Shop for All
|
Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual Core Processor |
Compare the top 5 lowest prices by hovering your mouse over the product names on the left |
$199.99 |
|
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor | $199.99 | |
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor | $349.99 | |
|
Core 2 Q9550 Quad Core Processor | $219.99 | |
|
Phenom II X4 940 Quad Core Processor | $189.99 |
- cpu power consumption
- pentium 4 power consumption
- atom power consumption
- intel atom power consumption
- intel cpu power consumption
- intel atom cpu
- atom cpu performance
- intel atom cache
- is intel atom the same as pentium
- low power consumption cpu
- power consumption processors
- energy consumption intel atom
- intel atom architecture
- intel atom performance vs pentium 4
- mobile power consumption
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Friday the 24th
Exterminate Santa Claus's elves. Use the arrows to move, S to grab the elves, and A or W to attack them with your sword.
|
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (36) |
- Share
Power consumption and integrating a processor into portable or embedded devices have always caused problems for Intel, and this is not the first time the company has offered processors aimed at those uses. But the Atom is radically different in that it has a new architecture specially created to reduce power use.
A Short History: Before the Pentium-M
As far back as the 80386, Intel offered versions intended for low power and especially mobile use. The 80386EX, for example, had a chipset built into the CPU and consumed significantly less power than standard 386s. And low-power versions of the 486, the Pentium, and the Pentium II (the Dixon, with its 256 kB of built-in cache) were also offered. And yet in every case they essentially used a very similar (if not identical) architecture to the one used in the desktop version of the processor. In practice, these processors were efficient, but the difference between a standard version and a version for portable PCs remained slight.
The Pentium-M
Released in 2003, the Pentium-M was revolutionary in that it used a different architecture from that of the Pentium 4 and consumed much less power, while maintaining high performance. Yet it was still a derivative of the Pentium III, with the same faults, and the successive improvements to the Pentium-M (leading up to the Core 2 processors) have only increased power consumption. Intel has tried to come out with low-power processors (the A1x0, for example), but essentially they were slowed-down versions of the Pentium-M.
Atom Changes All of That
Atom is a different architecture in the sense that it was designed to reduce power consumption and that the processor uses a totally new design. It isn’t an adaptation of an earlier architecture. Concretely, Intel is now able to offer processors that consume very little power – the high-end Atoms consume less power than the (generally very slow) ULV versions of the standard architectures.
- Intel's 'Pineview' Atom CPU Has Integrated Graphics [Mobile Computing]
- Should a NON-GAMER upgrade to i7? [CPU & Components]
- Help with Asus EeePC1000HA [Laptops & Notebooks]
- The "REAL" price difference between a Phenom 2 and I7 System [CPU & Components]
- Intel-Based Downloading Workstation Build [Homebuilt Systems]
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. 