Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $349.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad... | $194.99 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 |
- atom 230 performance
- atom 230 review
- intel atom motherboard
- intel atom 230 review
- intel atom power consumption
- atom cpu performance
- hyperthreading on atom
- intel atom cpu comparison
- intel atom processors comparison
- intel atom motherboard review
- intel atom cpu review
- intel atom 230 performance
- atom motherboard review
- intel atom cpu
- atom 230 power consumption
Partners
The Games selection
action :
Yoyo the Star
Yoyo is a young girl who recently graduated and dreams to become a movie star (don't we all). You'll have to guide her on the path to stardom,...
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (37) |
- Share
For our tests, we used a Mini-ITX motherboard made by Gigabyte, equipped with an Atom 230/i945GC. The board has a single DIMM (DDR2) slot and a PCI port – which rules out using any modern graphics cards. Amusingly, the chipset (which, remember, consumes 22 W) is actively cooled, whereas the processor makes do with a simple aluminum heat sink.
Shootout
Since this motherboard is intended for entry-level machines, we tried to compare two current entry-level solutions – a Pentium E2160 (1.8 GHz factory), an entry-level dual-core processor based on the Core architecture, and a Sempron 3400+ (Socket 754 in this case). The two processors were set to the same clock frequency as the Atom (1.6 GHz) for the tests. The motherboard used for the Pentium E was a GA-GM945-S2. It has the advantage of using the same chipset (or almost) as the Atom motherboard – an i945G. The motherboard used with the Sempron is Nforce4-based.
The three boards were tested with the same system – Windows XP Service Pack 2 with all the drivers up to date. We used DDR2-667 memory (1 GB) on the Intel platforms and a 1 GB DDR-400 DIMM on the Sempron. Finally, our test hard disk was a 74 GB Western Digital Raptor.
The Tests
We decided to compare the three platforms at an identical frequency, with a few practical tests and a few synthetic ones.
On Cinebench R10, the Sempron placed between the Atom and the Pentium E, though the Atom-with-HyperThreading combo proved effective (1.53 times faster with HyperThreading). Notice that the increase with the Pentium E, which actually has two cores, is not that much greater: 1.86 times faster.
With Sandra, which is a synthetic test, the difference among the three processors was impressive. The Pentium E really was faster. Note that the difference between the Atom and the Sempron may seem slight, but the tests are multithreaded and the Sempron has only one core, whereas the Pentium E has two and the Atom uses HyperThreading, which can produce significant gains.
In the 3DMark 06 and PCMark 06 CPU tests, the Pentium E had a comfortable lead, and the Sempron always placed between the Atom and the Pentium E.
In this test – a favorite with overclockers, but fundamentally not really conclusive (the code is dated and not very optimized) –, the Atom was a lot slower than its competitors.
Finally, we ran a test that consists of compressing approximately one GB of files with WinRAR. Since the Sempron uses a different memory subsystem (DDR) and a real graphics card, it doesn’t show up on this test – the comparison would have been thrown off. In practice, the difference between the two platforms was less than in the synthetic tests, but the Pentium E was still approximately twice as fast.
- 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. 