Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:18:30 AM

I need to compare benchmarks. I know the P4 is much faster
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 4:57:54 AM

strider is about right.

the atom is very underpowered. ive spent alot of time using atim processors, and the more you do, the mroe you grow to hate them.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 2:50:39 PM

I say go with the P4 2.8, especially looking at the link strider provided. If you're looking to save power though, you sure can't beat that atom.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2009 3:11:29 PM

well the atom was meant for web surfing, while the p4 (back in the day) is meant to handle a lot more than just web surfing. :whistle: 
m
0
l
December 14, 2009 3:11:46 PM

stridervm said:
This should help.

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/intel-atom-230-1...

In my hunch, as fast as a Pentium 4 @ 2.0Ghz.


atom 1.6ghz was only as fast as p4 "willamette" at 2ghz or celeron "northwood-128" at 2.4ghz. it is nowhere close to northwood ht or even prescott's level. i bet you're using willy in the test. definitely not northwood based.

Quote:
I need to compare benchmarks. I know the P4 is much faster



generally any netburst based except celeron-128/p4 "willy" can easily outperform atom 230 with relatively raw power/optimized simd/higher clockrate. not to mention northwood based ipc was much more efficiency in ipc in pipeline than atom can offer.

welshmousepk said:
strider is about right.

the atom is very underpowered. ive spent alot of time using atim processors, and the more you do, the mroe you grow to hate them.


i have run return to castle wolfenstain on my mini desktop(or htpc) based on atom 230. it ran pretty decent with 30~40fps in mid setting(onboard gma900). so it is still way enough to play some classic old game.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2009 1:25:34 AM

yeah for sure,

i sp[ent alot of time gaming on both an eepc, and an asus m10 (which has an atom paired with a 9300m)

it can handle old games well. but it heavily bottlenecks even a low end card like the 9300, and chokes when you try multitasking, or running prgrams that are remotely recent.

hell, i completed crysis on my n10. so i know they are capable. but the effrots made by intel to save power limit it.
m
0
l
December 15, 2009 1:36:18 AM

welshmousepk said:
the atom is very underpowered. ive spent alot of time using atim processors, and the more you do, the mroe you grow to hate them.


I have two Atoms now and I love them; I'm planning to buy another one when and if the Ion2 chipset comes out.

Back on topic, I think we previously decided that the Atom 330 is similar in performance to a P4 2.8 when running multithreaded apps, so the Atom 200s would be substantially slower.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2009 1:44:29 AM

i guess i have a dislike of atoms unfairly. since when i used them i had no other PC to use. so i was trying to do ALL my pc stuff on very underpowered systems.

they are very good for low power systems. but personally, i think you should be going arm/mips for small devices, or full fledged PC processors. batteries have evolvbed alot lately. so core2solo processors shouldnt be an issue for netbooks.
m
0
l
December 15, 2009 2:13:50 AM

welshmousepk said:
but personally, i think you should be going arm/mips for small devices, or full fledged PC processors.


I considered ARMs, but ARM boards are insanely expensive compared to Atoms.
m
0
l
December 15, 2009 2:45:15 PM

Quote:
Buy a E3300 and be done with it.


why e3300? it's cost as high as $59 at the moment. put 20~30 dollars and you can get an e5300!! or e1200 would be a good choice since it's cost $39 only
m
0
l
December 15, 2009 8:00:07 PM

Quote:
E3300 will overclock a lot higher then the E5300. Just built an E3300 system for a friend who runs it at 4.5Ghz on a daily basis.


Microcenter also has the E3200 for 39.99 :) 


yeah my mistake :) 

e5300 has larger cache than e3200(1mb l2 cache vs e5300's 2mb l2 cache) but $69 dollar(microcenter) is like...twice as much. it is hard to choose though since e3200 still stick with 65nm while e5300 is better fab at 45nm(soon to be rebranded with 32nm) so it is hard...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 7:57:43 AM

E3200 (they are 45 nm) also has VTx support unlike the E5200 which might be useful also its a lot cooler than the Allendales. Great for low end server apps and general pc stuff, not so great for games. I think it actually uses something like 40 watts max at stock speeds.

An Athlon II 215 (OEM only) is also an option especially if you have some AM2+ hardware laying around.
m
0
l
!