Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $349.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad... | $189.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7 Extreme Edition I7-975 Quad... | $1041.17 CostCentral.com More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $182.99 Directron More info |
- overclocking atom
- intel atom motherboard
- gma overclock
- intel atom benchmarks
- intel atom power consumption
- overclock atom processor
- atom cpu performance
- gma overclocking
- overclock gma 950
- overclocking atom processor
- intel atom hd video
- intel atom processor compare
- intel atom processor benchmark
- intel atom bluray
- atom cpu benchmark
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (37) |
- Share
Finally, we ran tests in two areas that won’t necessarily be of interest with an Atom platform, but that will appeal to some of you – 3D and overclocking.
3DMark with the GMA
Since our motherboard had no PCI-Express or AGP slot (and since PCI graphics cards are getting scarce), we limited ourselves to the GMA 950. To compare it, we used the Gigabyte motherboard, equipped with the same chipset, with the Pentium E 2160 clocked to 1.6 GHz to match the Atom. So the two machines were using an identical IGP (GMA 950 @ 400 MHz) and a CPU at the same frequency (1.6 GHz). Both computers were fitted with a single DDR2-667 DIMM.
As you can see, with 3DMark 06, in 640 x 480 without filters, performance was weak... and above all, that the Pentium E remains noticeably faster than the Atom, even outside the world of synthetic benchmarks.
But remember, portable PCs that use Atom will use the i945GSE chipset, and the GMA 950 on this version is clocked only at 133 MHz.
Overclocking Atom
The Gigabyte Mini-ITX motherboard offers a few overclocking options: the FSB can be modified, between 100 and 700 MHz (sic). On our model, whose coefficient can’t be modified from the fixed 12, the base frequency is 133 MHz. We were able to reach a stable 1.8 GHz (12 x 150) without touching the voltage settings, and as much as 1.86 GHz (bus 153 MHz) by altering the FSB voltage in the board’s BIOS (+0.3 V for the bus). Performance increased in linear fashion, but so did power consumption – from 62 to 65 W between 1.6 and 1.8 GHz, and we measured 67 W for the platform with the Atom overclocked to 1.86 GHz. The difference can be explained by the increase in bus voltage. But note that the increase in power consumption isn’t due only to the CPU; the chipset was also overclocked.
Why no HD test?
Why didn’t we run tests on playing HD? Well, first of all because computers using an Atom processor aren’t intended for that. Intel is targeting NetTops, which are computers intended for Web browsing, not for watching Blu-ray disks. Also, we did try to play an HD DVD, just to see, but Power DVD wouldn’t launch without a modern graphics card capable of handling part of the decompression load. We would have tested some "HD" video, such as the trailers available on the Web, but several problems associated with doing that. The software player used influences the results, and the quality and complexity of these videos don’t match that of commercial video. Decompressing a DivX 720p stream at a few Mbit/s is one thing, but video in H.264 at 36 Mbits/s on a Blu-ray is something else.
- Should a NON-GAMER upgrade to i7? [CPU & Components]
- Intel's 'Pineview' Atom CPU Has Integrated Graphics [Mobile Computing]
- Intel Atom Verse Pentium 4 [CPU & Components]
- Dual core Atoms in Netbooks? [Laptops & Notebooks]
- Is Intel doomed? [CPU & Components]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Intel Atom CPU Silverthorne
- Why AMD is better than Intel?
- RAID 1
- Intel D945GCLF mobo questions
- My budget gaming system
- new budget PC for my wife
- The $300 build challenge!
- Which Atom?
- Getting a powerful server with low wattage
- HDD partitions on Asus EeePC1000HA
- Would this make a good NAS???
- LCD and Power Point
- HELP! Cant get the display working! Tried 2 cards!
- Crysis 4870 benchmarks (includes CF):
wow, 107 on 3D mark06
Celerons have significantly lower frequencies than Atom? umm...no. Only the ULV celeron M has a lower freqency. Modern notebooks start with Celerons at least 1.6GHz, more likely 1.86GHz, and are built on the much more modern Merom architecture, which have at least a 10% IPC advantage over the old Dothan architecture. No, atom is nowhere NEAR a modern Celeron in performance. Nice try though.
Also, Why not have a Celeron 420 by now? Are you telling me that THG, with all its money, can't budget in a $30 CPU for comparative testing?
After reviewing the article, I can say I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Atom platform (at least the current desktop derivative). If anyone can remember, THG did a $300 PC build using now ancient Celeron Ds and AMD Semprons. One thing that I find amazing, is that those old rigs both use LESS power than this Atom desktop rig.
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 46-10.html
[IMG]http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2007/02/19/the-300-pc/chart14.png[/IMG]
Don't you people understand that Atom is not a desktop processor? You can't compare its performance to a desktop processor fairly because that's not what it is designed for.
This Atom CPU is on a desktop board. That means it's fair game, especially when the processors being compared are also comparable in price.
It's on a desktop board, woopdedoo. If you could get your mobile phone processor to run on a desktop board would you compare it to an E2160?
Who cares what the Atom CPU is SUPPOSED to be. It is right now, in this review, on a desktop-oriented package, built to compete with low power consumption desktop computers. It fails miserably in that regard, as it is neither low power consumption, nor competitive. In your ridiculous example, if I had a mobile phone processor on a desktop board, and it ended up consuming more power than an E2160/motherboard combo that costs the same amount of money, all the while performing much worse than the e2160, I would call the mobile phone cpu on a desktop motherboard either A FAILURE or AMD. Take your pick.
So, for the Intel Atom, you do use an updated version of Sandra, but not for the Phenom. You compare it to the VIA C7, a 3 year-old CPU, but not the VIA Nano, which will be available in the same timeframe as the Atom. You don't provide graphics for power consumption, despite the Atom being designed for low power consumption; surprise, the old C7-M system draws less power.
Biased much?
Not sure that Nano's are really available yet, still a newer mini-itx based C7 (say EPIA-M700) would have been better, since you would be looking at even less power than the one used and the VX800 will end up used with the Nano. The D201DLY[2] would have been good to compare to, would also give some idea how the Atom would go paired with SiS chipsets.
Why not benchmark with other mobile CPUs like Intel X-scale and the mobile CPU from TI etc Atom would be more make sense to use on small mobile device rather than notebook.
Don't you people understand that Atom is not a desktop processor? You can't compare its performance to a desktop processor fairly because that's not what it is designed for.
His point was that it's not only less powerful than "comparable" desktop CPUs, it also takes more power, which pretty much defeats the meaning of being used as a CPU in portable applications. His point is that this CPU is unimpressive in every area you could apply it versus what's already there. Nice try, Intel.
VIA Nano powered by Nvidia GPU in mini-itx play game: Crysis and Bioshock.
??? INTEL ATOM vs. VIA NANO ???
Where the heck is the performance / watt comparisons. The entire point of this processors creation is performance / watt and its missing from your benchmarks! Please Add!
Dude, please correct your Cinebench R10 charts, they are screwed up.
His point was that it's not only less powerful than "comparable" desktop CPUs, it also takes more power, which pretty much defeats the meaning of being used as a CPU in portable applications. His point is that this CPU is unimpressive in every area you could apply it versus what's already there. Nice try, Intel.
Don't get me wrong...I do think the Atom probably has a decent performance per watt for the CPU itself, but this platform being tested, the entire rig, is where it disappoints. I don't know if it's all in the PSU inefficiency or what, as Anandtech's review of the ASUS Eee Box put power consumption at below 20 watts under load, using a seemingly comparable hardware list (but with a DC power brick, instead of a conventional power supply).
Good article.
Still don't know if it's POSSIBLE to run Vista64 on a Atom.
I'll wait for the next-gen of eee PC clones. Then I'll get a better idea of real-world performance.
NVIDIA Tegra is much Better
It would be interesting to see their response at the Intel Atom Processor Launch Event on June 3rd, 2008*. In the meantime, let's take a look at what the NVIDIA Tegra is all about... why ? lets see
* an 800 MHz ARM CPU,
* a HD video processor,
* an imaging processor,
* an audio processor,
* and an ultra-low power GeForce GPU
for father information plz go to http://www.techarp.com/showarticle [...] 549&pgno=0
Yay the Poulsbo processor is named after where I live
. There is only one Poulsbo... so it must be. I'ma go out and buy one now. 