It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Efficiency comparison Atom , Quad core , Celeron M ULV
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:51 pm 
Offline
-- Vendor --

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:30 am
Posts: 372
Location: Canada
Today I received a mini ITX board using Celeron M ULV 373 and 855GM + ICH4 chipset.

I did some test of performance using Blender 3D to render a 3d scene, time in seconds lower is better.

Image

Celeron M will not see any improvement for two Threads since it dose not have a HT as Atom or multicore as Q8400S so Celeron is slower but not by much.
Interesting that for the same clock Celeron M is 2x faster than Atom using one thread it was the same for pentium 4 maybe they use half the frequency internally and they sell this as high frequency as it will appeal to customers .

All system tested where basic configuration just MB with integrated graphic + CPU + RAM + SSD the difference is just that Atom also uses an 8.9" LCD since is a netbook and different power supply.
The Celeron M and Q8400 used the same power supply see photos
The power consumption was tested at idle in Ubuntu (Linux) and at load using Blender 3D all threads. The power was the complete system power measured at wall.

Q8400S
idle 31.2W
load 48W

Celeron M 373 ULV
idle 14.5W
load 18W

Atom N270
idle 9.5W
load 12W

The Celeron M Board
Image

The Q8400S Board
Image

PS: The worst part is that the North and south bridge on all this systems is using more power than the CPU Q8400S idle 4W load 24W Atom idle 0.5W load 2.5W Celeron M TDP 5.5W (i have no other data about this one).


Last edited by electrodacus on Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:49 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Upper left hand corner, USA
So under load the Quad core most efficient (672 watt-seconds to do the job), then Atom (1476 watt-seconds), then Celeron (2772 watt-seconds).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:49 pm 
Offline
-- Vendor --

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:30 am
Posts: 372
Location: Canada
scdr wrote:
So under load the Quad core most efficient (672 watt-seconds to do the job), then Atom (1476 watt-seconds), then Celeron (2772 watt-seconds).


Yes I guess you are right I did not checked your calculations but is in the right order. This is valid only if you use the CPU in average over 30% load if not then an Atom or Celeron will be more efficient because they can do the job in the same time with less electricity :)
So if you do a render Q8400S will be more efficient but if you surf the net or read a PDF then the other two will be more efficient :)
Right now I use the Celeron M


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group