Die ATOM, DIE DIE DIE.

NANO FTW!

This looks like a decent system if you're looking for something to keep a small room cool and you're going to be doing productivity related tasks as well as enjoy some modest multimedia (watching a DVD). I'm actually considering the next step up early next year for a single dedicated graphics card that turns off when I'm not using 3D. If I wasn't a gamer I'd probably find this useful as a main system save for the fact that I require the redundancy of my RAID setup.

ATOM is targeted for systems that use low amounts of power so it makes absolutely no sense to try to load Vista on it.

- Vista treats memory like a RAM drive. It doesn't intelligently determine what should be loaded, it just starts loading stuff (watch your memory after a fresh install and if it reports what is actually in the memory then I sure haven't been able to find it amongst all the clutter). 2GB is enough for most systems and the vast majority of games with the page file disabled though Vista "requires" about 4GB to run smoothly which there in and of itself negates the point of Microsoft shipping 32 bit version.

- Since Vista treats memory like a RAM drive it creates unnecessary wear on the hard drive. If you're looking to maximize the life span of your system (as well as ensure it's responsive) you should only load what you're using and with an INTELLIGENT caching system only preload associated files. For example many games have launchers (launcher.exe and game.exe)...obviously this is an example of when you DO want to cache something. User habits (loading Firefox after Open Office numerous times) would also justify caching.

It's good to finally see computers physically getting smaller. It's a decent system, maybe a decent starter system for someone who isn't in to gaming.

John,
As a main system, I promise this thing would frustrate the heck out of you. I personally love the concept, but couldn't work with the implementation. Give me a low-power desktop configuration, at least, for performing desktop tasks.

I'd prefer to see the comparison against the 740G or a 780G integrated graphics. The difference against a 4670 is too big, both in performance and in power usage.

It's still going to be a huge performance difference, and the 4670 really didn't play too big of a role here since I didn't run games. Should you wish to sub in the standard 740G or 780G graphics, however, you can also subtract $90 from the price tag of the desktop setup.

i think, we have to take the topic system in its parts.
for me, the shuttle x27 is bang on if the tasks are internet surfing, email, or microsoft office. this is sufficient for my sisters.
also can be 24 hour computer that serves various media while downloading/uploading torrents.

for home theater setups, as said in the article, is futile.
but, that doesn't say the atom 230 is bad at all. we can buy a motherboard embedded with an atom 230 that has pci express and install a 4670 on it. in the future,i am sure there will be integrated graphics that could.
if the market says im wrong,well intel can produce lots of atom 330 dual core immediately.

cangelini, why don't you use mini-itx 780g+downclocked amd x2(or phenom 9150e)
http://www.techpowerup.com/72847/A [...] board.html
it will be killer for HTPC and still use low amounts of power.

Well,

I would have liked to see a 780G compete against the Atom platform too. Especially regarding power consumption. IMHO you missed the point by comparing an Atom system to a system with dedicated graphics.

I do see your point--one angle could have been trying to pare both systems down to an absolute minimum. But if you're going to end up paying $400+ for the X2700, why not compare what you could get from a comparable lightweight desktop as well? In this case, you can add a $90 graphics card and still come in under the Shuttle's price--AND do exceptionally well in Vista.

cangelini:

Basically there are two ways of comparing an AMD based system to an Atom based system. Either you take the prize tag as a lead, thus one could add more horsepower (either graphics, as in your case, or CPU power, Phenom f.e.) to the AMD system. Or one could take the capabilities as a lead, thus one could come up with an AMD system that might be cheaper and with only marginally higher power consumption on average. IMHO the last way is the more logical one, as Intel doesn't market the Atom platform as a new, powerful all purpose platform, but as a cheap, "good-enough" platform with unmatched power efficiency. And as I doubt the last point, I would have appreciated a 780G based competitor in this review even more.

A solid review but I still can't see a valid market niche for the Atom compared to other offerings.

It would have been good to throw in a low end E series cpu and match up the video a bit better - I note your reasons above.

You would be hard pressed to out match a low end X2 in terms of value for money as a HTPC.

Perhaps that might make a good future review.

Another choice might be to play with the various X2 and Core2 low end cpu's in a bit of an underclocking experiment to get the best of power vs performance.

Some users have gotten stellar results underclocking the new 45nm Intel core2 line as well ...

Well done.

Atom in my opinion would be only useful, with matching lo-power chipset.... in a fancy winxp running cellphone
[the one thing i really need... take it everywhere, lasts a day on batteries, runs old pc games... lol]

Could be easier to save more power if minimum multi would not be like 6 or so but 1!
Imagine (if it is possible) to change ratio to 1 and voltage could drop by much too.
I wonder why manufacturers don't allow it to go that low.

Article is excelent, i liked it.

I wonder why this Atom processor can only be paired with the 945GC chipset.
945GC is according to intel site, "For Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, Intel® Pentium® D Processor and Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting HT Technology".
Maybe other chipsets made for Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, Intel® Pentium® D Processor and Intel® Pentium® 4 could also work with Atom?
I don't have the details, but maybe one of these could provide better graphics or lower power consumption...

My attempt at 2 cents.

The article is great but the target consumer it relates to is wrong. There are a lot of uses for such a platform but obviously not for the average user. For example, it can be used in information kiosks for browsing or presentations. The small form factor combined with a touch screen fits virtualy anywhere, as long as horse power si not a factor.

One use that sees an augmentation of popularity these days is car computing: Carputers, Car Computers, mp3Car, or whatever the name you prefer. Hook that baby to a 7" touch LCD and you have a setup that easily fits in your glove box and that allows you to play your whole collection of music while using your GPS and managing your bluetooth-enabled cellphone. The uses are many for a hobby that is growing in popularity since the price, size and power consumption of computers are going down very fast.

For some examples of carputers projects, visit http://www.mp3car.com/ .

I agree this system is just not really pratical. Great idea, you can get a really inexpensive dual core, a Pentium 2xxx series or Athlon 5xxx X2 in the $60 range. You can build a whole rig with an OS for $299 that will run circles around the Atom and still have a very conservative power draw.

For the price you are not really getting much. The energy savings is not worth the $200 or so dollars considering your gonna have to fire up another computer to do almost anything. I save all my music as a wav format, if I want to put em on something portable I gotta encode them as MP3. I buy a CD a week sometimes so I couldn't abide switching computers constantly and dropping $200 bucks to save a few watts of power.

While I was typing this my computer was only clocked at 1.68 Ghz. I leave speed step on, but when I wanna encode my music it will jump to 2.8 Ghz and get it done quickly.

hmm a low clocked processor fails against a dual core higher clocked processor in a renowned system resource hogging os...brilliant. I would have used this space to overclock the atom instead...(mainly for laughs)

There is something about choosing the right thesis first that would apply to this article well.

the tests were completely unfair for the atom proccessor due to the Athlons dual core architecture. the writer should have used AMD's other low power design that is closer to performance with the atom: the Athlon 2000+

the atom is out of the 4050e x2's league

You mean the 2000+ that isn't available?

The prices work out to be even with a 4050e and HD 4670 versus the Atom 230 and GMA 950. They're in each others' league in one regard, but you're right, the micro-ATX config is much faster. That's why I'd rather have it.