Hyper-Threading: Atom 230 Versus Celeron 220
Giving the Atom processor Hyper-Threading technology was a smart decision on the part of Intel. The processor is much better utilized in threaded applications; it is able to increase its performance in our tests by up to 37%.
|Benchmark||Intel Atom 230|
|Cinema 4D Release 10||36.9%|
Speed: Atom 230 versus Celeron 220 versus Sempron 64 LE-1100
|Benchmark||Celeron 220 1.20 GHz||Sempron 64 LE-1100 1.90 GHz|
|Cinema 4D Release 10||56.5%||50.6%|
Here you can clearly see the slower in-order micro-architecture, which processes commands one after another. A Celeron at 1.20 GHz is 35% faster than an Atom at 1.60 GHz, but the Atom only consumes a fraction of the energy used by the Celeron. The AMD Sempron system, which uses almost the same energy in idle mode as the Atom system, is 43% faster.
Analyzing the Atom platform quickly from the power/performance perspective.
CPU name / idle W / load W/ Lame (seconds) / total Lame W used
Atom 230 / 40.5 W / 44.2 W / 773 s / 9.49 W
Celeron 220 / 44.9 W / 55.4 W / 375 s / 5.77 W
E2140 / 58.5 W / 69.5 W / 271 s / 5.23 W
Clearly the Atom platform is the most inefficient power/performance wise.
At idle you might win some W, but as soon as you try to do something you spend more power and waste more time.
There are other things you should consider, the frustration of having to wait for things that now we are used to do near instant and the inability to play HD video or use any significant graphics.
The only thing positive for atom is it's price. It's cheap. And maybe with a new chipset it might even be power efficient. But for now it's just cheap.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if someone invents a voltmod for those boards, so they can increase voltage for cpu, mch & ich enabling 2ghz+ speeds
I don't get it, why do you publish tests with products that don't even exist on the vendor web site?
Thank you, anyway
Atom 230 (773s load / 0s idle) : 9.5W
Celeron 220 (375s load / 398s idle): 10.7W
E2140 (271s load / 502s idle): 13.4W
Sempron LE-1100 (43.9W idle, 70.4W load, 301s load / 472s idle): 11.6W
Sure this is biased against the Atom (not going idle at all) but with 4W delta between load and idle, I am too lazy to change the numbers already used.
I find it comparing the Atom to a Sempron LE-1100 more and Celeron 220 interesting:
"A Celeron at 1.20 GHz is 35% faster than an Atom at 1.60 GHz, but the Atom only consumes a fraction of the energy used by the Celeron. The AMD Sempron system, which uses almost the same energy in idle mode as the Atom system, is 43% faster."