Efficiency Analysis: Core i3 Trumps Atom On The Desktop
Table of contents
- 1. Power And Efficiency: Atom Versus Core i3
- 2. The Predecessor: Atom 230 And ECS 945GCT-D
- 3. Today: Atom D510 And Intel D510MO
- 4. The Challenger: Core i3-530
- 5. Zotac H55-ITX WiFi
- 6. Processor Comparison Table
- 7. Test Setup
- 8. Benchmark Results: Applications
- 9. Benchmark Results: Archiving
- 10. Benchmark Results: Audio/Video
- 11. Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
- 12. Benchmark Results: Efficiency In Single-Threaded Applications
- 13. Benchmark Results: Efficiency In Threaded Applications
- 14. Benchmark Results: Overall Efficiency
- 15. Conclusion
Atom was designed to be a low-cost, low-power solution, but its value in the desktop space is debatable if you consider performance. We pit the cheapest Core i3 against Intel's Atom on a performance-per-dollar and a per-watt basis to see which is better.
This is no apples to apples comparison here. The two products we're pitting against each other belong in different market segments, with Intel’s latest Pinetrail-based Atom platform going up against Core i3. Atom solutions are meant to be cheap and small, while Core i3 is a fully featured and far more powerful processor for desktops.
Still, because both are aimed at the value segment of the market, it's understandably easy to confuse their roles and capabilities. This review should make it clear just how dissimilar these two chips really are.
Plenty of PC buyers are looking for versatile, low-cost PC solutions. Such systems have to deliver adequate performance and should not require more power than necessary. It's also important to point out that we’re not focusing on performance or power consumption alone, but on balancing performance, power, and cost together.
Atom vs. Core
With Atom-based nettops and netbooks available for only a few hundred dollars, Atom is clearly cost-effective and power-conscious. Both attributes are great, and they enable Intel to address new markets sensitive to even lower price points, such as emerging countries. But then, Atom was never meant to be a strong performer. Consequently, it's not a great choice for anyone who does more on his or her PC than write emails and surf the Web. Frankly, Atom can't even beat an old Pentium 4 on performance.
Intel’s desktop processor lineup also requires a critical view. Although today's Core offerings deliver higher performance, lower power consumption, and thus, much improved efficiency over their Core 2 predecessors (as well as the AMD competition), Intel's mainstream chips carry higher overall costs. Whether we're talking about the processor, chipset, or platform, the full range of products, from Core i3 to Core i7, is consistently more expensive than AMD’s portfolio.
Atomic Fission
Our 2008 article Core 2 Nukes Atom on the Desktop compared an Atom 230 against a very basic Core 2 Duo E7200. We found that the system idle power of a mainstream Core 2 Duo system was quite similar to an Atom system’s power requirements. However, power consumption has to relate to performance, because a slow, low-power system might require much more power to complete intensive workloads if it needs more time to finish the job, too. Only a few months later, we updated our comparison and put the dual-core Atom 330 against the same Core 2 Duo platform. It did better, but even the dual-core Atom still trailed in the distance.
Why is This Shootout Important?
Style is a great persuader, and the attractive cost of many Atom solutions might lure the uninformed. Many Atom systems can't even play HD content without stuttering or responsively multitask while decompressing a ZIP file. Users who care about cost, power, and performance should read on.
- Intel,
- ECS,
- d510mo ,
- intel-atom
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest CPU News
- 02/10 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 02/10 – Leaked Slide Shows Intel Haswell Set for March-June 2013
- 02/09 – $100,000 If You Can Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
- 02/09 – AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641
- 02/08 – Raspberry Pi Scheduled to Launch This Month
None of this article was really surprising.
While I don't really understand nettops, except maybe for a library or something (low cost solution, we have them in my local library), it seems to me it is the Atom netbook that is more popular, in which case, this (as you admitted, non-apples to apples) comparison hardly seems to serve a purpose. A lot of the point of the Atom is battery life, and the latest Asus models claim to get up to 14 hours, which I doubt you'll see anything near using a Core i3.
Well written article, but it seems to be angled towards nettops which honestly, I don't know anyone who bought one. Doesn't mean no one did, but, are they that popular?
I want a Zotac H55-ITX!!!!
Great erticle. Very useful.
But I always knew that Atom was way too slow for desktop.
2-cores Atom is about as fast as my build which I made 8 years ago!
Im looking into setting up a cheap NAS and found the GIGABYTE GA-D510UD that supports 2 raid configs. The performance is no issue and the cost is very small compared to other options. For $500 I can put together a dual raid totaling 4 TB NAS, no way you can do that with anything else.
It's an interesting review, and certainly worth value, but it ignores a lot of important considerations.
For one, you're comparing a 32nm processor with a 45nm processor, so, we should keep in mind the Atom would have lower power, and be even cheaper if it were on the newest lithography.
The Atom wasn't just made to be low power, it was also supposed to be low cost. It's a LOT less expensive than the i3, and a lot smaller, and cheaper to make.
It's not really a surprise that a processor made primarily for low power/high efficiency, on a more advanced manufacturing process, is more efficient than a processor made to be very low power/small size. Efficiency per watt is, at best, a tertiary consideration, if that.
The Pentium 4 was made to be fast with little regard to power (ironically, this made it slow since power use limited the clock speed dramatically), the Conroe/Penryn/Nehalem all only get features that add more performance than they do increase power use.
This is expected behavior. The processor made primarily for efficiency is more efficient than the one made primarily for cost, on older manufacturing technology.
Big question is though, why didn't you guys test the Nano as well? There are some new, very low power versions out. They were also made for efficiency, and they might be interesting.
One more point. When you measure power use for running a job, the way you measure isn't wrong, but it's not always right either. Another way to do it would be to measure the power use at idle for the duration of time when the job is done. This would be more appropriate for situations where you had a server on all day, for example. So, both could be valid, depending upon the situation.
Not really hard to remember:
Atom
- Internet surfing, 480p video (whether flash or regular video), document typing, or 24/7 torrents box/nas/server
Core 2, Intel i series, AMD Phenom I and II
- For everything else
Using desktop motherboard for Atom is unfair. To my opinion, the Atom system should use a netbook instead. That's where most of the Atoms are. In doing so, the Atom system power should be decreased significantly.
I don't get the point of comparing vastly superior all-round CPU to a low power niche chip.
Is it to educate clueless customers? Didn't know they visit Tom's.
i could not really read the whole article seing that you one again use a 750watts psu to measure the power usage of a pc that at the plug draws around 30watts and in load 80watts. it means that actually you never use the psu at more than 10% load (factoring that you have 80watts at the wall). i guess you know that you get crap efficency doing this.
I BEG YOU THG REVEWERS/EDITORS TO USE PROPER PSUS WHEN TESTING!
there is quite a variety of mobos for atoms for which you get quite different features, power usage etc so it depends on the model you buy.
and then there is price the factor. if you ask me the atom configurations are just too expensive. more than that i think that nobody in the right mind will use an atom to do something that requires even moderate power like photoshop, encoding, archiving of big files etc. you must have little expectations from it and limit yourself to browsing, doc editing, simple games, if configured correctly can even be a great htpc, seed box or a great nas solution.
i do not think that comparing atom to nehalem makes much sense since they do not compete for the same markets. given how much expensive atom configurations are and if you expectations are as described above (lowe expectations), then it's probably a better idea to get a low end dual core from amd on intel and if power constraints are a must then one could undervolt and even underclock them.
Horrible efficiencies... My Dell 1012 with a N450 (equivalent to a 230) is only 13-14 Watts, under load with a 10" screen and idles at 10 Watts. Plus they can be had for $250 shipped if you are patient. Nettops are a horrible value compared to netbooks.
Besides that, I'd like to how Athlon 3250e/2650e which populate Zinos stack up. Also, I don't think the E3300 is quite dead in these applications quite yet either.
Uhhhh...ATOM vs "Full Fledged CPU"...1) DUH (results). 2) "Full Fledged" NOT. i7 is full fledged.
How about ATOM vs. AMD. Now THAT will be trust test, price et al.
P.S. At least they are finally including the price of the chipset, as Intel cums for seconds on the chipset pricing, mispelling intended.
The article could have been much more elaborate since it does not explain why atoms sell despite its poor efficiency and performance.
I would like to show my reasons for getting a Pinetrail dual core
Atom versus buying a very cheap LGA775 board to run an old Prescott Pentium4 whose board just died.
1) just costs about $20 more but I get better performance in multitasking or threaded apps.
2) no heatsink fan to run. makes the Pinetrail a quiet performer versus the screaming Prescott.
3) energy efficiency especially in a room that needs AC cooling
4) very small size (could fit mostly anywhere)
Additionally, I don't expect people here in our home running those apps found here(it is me who does in my dual core desktop).
They just check email and facebook. The most demanding tasks are playing flash games in facebook.
I have a new Asus 1005pe with the advertised 14hr battery life. I just ran it in my truck for GPS all day (9 hours) with the screen at max-brite and a GPS receiver using power from a USB port. When I shut it down, it still had 18% battery life remaining. That's the beauty of the Intel Atom N450-soc (system-on-chip). For computing on-the-go, all-day batt life is da bomb. If you're building an always plugged-in desktop, you might as well go with as much horsepower as your budget allows and have it sleep/hibernate when not in use.
what about using a pentium G6950 vs atom?
lower price than i3 too.
better comparison
I have build a HTPC/Living room desktop based on an Atom-Ion platform. It does what it's made for: 720p w/o hickups, surfing, watching pictures and even editing them ...
As it is "always on" Low power is key and as it is in my living room, smal and sleek comes second. Therefore comparison with a i3 is not very relevant to me.
Wow, there's a surprise. Atom is slower than core i3........I'm amazed they would even waste their time doing a test like this. why compare a platform that's $70-100 with one thats $215+?? Makes no sense, two completely different markets.
Let's see the comparison of i3 with the i7-980X please.....
Interesing article. It might not have been a fair comparison but it did give me some idea of the Atom's performance capabilities.
A sheet with value comparison is missing. This would be interesting to see (overall system prices)
Also, it could be really nice to see a calculation of how is needed for the new atom to be a more expensive option compared to a basic i3 (taken power consumption and investment price into account)
it could be really nice to see a calculation of how is needed for the new atom to be a more expensive option compared to a basic i3 (taken power consumption and investment price into account)
You're making a good point.
Given their figures, if I use that computer for 5 hours a day at peak power and an additional 10 at idle, I get a 5*49+10*2 = 265 Wh difference per day.
Over a month, that's roughly 8 KWh.
I pay about 12.5 cents/KWh.
Oh Joy. $1/month in additional power costs for the i3-530.
Call me a spendthrift, I think it's negligible.
What I would really like to see is a way to get the CULV processors in a desktop package as they offer very low power consumptions yet have all the architectural advantages of the Core series which handily trump the atom processors.
Sure cost would be higher but I would still like to see the numbers. It has already been well proven that an extra $100-$200 in the laptop space for a CULV over a atom is well worth the investment.