Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Signin with

Benchmark Results: Efficiency

by

The Atom systems are pretty constant when it comes to power consumption. A 30 W to 35 W average draw during our efficiency run is a good result. The P4 machines require 3x to 5x more.

Total power used is lowest on the dual-core Atom D510 because it completes our workload quicker than the single-core Atom 230 while consuming even less power. Both Pentium 4 systems are comparable. The faster 3.2 GHz unit requires more power, but it’s faster, and hence finishes quicker. Nevertheless, we measured that the 2.2 GHz Pentium 4 actually requires less power to complete our efficiency workload.

The dual-core Atom D510 provides top performance. The single-core Atom 230 is slowest.

If you look at performance related to watt-hours used, the Atom solutions deliver many times better power efficiency. Looking at this diagram alone proves that it doesn’t make sense to keep a Pentium 4 machine if you can afford a low-cost Atom nettop PC.

The efficiency diagram visualizes power consumption throughout the workload and the total runtime of each system.

Share:
119
Comments
X
Submit

Comments
frye 07/16/2010 6:21 AM
Hide
-14+

I, uh... wow.

Tamz_msc 07/16/2010 6:26 AM
Hide
-20+

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.

ksa-_-jed 07/16/2010 6:43 AM
Hide
--1+

If you are looking for power efficiency and long battery life then atom well be a good chose

vizzie 07/16/2010 6:43 AM
Hide
-20+

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.

matt87_50 07/16/2010 6:54 AM
Hide
-20+

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.

antlee 07/16/2010 7:04 AM
Hide
-20+

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.

king smp 07/16/2010 7:34 AM
Hide
-5+

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!

eddieroolz 07/16/2010 7:57 AM
Hide
-2+

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.

SIDDHARTHmaitai 07/16/2010 8:15 AM
Hide
-7+

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?

mitch074 07/16/2010 8:16 AM
Hide
-14+

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).

Alvin Smith 07/16/2010 8:36 AM
Show
Alvin Smith 07/16/2010 8:46 AM
Hide
-4+


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 =

HalfHuman 07/16/2010 9:07 AM
Hide
-11+

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.

pojih 07/16/2010 9:48 AM
Hide
-3+

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

amdfangirl 07/16/2010 10:25 AM
Hide
-2+

Great article.

Now to rant about low power PCs :P.

DavC 07/16/2010 10:35 AM
Hide
-0+

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


noticed that as well

rohitbaran 07/16/2010 10:45 AM
Hide
-2+

Lame mp3 encoder: truly lame.

zodiacfml 07/16/2010 11:16 AM
Hide
-0+

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.

pepperman 07/16/2010 11:25 AM
Hide
-2+

mitch074 :
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).



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).

Best offers

Newsletters


OK