Ads

Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz

Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz

Enermax

Bottom Search this thread

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Anonymous

This should help.

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin [...] nds-44465/

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to stridervm

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.

Message quoted 2 times

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.

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:

Message edited by warmon6 on 12-14-2009 at 06:12:17 PM

------------------------------

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/4272/sfolding6.gif

<-- CLick the banner!

Reply to warmon6

stridervm wrote :

This should help.

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin [...] nds-44465/

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.

Anonymous wrote :

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 wrote :

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.

Message edited by cheesesubs on 12-14-2009 at 06:25:33 PM

Reply to cheesesubs

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.

welshmousepk wrote :

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.

Reply to MarkG

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.

Message quoted 1 times

welshmousepk wrote :

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.

Reply to MarkG

PsychoSaysdie wrote :

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

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to cheesesubs

PsychoSaysdie wrote :

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...

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to cheesesubs

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.

------------------------------ i5 750, 2x 74Gb Raptor, Powercolor 4850, Vista 64 Pro, Ubuntu 8.04
Reply to stardude82

Ask the community Add a reply

Related content

See all topics related to "Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz"

Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Atom 230 1.6GHz compared to P4 HT 2.8GHz

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 1851 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Page generated in 0.556 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel