Test Setup
| CPU I | AMD Athlon 64 2000+ (65nm, 2.0 GHz, 2MB L2 + 2MB L3 Cache) |
| CPU II | Intel Atom 230 (45nm, 1.6 GHz, 512KB L2 Cache) |
| CPU III | Via Nano L2100 (65nm, 1.8 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache) |
| CPU IV | Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (45nm, 3.16 GHz, 6MB L2 Cache) |
| AMD Chipset : 780G | Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H, Rev 1.0 |
| AMD 780G, BIOS : F5 | |
| Intel Chipset : 945G | ECS 945GCT-D, Rev. 1.0 |
| Intel 945G, BIOS : 0702 | |
| Via Chipset : CN896 | Via Epia-SN18000G, Rev. A1 |
| Via CN896, BIOS : 080014 | |
| Intel Chipset : P45 | Asus P5Q-E, Rev. 1.01G |
| Intel P45, BIOS : 0702 | |
| RAM | 2GB DDR2-1066 Crucial CT25664AA1067 |
| HDD | Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, 500 GB |
| 7,200 RPM, SATA/300, 32 MB cache | |
| Blu-Ray | LG GGW-H20L |
| Graphics Card P45 only | GeCube Radeon HD 4850 |
| GPU : 625 MHz | |
| RAM : 512 MB GDDR3 (993 MHz) | |
| Power Supply | Fortron FSP220-60LE, 220 Watt |
| Power Supply P45 | Coolermaster, ATX 2.3, 850 Watt |
Software & Drivers
| Operating System Sysmark Windows XP SP2 |
| DirectX 9 Version : April 2007 |
| AMD Drivers Radeon 8.8 |
| Intel Chipset INF : 9.0.0.1008 |
| VIA Chipset Hyperion Pro : 5.20a |
| Java Java Runtime Environment 6.0 Update 1 |
220-W High Efficiency Power Supply
We don’t want to forget one of the most important components we used for this reviews : Fortron’s FSP220 high efficiency power supply. As you can tell by the model number, this product was designed for a maximum output of 220 W, which is more than enough for our low-power systems. The reason we used it is the increased efficiency—PSUs will reach their highest efficiency only when operated within the output wattage range for which they were designed. Some PSUs are most efficient for low loads, while others are better for high loads. However, if you use an 800 W PSU and only use 28-50 W, the efficiency will certainly not be in an ideal range. This is why we used the FSP220—it guarantees that the PSU runs within an efficient load corridor.
Benchmarks and Settings
| Benchmark | Details |
|---|---|
| iTunes | Version : 7.7.0.43 Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 min Default format AAC |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.98 Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to mp3 160 Kbps |
| Benchmark | Details |
|---|---|
| Winrar 3.80 | Version 3.70 BETA 8 WinZIP Commandline Version 2.3 Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 KB Benchmark : THG-Workload |
| Winzip 11 | Version 11.2 Compression = Best Benchmark : THG-Workload |
| Maxon Cinema 4D Release 10 | Version : 10.008 Rendering from a scene (Water drop at a Rose) Resolution : 1280 x 1024 - 8Bit (50 frames) |
| Sysmark 2004 SE | Version 1.04 Office Productivity |
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
| PCMark05 | Version : 1.20 |
| PCMark Benchmark | |
| Memories Benchmark | |
| CPU Benchmark | |
| Graphics Benchmark | |
| Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 |
We used SYSmark 2004 instead of the newer SYSmark 2007 Preview, because the latter would not finish on the test systems reliably. It also does not make a lot of sense to execute rather high-end applications on these low-end low-power systems.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Related Stories :
- Atom, Athlon, or Nano? Energy-Savers Compared
- VIA Nano 3000 to Fight Intel's Next Atoms
- Intel Atom SoC to Power HP's Moonshot Servers in 2013
- Asustor's 3-series NAS Will Be Powered by Intel Atom CE5315
- Intel, Acer Announce Atom-powered Liquid C1 Smartphone
- Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers
- Intel's Atom to Power the Nissan Cars of the Future
- Intel Sued Over Atom Power Management Feature
- Shuttle XS29F: Is VIA's Nano Processor Powerful Enough?
- Low-Power Gaming: AMD's E-350 Vs. Intel Atom D525 And Ion 2
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.