Doesn't seem like much of an improvement from its single core predecessor compared to the difference between the core solo and duo; however, you can't argue with the performance per watt statistics. I wonder when we will see these in web oriented laptops like the Asus Eee PC?

for f*** sakes watt-hours is energy not power

cost is still the higher priority over performance and power etc - its still cheaper then a celeron etc, and is another performance increase in terms of usability NOT benchmarks - same deal as the Pentium 4 era with HT - the HT made systems seem more responsive reguardless of benchmarks - any P4 HT owner will aggree with me, but still yes it has weak (but sufficent) performance.

Which one of these tests checked multitasking performance?

Some how it doesnt seem fair to compare atom to desktop CPUs. A better comparison would have been mobile CPU's to atom.

I still think this article, although great, misses one point: 95% of the time we use a pc, be it notebook, desktop, cellphone, whatever, the processor is idle. Nobody would buy a netbook to compress large files all day, or render complex scenes. They buy it to surf the web or type stuff. So it would be interesting to see a small one-day marathon: give three editors the pcs above, and measure the power used over one day. I bet the Atom beats Core 2 easily.

I still think that the best place for these is in netbooks. My friend has an Asus Eee PC with the Atom in it and he loves it for college classes. It's great for taking notes and browsing the web and can go something like 6-7 hours on a charge. When used like this it really shows how much power efficiency can help.

It even plays Starcraft!

I would like to know efficiency of the power supply used in this review with 20 W, 40 W and 60 W loads.

How do these 4+ year old benchmarks test Multi core processors? Oh that's right, they are from the era just before benchmarks started caring about multiple cores. How about you disable one of the Cores on the Core 2 & see how much it drop... probably not much if any as 98% of the work is happenind on 1 core.

How do these tests represent real world useage? Oh that's right, they don't. who runs 4 year old benchmarks, encodes music or does rendering on a netbook / netbox.... NO ONE with a brain.

What use is a set of test that don't represent anything realistic or even test the processor fairly? Oh that's right, none. Seriously, test it in REAL WORLD USE against each other, test it's multi taking capabilities VS the single core system (230 vs 330).

Lets test a moped vs a motor cycle & see which one wins in a drag race & used the most gas, that is essentially what you just did... IT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT OF THE OBJECT BEING TESTED.

I don't understand why Tomshardware or any other hardware websites try to use an AMD equivalent. AMD already have something to compete with the Atom with their AMD Geode NX, which is based on the Athlon XP processors. Intel Atom processors is not built based on the Centrino design rather than a P5 at a higher clock speed.

FAIL!

Considering the idle power is the same, could we not undervolt/underclock the C2D and see how much more power the C2D would use at load then. I'd find that interesting, especially if it still out performs the atom, which I'd assume it would.

+1 for a low power AMD being thrown into the mix and a possible undervolt/underclock on that too - I'm sure AMDfan girl will be able to comment on this aspect

PCmark 05 works fine as a test for simple web browsing, email etc. File compression is not something you do all day, it's something you do maybe once a day. When I do it, I don't want my machine to poo it self. WinRar is multi optomized, and it shows. Encoding music should be possible on a desktop, and we're talking desktop platforms.

A good test to possibly add might be PCMark05 plus either WinRAR or iTunes as a resonable multiple work load test. We need a "some bloated flash/java sites" + IM + youtube test... or lets just see how these machines handle youtube fullscreen @ 1680x1050. Does the Atom fall apart while doing all that plus watching a movie? Watching an AVI on a "desktop" while browsing web(flash/java/super complicated+email+IM) seams a reasonable standard.

How could you guys compare a netbook cpu with the super efficient fast e7200 desktop cpu!Its like comparing an athlonx2 to a phenomII.

Toms,
on page 4 the slides shows Core 2 Duo with HT which is not correct. please advise.

As slowstuff points out, it is pointless to run single threaded benchmarks on multi core processors. They could have used lame-mt, but didn't (it only has 2 cores). Of course there will be minimal differences between a 1 core atom and a 2 core atom on a single threaded benchmark.

Try to use some multi threaded benchmarks, or at least run several benchmarks at the same time. Toms hardware keeps on getting worse, I think I will stop reading it.

I meant to say lame-mt only uses two threads. Still a better test than plain lame though.