Best offers
|
P7P55D Motherboard (Intel Socket H... | $144.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
M4A785TD-V EVO AMD 785G/SB710 Socket... | $99.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
GA-P55-UD3R Motherboard (Intel Socket... | $139.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Motherboard (Intel Socket 478, Intel... | $79.95 Sillworks.com More info |
|
M4A78T-E Motherboard (AMD, AM3, AMD... | $129.99 Newegg.com More info |
- intel atom or amd athlon
- best atom processor
- atom 230 performance
- atom 230 review
- intel atom 230 processor review
- intel atom motherboard
- intel atom 230 review
- reviews for intel atom processor
- intel atom benchmarks
- atom 230 benchmark
- compare atom processors
- best intel atom processor
- via nano motherboard
- amd athlon 64 vs intel atom
- intel atom power consumption
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
More Mindless Violence
Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
|
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (47) |
- Share
Intel’s Atom processor is the latest addition to the product portfolio, and it targets the low-power, low-budget market. It doesn’t come as a surprise to see Atom processors in ultra-mobile PC devices as well as in nettops and low-cost PCs. Atom seems to be a product that can go anywhere where budgets or power is an issue, especially in developing countries.
Technical Details
Intel created a new package based on a 441-ball Micro-FCBGA (Flip-Chip Ball Grid Array) layout. Hence, all Atom processors are always soldered onto their motherboards-–it will be impossible to upgrade Atoms should you require more performance. Available clock speeds range from 800 MHz to 1.8 GHz. We looked at a motherboard that uses the 1.6 GHz Atom 230 processor. It is rated at a thermal design power of only 4 W, which makes it the lowest-power x86 processor for desktop-like applications. There are other Intel devices that are geared for low power consumption applications, but they don’t provide performance that would be close to that of the Atom.
Atom Holds Records
Thanks to Intel’s 45 nm manufacturing process, the Atom processors are technologically impressive, whether you personally like them or not. A 26 mm² die size is very tiny, as you will also see in our photos. AMD’s Athlon 64 is three times larger at 77.2 mm² and the VIA Nano still requires more than twice the footprint at 63 mm². Looking at our Atom test sample’s clock speed of 1.6 GHz and considering that the TDP is only 4 W while the VIA 1.8 GHz device has a 25 W TDP, the Intel device requires less power per clock cycle. However, VIA does better in terms of performance.
Average Performance, Good Performance Per Watt
Atom is a low-power product, but it is not really fast. It dominates the synthetic benchmark suite PCMark05, but it loses in most of the real world benchmarks we used. However, it does well in benchmarks where the Hyper-Threading technology kicks in. Intel’s feature provides two virtual processing cores for the operating system. And it does have its positive effect in SYSmark 2004, as well as in WinRAR, which is thread-optimized. The Atom 230 reached the best performance-per-watt ratio in our SYSmark 2004 test, as it requires the least system power while providing average performance.
These results would be even more favorable for Intel if the platform were more efficient. We’re looking forward to the Atom dual-core processors, as these devices might change the balance of power in the low-power segment in favor of Intel. Next year, Intel will launch its Moorestown CPUs, which are supposed to include a memory controller as well as a graphics unit right on the CPU die.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
I'd like to see how much electricity you would save in a year by having an efficient machine for basic home use - the one you could leave on 24/7 guilt free
There are some things with this test review that pussles me. Why did you use 3,5" drives? They draw about 10 watt instead of 2 watt for 2,5" drives. Also, I think you could have used a much more energy efficent power supply. That is probably why they all had the same idle watt; the psu was the bottleneck.
I use a setup with the following:
Jetway VIA C7 1.2 GHz
picoPSU 60 watt power supply
1 GB Kingston DDR2 667 Mhz RAM
250 GB Samsung 2,5" drive
This setup only draws about 20 watt when working and even less when idle (measured with a wall socket device, so I know it's accurate and total).
http://www.mini-pc.de/catalog/il/420
http://www.mini-pc.de/catalog/il/338
/Alex
By the way, It would have been interesting also to see you review the dual core Atom.
And maybe also compared to a more modest "normal" computer instead of a gaming rig, to see how low you can get with a normal PC.
Otherwise an interesting article, as they most often are.
/Alex
My last entry for today...
http://www.mini-pc.de/catalog/il/941
(And no, I don't work for the company...)
Here is a very nice review including the dual core Atom 330. I also has many more benchmarks.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] anano.html
This review could be seen by some as using very selective benchmarks.
my underclocked ADO5400IAA5DO consumes ~5W more than athlon in ths reaview, but I have 2x1000Mhz
as a bonus I can always relax minimum power requirement and take performance route a step or two 
I sugest to try "AMD NPT Family 0Fh Desktop Processor Power and Thermal Data Sheet" document on the www.amd.com - interesting read
by the way, my geode lx800 (500MHz) board on the full load fits into 6W
It would be nice to build Core2 Duo (or even Solo) and under-clock it to similar power envelope (not very much unlike AMD system)... I wonder how It would compare with the rest of the bunch.
n/a, what power supply do you use?
The WinRAR graph is wrong, or the comment about it is wrong. There's a typo in the Winzip comment.
WinRAR: "Still, VIA’s Nano still is more powerful."
Well, it looks to me like Atom won.
Winzip: "Hence VIA’s Atom does well again."
Oops
Really stupid test setup ...
Using slowest AMD clocked 1Ghz vs 1.6Ghz Atom and 1.8Ghz via ... You should use faster x2 losing only few more watts but gaining fastest and best platform in test.
Atom is including old platform slow crap, but this "test" is obviously aimed to show that AMD is bad, buy intel. Choosing BEST cpu from intel and VIA and testing it against SLOWEST AMD ... what is the point???
This AMD 1Ghz/8W will have aprox 12W on 1.5Ghz ... and then including excellent 780G chipset will be total winner of all test including price, performance per watt etc.
Choosing BEST cpu from intel...
If Atom is the best, Intel is screwed.
Does CPU manufacturers sometimes pay reviewers for reviews? I was just wondering because I have it on other websites but fortunately not here.
Does CPU manufacturers sometimes pay reviewers for reviews? I was just wondering because I have it on other websites but fortunately not here.
Have what, Faithful?
The WinRAR graph is wrong, or the comment about it is wrong. There's a typo in the Winzip comment.WinRAR: "Still, VIA’s Nano still is more powerful."Well, it looks to me like Atom won.Winzip: "Hence VIA’s Atom does well again."Oops
Nice catch Random, fixed.
The AMD processor is clocked at 1000MHz. One ideea for the next article would be to take a real 2000+ Lima (or even an X2) and underclock it until it reaches 10-15 W (not 8). This would be a much more fair comparasion with VIA, because that particular solution needs 18W, so you could argue that the bast comparison would be a VIA at 18W and a AMD also at 18W (probably a Lima at 1600Mhz, or a X2 at 1000Mhz). Any chance at this article being done?
..because I have seen it.."
the atom processor would always win in this segment.
the price. the design and manufacturing technology for the atom will allow intel and consumers on a win-win situation. profitable for intel and low prices for consumers while offering adequate performance for net use.
i am sure the atom can still use less power.
its as if, intel drove the atom to maximum clockspeed for the given die space and architecture so that it can achieve that adequate performance.
CPU-Z memory speed for Athlon X2 is right. K8 processors have minimum divider 1/5 from clock speed, so at 1000 MHz it just cant go above 200 MHz physical clock or 400 MT/s (DDR2-400). You can check it with C&C on any Athlon - drop to 800 MHz, and the memory goes DDR2-320 (160 MHz physical). So i wonder why you use horrible 6-6-6 timings for the memory? At DDR2-400 it should have no problems with 3-3-3.
I'm glad this was mentioned!
I had problems with other reviewers that would insist on using 1000W power supplies for low power consumption hardware, the P/S efficiency is only around 50-65% on low power conversion.