Intel Atom CPU Review

by
40 Comments

For a few months, we’d been hearing talk of a new dedicated Intel processor for MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices), intended to compete with ARM processors. Initially known by the names Silverthorne and Diamondville, the processors in this new line will be called "Atom". These chips have a few surprises in store.

Interesting and Surprising Choices

Atom CPUs are surprising for more than one reason: they have modern functions (EM64T, SSSE3, etc.) grafted onto an older architecture The Atom is the first in-order x86 since the Pentium. Power management and fabrication costs are the two imperatives Intel seems to have been guided by, at the expense (with no attempt made to hide it) of performance. So, no, don’t expect a competitor to Core 2 Duo. But what does the Atom really have to offer? We’ll see that as this piece unfolds.

intel atom

Next
Summary
  1. Introduction
  2. Intel and Declining Power Consumption
  3. Atom Z500 and SCH (Poulsbo)
  4. Atom N200 and i945
  5. Atom: In-Order and HyperThreading
  6. Atom: Caches and FSB
  7. Power Management: Tests and Theory
  8. Atom Against Pentium E and Sempron
  9. Atom against C7-M and Celeron
  10. Overclocking and 3D
  11. Conclusion
About the author
Pierre Dandumont
Read more
Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
40 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • anonymous x
    wow, 107 on 3D mark06
  • joefriday
    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.
  • joefriday
    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?
  • joefriday
    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/reviews/the-300-pc,1546-10.html

  • randomizer
    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.
  • joefriday
    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.
  • randomizer
    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?
  • joefriday
    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.
  • apaige
    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?
  • Anonymous
    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.
  • Crazy-PC
    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.
  • Anonymous
    randomizerDon'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.
  • Anonymous
    VIA Nano powered by Nvidia GPU in mini-itx play game: Crysis and Bioshock.
  • Anonymous
    ??? INTEL ATOM vs. VIA NANO ???
  • Wheat_Thins
    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!
  • mmc4587
    Dude, please correct your Cinebench R10 charts, they are screwed up.
  • joefriday
    Quote:
    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).
  • enewmen
    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.
  • Anonymous
    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.aspx?artno=549&pgno=0
  • doomsdaydave11
    Yay the Poulsbo processor is named after where I live :D. There is only one Poulsbo... so it must be. I'ma go out and buy one now. ;)
Display more comments
Most Popular
  1. IBM Cools 3D Chips With Integrated Water Channels
  2. Power Supply OEM ManufacturerCWT Claims 90% PSU Efficiency Crown
  3. Silent Flux to Run Over the Cooler Market?
The Latest On Tom's Hardware
Edition
Subscribe to our newsletter
Company
Resources
Other Purch sites
  • © 2018 Purch All Rights Reserved.