Atom scores vs Celeron vs C2D posted

XS Janus · Post by **XS Janus** » Wed May 21, 2008 2:38 pm

Article and pic found at:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/21/msi- ... m-cracked/

original but translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 9/msi2.htm

They tested the upcoming MSi Wind PC.
Actually the scores are not so bad:

FartingBob · Post by **FartingBob** » Wed May 21, 2008 3:40 pm

I guess it totally depends on the price of the Wind and the new Eee's as to which is better. Predictably prices are all higher than the original Eee, almost to the point where it defeats the purpose of it being a "cheap" portable laptop.

Schlotkins · Post by **Schlotkins** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:26 pm

Here's some information from Tom's:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/int ... ,1938.html

It looks like a savings of about 19w but a pretty large performance hit. Not sure why they put a Raptor drive on a power conscience CPU...

Chris

xafier · Post by **xafier** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:08 am

Hardly seems worthwhile for the performance hit!

Although look at the Atoms heatsink, it looks like the tiny thing thats on my South Bridge! Amazing that the chipset has a better cooler than the CPU!

m^2 · Post by **m^2** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:23 am

xafier wrote:Hardly seems worthwhile for the performance hit!

Although look at the Atoms heatsink, it looks like the tiny thing thats on my South Bridge! Amazing that the chipset has a better cooler than the CPU!

NB takes 20W IIRC.

juamez · Post by **juamez** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:40 am

m^2 wrote:
xafier wrote:Hardly seems worthwhile for the performance hit!

Although look at the Atoms heatsink, it looks like the tiny thing thats on my South Bridge! Amazing that the chipset has a better cooler than the CPU!
NB takes 20W IIRC.

That explains why the heatsink on the NB is bigger than on the Atom cpu. Hah.

XS Janus · Post by **XS Janus** » Fri May 30, 2008 2:30 pm

I look like it uses 44W in idle, when setup with regular components.
Damn dissapointing. viewtopic.php?t=48431

My 2GHZ E8400 and 2Gb ram does 50W - on a 750W psu and 40W on a pico.
And you can actually use that setup for more than browsing...

Better luck next time, ATOM.
2core and 45nm chipset please...

juamez · Post by **juamez** » Sat May 31, 2008 12:36 am

XS Janus wrote:I look like it uses 44W in idle, when setup with regular components.
Damn dissapointing. viewtopic.php?t=48431

My 2GHZ E8400 and 2Gb ram does 50W - on a 750W psu and 40W on a pico.
And you can actually use that setup for more than browsing...

Better luck next time, ATOM.
2core and 45nm chipset please...

Hold your horses there for a minut. I think Intel is coming with a better thus lower power chipset to go with the low power Atom, which will make a far better combination than they do now.

Also what chipset are you using for your E8400?

Gillian Seed · Post by **Gillian Seed** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:45 am

Fudzilla found that a 1.2GHz 220 Celeron was faster than the 1.6GHz Atom, sometimes twice as fast! They suggest that the Atom system only used around 5watts less than the celeron...

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio ... 5&Itemid=1

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:55 am

Intel's Atom could technically revolutionize the MP (Multi-Processor) scene again though.

Imagine a server motherboard with 8 or more Atoms embedded, running multi-terrabyte arrays...they have the grunt for it, and it would definitely reduce the power those servers devour.

Erssa · Post by **Erssa** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:53 am

bonestonne wrote:Intel's Atom could technically revolutionize the MP (Multi-Processor) scene again though.

Imagine a server motherboard with 8 or more Atoms embedded, running multi-terrabyte arrays...they have the grunt for it, and it would definitely reduce the power those servers devour.

I don't think so. Nothing suggests Atom architecture would scale well. And unless someone actually posts MP Atom benchmarks, it's pointless to argue so.

XS Janus · Post by **XS Janus** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:08 pm

juamez wrote:
XS Janus wrote:I look like it uses 44W in idle, when setup with regular components.
Damn dissapointing. viewtopic.php?t=48431

My 2GHZ E8400 and 2Gb ram does 50W - on a 750W psu and 40W on a pico.
And you can actually use that setup for more than browsing...

Better luck next time, ATOM.
2core and 45nm chipset please...
Hold your horses there for a minut. I think Intel is coming with a better thus lower power chipset to go with the low power Atom, which will make a far better combination than they do now.

Also what chipset are you using for your E8400?

Right now a G33. gigabyte G33M-DS2R
On an undervolted settings and all the unnecessary stuff turned off in bios.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:16 am

Anandtech measured 14.5W at idle and 19W under load for the Asus Eee Box which uses the 945GM chipset and Atom 1.6GHz CPU.
This puts it somewhere between a Centrino laptop and Intel MODT system using a PicoPSU which isnâ€™t especially good considering the performance. If matched with the Poulsbo chipset and similar components to a laptop I donâ€™t see why it shouldnâ€™t idle at less than 10W and hit < 15W at load at which point it starts to make more sense especially if the price is right.