Low-Power Gaming: AMD's E-350 Vs. Intel Atom D525 And Ion 2

Benchmark Results: Unreal Tournament

Unreal Tournament remains a good-looking game, even by today’s standards. Let’s see if these platforms can handle this older first-person shooter:

At 1024x600, the game is smooth enough on the E-350 with a respectable minimum frame rate of 24 FPS. But the D525/Ion 2 platform doesn’t fare as well, yielding a 14 FPS minimum. For a twitchy first-person shooter, that minimum frame rate difference can mean life or death, especially online.

The visuals are really great considering the age of the game and relatively low system requirements. Graphic settings could be lowered further, but the loss to visual quality is significant with little increase in frame rate.

Verdict:

Unreal Tournament is playable on the E-350 at 1024x600 and on the verge of playable on the D525/Ion 2 at this resolution.

This thread is closed for comments
92 comments
    Your comment
  • tacoslave
    so the gpu's in modern consoles are around the same as the e-350? since these gpus are mainly cpu bound? Also should have put counterstrike fun and not demanding.
  • Can they make a video game that features a Monopolistic Chip Company who threatens and bribes computer manufacturers to be zombies?
  • ujaansona
    Aamusing... ;)
  • ujaansona
    OOPS It's not "Aamusing"
    It's Pointless To Compare Them...
  • warjunkieltu
    Why are you guys not testing some good quality freeware first person shooters, that could run smoothly on those low end PCs? For example:
    Urban Terror (my favorite one), Open Arena, Alien Arena? Or at least Quake live?
    Cause it's ridiculous to test all those latest shooters on such low end machines...
  • silverblue
    I was just thinking about reinstalling either of the Star Trek: Armada titles now I've moved to Windows 7, just to see if it removes the stuttering I experienced in XP. Good to see one of those titles here.

    Good review; was kinda wishing for the HL2:LC or some previous-gen UT titles though. :)
  • nevertell
    You could've tried overclocking them :D
    But seriously, the ION seems to be bottlenecked by the cpu.
  • rolli59
    Low end graphics! How about testing them with popular MMOG for addicts that travel, but like the portability of netbooks!
  • vaughn2k
    Diablo 2? and Warcraft 3?
  • gondor
    Thank you for including older titles in your comparison ! I hope you'll be able to include even more of them in any future tests to give each major game engine of the era a fair chance :)
  • kartu
    tacoslaveso the gpu's in modern consoles are around the same as the e-350? since these gpus are mainly cpu bound? Also should have put counterstrike fun and not demanding.

    PS3 has a kind of nVidia 5700, not sure how it compares/
  • gracefully
    Pretty soon I'll be running these on my phone outputting to the HDTV at 720p. The iPhone and Android game markets are gaining ground, and look good too.
  • ukee1593
    PS3 actually has a NVidia 7900GT which has been adapted to communicate better with the CELL BE. This should be considerably better than the Ion and the E-350. The XBOX 360's GPU is faster than the PS3's also. Now both the Ion and the E-350 beat the crap out of the Wii however
  • yyrkoon
    "PS3 actually has a NVidia 7900GT which has been adapted to communicate better with the CELL BE. This should be considerably better than the Ion and the E-350. The XBOX 360's GPU is faster than the PS3's also. Now both the Ion and the E-350 beat the crap out of the Wii however"

    The PS3 also uses 10-15x more power from the wall, in comparison. That is, the original PS3's I believe used around 300W, where one that a friend of mine purchased used 190(ish)W. Not to mention, thats just the system, not including "monitor" power.
  • yyrkoon
    Looks like my original post got hosed somehow, and if not, sorry in advance.

    But to sum it up. Reviewer. You blew it. Where are the power consumption results ? Then, 3 readings wont cut it. 3 reading PER test, minimum. Since all games use different amounts of power. Depending on how hard they tax the hardware.

    Also, these tests are not necessarily a waste of effort. The waste of effort, comes when purchasing such systems. Laptops, can be had cheaper, that use comparable power, while far outperforming, anything atom like in nature. Need something computer wise thats tiny, and lightweight ? Get a cell phone, or maybe a tablet. Something based on ARM technology.

    What do you expect. Atom was designed with set top devices / cell phones in mind. Even in that capacity it fails as ARM is far superior to x86 where power efficiency is concerned.

    The only good point, is that since Atom, and similar technology is x86 based, developers who are not familiar with various (non Microsoft ) software technologies, have something to use with windows embedded. Do not get me wrong, personally I would love to write software for windows embedded using the .NET framework. It is certainly awesome for R.A.D.( rapid application development ). But at what cost to me, and my consumers ? In the end, it is just not worth it, when the costs can be 10x as much to me, and my customers. So once again, atom (namely x86) falls short again.

    Now, when will Intel, and AMD finally figure all this out I wonder.
  • pelov
    Looooooove the new fusion tech. So much potential. screw bulldozer and ivy bridge.

    Nvidia isn't making anymore chipsets for Intel; but we knew that. Are they getting love from nvidia for the GPU component for future atoms? I haven't heard anything in that regard.

    The power consumption is on par with the atom/ion combo. Iirc it actually consumes a bit less power in general and significantly less power while in idle.

    This is the perfect netbook solution for me and many others. can't wait to see the new llano's
  • Onus
    Hmmm, it looks like the E350 could handle Guild Wars...

    (and battery life would beat the snot out of 880G/HD4250)
  • feeddagoat
    AMD looked to be CPU limited in fallout 3 and the speed in which it fell away after 720p would suggest possibly a memory limit or GPU being maxed out. Im surprised the ion didn't display the same characteristics.
  • juliom
    yyrkoonLooks like my original post got hosed somehow, and if not, sorry in advance.But to sum it up. Reviewer. You blew it. Where are the power consumption results ? Then, 3 readings wont cut it. 3 reading PER test, minimum. Since all games use different amounts of power. Depending on how hard they tax the hardware.Also, these tests are not necessarily a waste of effort. The waste of effort, comes when purchasing such systems. Laptops, can be had cheaper, that use comparable power, while far outperforming, anything atom like in nature. Need something computer wise thats tiny, and lightweight ? Get a cell phone, or maybe a tablet. Something based on ARM technology.What do you expect. Atom was designed with set top devices / cell phones in mind. Even in that capacity it fails as ARM is far superior to x86 where power efficiency is concerned. The only good point, is that since Atom, and similar technology is x86 based, developers who are not familiar with various (non Microsoft ) software technologies, have something to use with windows embedded. Do not get me wrong, personally I would love to write software for windows embedded using the .NET framework. It is certainly awesome for R.A.D.( rapid application development ). But at what cost to me, and my consumers ? In the end, it is just not worth it, when the costs can be 10x as much to me, and my customers. So once again, atom (namely x86) falls short again. Now, when will Intel, and AMD finally figure all this out I wonder.


    If you're SUCH a visonary, why aren't you working for a huge company like Intel or AMD already? Atom and Brazon and fantastic for some needs, you cannot say that everyone's needs will be satisfied with the devices you suggest. Grow up a bit before starting to talk like that.
  • masteren
    ukee1593The XBOX 360's GPU is faster than the PS3's also. Now both the Ion and the E-350 beat the crap out of the Wii however


    Source?
  • silverblue
    The Wii operates at 480i/p or 576i. In terms of resolution, that's something it can't win at, at the very least. It uses 18W in total, however, which is competitive.
  • How about testing games like CS, COD4, MMO's and stuff like, instead of heavy next games?.. It doesnt make's any sense.. Who buys this kind of hardware or pc.. It's not an enthusiast...

    But whatever.. Bad review.
  • ukee1593
    In terms of amount of floating point operations per second the E-350 and ion would beat the Wii's GPU. Lets not get into system wars here though. Playing Crysis on an E-350 or porting it to a Wii is just stupid, but that is no reason to say that the GTX590 is better than a E-350, they are just different chips for different needs.

    As for the other sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_SynthesizerDetails the PS3 GPU

    and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

    Which means I stand corrected as the PS3 makes more dots than the 360 but then I don't know because there are a million other factors I apologize for making the comment either way.
  • shadowmaster625
    The original Wii gpu portion of the Hollywood mcm module was only 72 mm^2 on a 90nm process. It has 24MB of SRAM in the other part of the mcm, so I would expect it to be a lot faster than a 72 mm^2 gpu that has to access external memory. But who can say how much difference that really makes. What I can say is that a Nvidia G72 is the same size die on the same 90nm process. The RV530 is 150mm^2 but keep in mind it contains more miscellaneous transistors (like video decode logic and a more complex memory controller), so I would use that as the best case upper limit of the Wii GPU's power. Better yet, since there are so many variables to consider, you can refer to this page and decide for yourself where you want to place it http://techreport.com/articles.x/8864/3 My best guess would be slightly higher than a "X1300 HyperMemory".