ghz athlon XP system which seems faster than the 3.0 P4s.
Anyway, interesting article, but are the dual core atom machines readily available?? I was looking at some really cheap nettops at best buy. They must have been the old single core model, right???
The article could have been better if they had included figures for an athlon chip of the same vintage (as someone else already said) and a modern dual core desktop chip, maybe even from the core 2 generation.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 1:25:19 PM

mitch074Well, we already knew that the P4 design SUCKED at the time, it didn't get better with age -


Actually, HT on the old P4s gives more benefit on modern multithreaded applications than it did back in the day the P4s were new and few applications were multithreaded.

Quote:
I mean, the DIY crowd at the compsci on my former campus never ever looked the P4 way: they all got Athlons. An Athlon XP 2800+ would kick a Northwood's behind in pretty much all tasks except video encoding while drawing only half its power.


Athlon XPs did generally draw less power than the Northwoods did, but it was more like 70-80% of their power rather than half. The faster Tbreds and Bartons aren't exactly cool-running chips, as the Barton 3200+ in my HTPC will attest.

Quote:
Let's not go the server way though, a 2003 Opteron overcame a Xeon so badly all of Intel's spin and illegal practices couldn't prevent AMD from taking a sizable share of the server (and enthusiasts) market.Still, there's one glaring mistake, P4s did have SpeedStep: SpeedStep first appeared on Pentium III Mobiles chips, and a Northwood could actually clock down to 800 MHz when idle.


P4 desktop chips couldn't clock down until the Prescott days, and then they only clocked down to 2.80 GHz. P4 mobiles did have SpeedStep, and they clocked down to either 800 MHz or 1.20 GHz, usually 1.20 GHz. PIII-Ms clocked down to 600 MHz, as did the 400 MHz FSB Pentium Ms.

Quote:
The problem is, Northwood's SpeedStep implementation doesn't match more recent ones, and it may not be recognized by all OSes (I do know that Linux has a different clock manager module for P4s and for other Intel CPUs).


Pentium M and newer CPUs use the ACPI P-states SpeedStep driver, while the P4-Ms used the "speedstep-ich" driver. That did cause some trouble with stock Linux kernels as time went on as most would use the ACPI P-states driver and not compile the speedstep-ich driver. I had to compile that module a lot when my old P4-M laptop still ran.

Also, note that A64 CPUs also use a non-standard driver on Linux for scaling. They use the "powernow-k8" driver. However, that one is usually compiled as a module and thus A64 PowerNOW! usually works out of the box.
Score
2
July 16, 2010 1:29:04 PM


What about spending less money than on a netbook and getting a used high end 15.4" Pentium M or Athlon64 x 2 (tk-55,tk-56)with a dvd-rw,1gb ram and 80gb harddrive on Craigslist? Much more useful and I would like to see those benchtests.
Score
3
July 16, 2010 1:43:19 PM

"So, I'd say that the dual Prestonia (Northwood) Xeons would beat the dual-core Atom D330 or D510 but lose to any modern dual-core desktop chip because the 533 MHz FSB frequently becomes a bottleneck"

Nice post but I have to disagree. On my dual xeon 3.2 533/1mb I matched up to Core2Duo and CoreDuo extremes on #DMark03 with a score around 10000. Though I can heat a small bedroom up and use 11 fans (i would do 12 fans but it might cause a rip in the time-space continuum LOL)
Don't get me wrong. I am on a very tight budget (9yr old daughter privata school and disney addiction) so I got to make "Ole Junk" do what I need it to do. I drool over I7's and new Xeon 5000 series but they might as well be Ferrari's.
I can still encode and burn a 700mb avi in one hour and play high settings on Left 4 Dead and Far Cry 2 so I am happy with my 250 dollar set-up.
"Creamy Xeon Goodness"
Score
0
July 16, 2010 1:50:18 PM

FYI,

The processor had nothing to do with dual-channel memory. That was the chipset. Northwood did not have a wider path to the chipset/memory than Willamette.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 2:04:22 PM

A few things are apparently misunderstood by the authors.

Hyper-threading would be less useful for the Pentium 4 than the Atom. I don't know why you feel like a long-pipeline would benefit more, but I'm guess you don't know either.

The more aggressive the scheduling, the less HT will help. That's because the pipes are already filled better, leaving less open space. The Pentium 4 does out of order processing, the Atom does not. In order processors benefit more.

Also, the main reason the Pentium 4 was so poor per clock cycle was because it had one decoder. If the instructions were not in the trace cache, which was quite small, the processor ran essentially like a scalar processor. Hyper-threading creates even more issues here, since now you've got two threads in the cache, and you're going to miss even more often. So, it can hurt performance.

The Pentium 4 architecture was poorly suited for Hyper-Threading, and it only rarely showed a large advantage, and often times showed performance being reduced. The Atom is better suited for it, and so is the Nehalem.
Score
2
July 16, 2010 2:29:04 PM

Erm... why would I buy something that is questionably of the same processing power as my 8 year old toy? How about when my P4 dies, I replace it with something like an i3 instead.
Score
1
July 16, 2010 2:38:05 PM

My recommendation to someone considering re-using an old P4 would not be a nettop. The nettop is appropriate for usage scenarios that are mostly limited by size, power usage, or noise. $300 would probably be better spent on something with at least an Athlon II. The value conscious individual will have a lot longer before an upgrade is necessary.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 3:00:23 PM

Well we all knew the P4's sucked. Those were the years when AMD was dominating Intel as far as performance and efficiency. I miss those days... (well, except for Intel's bad marketing practices that jipped AMD)
Score
1
July 16, 2010 3:06:32 PM

Time to dust of the ol' P4 3.8Ghz and lay down a world of hurt onto the Atom /sarcasm
Score
3
July 16, 2010 3:11:40 PM

I don't understand the point to comparing a dual core anything to a single core anything. You already know the results.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 3:25:47 PM

ram1009I don't understand the point to comparing a dual core anything to a single core anything. You already know the results.


You make a point, but it's not necessarily true. If you get a Core 2 E8700, and disable one of the cores, it's still going to run circles around any of the processors here.

But, I agree, they should have compared dual core to dual core. The Pentium 4 would destroy the Atom in performance, but it was a real power hog.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 3:40:12 PM

I'm running Win 7 on a P4 Northwood with 3gb of DDR ram and an ATI HD3850 AGP. Aero is enabled, all unneeded services disabled. Absolutely no 3rd party background processes.
It runs like a charm. it's quick and responsive. Full 1080p playback thanks to DXVA and MPC-HC. I use an XP partition for gaming. It plays BF2 and any HL2 game including CS-S at very high frames per seconds with all eye candy on.
I figured I would of updated my system by now, but too many developers continue to ignore the PC platform.
I love PC hardware but I won't waste my money unless there are some good action games that come out that are specifically made for the PC (not console ports).
For now, my P4 will live on. It does absolutely everything I want and performs well in Windows 7. I can multitask a few things, like Winamp, Messenger, Firefox with dozens of tabs open, etc no prob. I've seen C2D systems running sluggish because the user doesnt control the background processes, loads it with tons of stuff, applications that needlessly run in the background for no reason.
Keep an eye on every single process, and only run what you actually are using, disable unneeded windows services and sidebar.
You would be amazed how quickly win 7 can run on a 8 year old processor.
Score
3
July 16, 2010 4:13:57 PM

There is one other thing the review should mention. You talk about running these systems as home servers. What would my electric bill be per year if I ran each of these systems? It isn't a complicated equation to work it out, but this article feels incomplete without it.

Have you considered running a test where over 24 or 48 hours you run a workload that you believe would represent a standard home server profile? You could then take the power consumption results and extrapolate what you think it would cost to run the system over a one year period. In a home server role knowing what it will cost you per year can be an important factor.
Score
0
Anonymous
July 16, 2010 4:20:50 PM

It appears that the Atom might have memory bandwidth issues. So anything that is extremely memory intensive will suffer, but anything that must make multiple passes through the processor will do fairly well in the Atom vs the older technology.

I personally make use of several older machines at home and a work, and have found that as long as I take care of their operating system that they're still useful. I have some (9 year) old 733 Mhz machines with XP still chuging a long happily that still have no issues with the tasks I have set them with.

I will say the Atom is welcome in my book. Power efficency is very important to me as A/C bills cost me a fair amount. Being that Atom solutions cost so little I'd guess they'll pay for themselves within a couple years of continuous use. I'm currently considering using one for a low bandwidth file server.

AMD really shot themselves in the foot here. For the last 4 years I've been waiting for AMD to die shrink the Athlon XP. Make it a dual core and shrink it to 45 nm and it'd probably rival the Atom. I never understand what the hell is running through the AMD exec's heads.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 4:31:10 PM

jtt283Very interesting. It adds a nice sense of scale.I would also like to have seen a few older games (e.g. Diablo II era) thrown in there, or perhaps the sort of undemanding titles that might still keep monkeys (small kids) occupied on a rainy afternoon.


On my Gateway netbook (Atom N450 1.66 GHz, with my own install of win 7 home prem) I have a blast revisiting old games and that's on a single core Atom. The only hitch is that the old games had no idea they'd be played in widescreen format, so fullscreening them often leades to stretched elements. There are fixes for some games out there by editing some ini's/config files though. So far i've had great fun with:

Diablo II, and LOD expansion
Warcraft 3 (slightly choppy at times)
Alice - never got around to playing this when it was fresh, but still - GREAT game.
Undying
Stronghold and expansion
Tons of fun in dosBox with really oldies - check abandonia.com or other sites for great abandonware games. And I've introduced my niece & nephew (5 and 3yo) to some of these old games, and they don't know that they're dated they just know they're fun. And FREE!
Score
0
July 16, 2010 6:37:04 PM

I pretty much did this same comparison several months ago when putting together a small NAS. I had an old compaq P4 that I thought I might use but there were lots of other negatives with the platform: no Sata support, no 1000gb ethernet, ram limited to 512mb, loud fan. The D510 + 1gb ram was less than 100 dollars from Fry's.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 9:43:13 PM

Oh well .. I still have an old P4 that I now use to test out various Linux Distros before i deploy them on my production systems... It originally was used to replace my Athlon fleet because the likes of some major software companies decided they needed to use an instruction set that isnt on the AthlonXP line. I paid just under 300 used ( complete with processor and memory ) for the board ... 6 years ago . and it still runs.. I will use it till it falls apart -
Score
0
July 16, 2010 10:14:26 PM

antleeI'd like to say the motherboard choice for P4 is bad. A board with onboard graphic should be used for apples to apples comparision. Please re-test the P4 with a 945/915/865/845 motherboard.


Agreed.. this is why the Atoms got smashed so bad in the 3dmark.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 10:18:58 PM

I have bought several P4 based Dell refurb computers off ebay to use as light office work machines to stretch the budget some... I got the machines for around 100-125 dollars... these included Xp pro and a small hard drive and craptastic intel 915 graphics for the most part. But again for what it needs to do and how much i paid i cant complain one bit...
Score
0
July 16, 2010 10:32:17 PM

The P4 will beat the Atom hands down...as a heater.

That being said, I bought my first P4 CPU a few weeks ago on ebay, for $3 (shipping included). It's a 2.4C Northwood with HT and a very strange part number. It turns out this was a P4EE (3.2HGz at the time) binned down to 2.4GHz. I replaced a 2.4B that runs my Vista box (I installed it just for kicks). There's noticeable performance increase when I multi-task using this CPU over the non HT variant.
Score
2
Anonymous
July 16, 2010 11:28:51 PM

It's an article to convince the last owners of old -Intel- systems to upgrade . I should be paid to read this.

An PII/win98 system runs faster than a PIII/Win2X system, wich runs faster than a PIV/WinXP system wich evenly runs faster than a Core2Duo/vista combo...but its for user experience, thats why there's so much shortage in pc-technicians and if you know something about computers your phone doesnt stop ringing.

How can they keep serieus....

As for technicality : the PIII infrastructure proves the best and reused in the core 2. The core-I is also bad like the PIV but getting better.
The Atom has nothing to match, as it is so awful.
Score
0
July 16, 2010 11:53:55 PM

Athlon XPs WERE NOT FASTER than all but the very first P4. I'm sick of hearing that complete BS on these forums.

From this very site's own testing...

"Our benchmarks
showed that the Athlon XP 3000+ at standard clock speed (13 x 166 MHz = 2166 MHz) can't hold a candle to the P4 3.06 GHz together with the latest applications. "

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/barton,587-24.html

I've been building PCs of all kinds everyday for over 8 years and AMD was only performance king for short spurts in history.

They have probably been "bang-for-the-buck" king since 486 DX 2 were new. Thats why we love AMD.

If you don't like Intel (for being overpriced, price fixing, having inefficient chips, whatever, whatever...) fine. Thats okay.

But don't LIE and try to re-write history. If you had tons of cash and wanted all out best performance, Intel was, (with a brief few exceptions in time) IT. PERIOD.

These exceptions which seems to blank out AMD fanboi memory of Intel's better performance the rest of the time include:

1) Original Athlon Slot A 550MHz (AMD 750 Northbridge, VIA KX133 South specifically). These beat the much older designed PII/III Slot 1 until Coppermine came along (which didn't take long...).

2) Original T-Bird 1.0-1.4GHz these beat the now older Coppermine. The T-Bird was desirable even over the original P4. (Willamette S423, which was often teamed with SDRAM not RD-RAM) But then Northwood arrived with Dual Channel RD-1066 and that was it for AMD.

The Athlon XP came out and was always chasing Intel. When nVidia released nForce 2 and AMD FINALLY got Dual Channel DDR to beat Intels bandwidth king Dual RD-RAM 1066 things got interesting, but then Intel soon released Granite Bay was back on top. Intel held the crown again until the unexpected happened...

3) Athlon 64 S754. Beat the ever living poo out of the now quite old P4. Intel gained some multitasking ground back with Pentium D, but that was destroyed with...

4) Athlon 64 X2. King and the best moment for AMD IMO. Finally they had it all. The best single threaded, multitasking, memory bandwidth performance leading naturally to the best application and gaming peformance BAR NONE. nVidia and ATi were putting out decent SLi and Crossfire boards to match.

But along came Core2 years ago now and look where we still are. Intel took the performance crown and looking at Hex core battles, shows no sign of giving it back.
Score
-2
July 17, 2010 3:35:34 AM

Funny to think I have an I5 system that idles @ 50-55 watts with a 5770 and a bit of under volting. I think i made the right decision(my Core2 system was over 90 watts idle with a 4350).
Score
0
!