Page 1:Which Is The Best Low-Power Platform?
Page 2:AMD Athlon 64 2000+
Page 3:AMD Platform: Gigabyte MA78GM w/ AMD 780G Chipset
Page 4:Intel Atom 230 (1.6 GHz)
Page 5:Atom Platform: ECS 945GCT-D
Page 6:VIA Nano L2100
Page 7:Nano Platform: VIA EPIA-SN
Page 8:Comparison Table
Page 9:Test Setup
Page 10:Benchmarks: Applications
Page 11:Benchmarks: Synthetic Benchmarks
Page 12:SYSmark 2004 and Power Consumption
Page 13:Idle/Peak Power, Performance Per Watt
SYSmark 2004 and Power Consumption
The communication benchmark of SYSmark 2004 does not show huge performance differences between the three solutions, as the difference is within a 10% range.
The overall score is dominated by Intel’s Atom, most likely due to its excellent memory performance and the Hyper-Threading feature of the Atom 230 processor. AMD and VIA are behind.
Average Power Requirement during SYSmark 2004 Run
We looked at the average power consumption during a SYSmark 2004 run : Intel’s Atom showed the least power requirement, followed by AMD. VIA’s Nano L2100 takes the last position with the highest average power requirement, which is due to the higher peak-power requirement, as you’ll see on the next page.
Total Power Used for SYSmark 2004 Run
Finally, we also tracked the total power used (in Watt-hours) to complete an entire SYSmark 2004 run. The ECS system with the 945G chipset and the Atom 230 required 46 Watt-hours ; the Gigabyte 780G board with AMD’s low-power Athlon 64 2000+ took 59 Watt-hours ; and VIA’s Nano required the most power at 61 Watt-hours. We’ll put that into perspective with performance on the next page.
- Which Is The Best Low-Power Platform?
- AMD Athlon 64 2000+
- AMD Platform: Gigabyte MA78GM w/ AMD 780G Chipset
- Intel Atom 230 (1.6 GHz)
- Atom Platform: ECS 945GCT-D
- VIA Nano L2100
- Nano Platform: VIA EPIA-SN
- Comparison Table
- Test Setup
- Benchmarks: Applications
- Benchmarks: Synthetic Benchmarks
- SYSmark 2004 and Power Consumption
- Idle/Peak Power, Performance Per Watt