• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

  • Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Athlon Vs. Atom - Low Power Consumption

It's the chipset they currently use, I think Intel have a new chipset coming out (or is already out) that will use a lot less.
 
Yep interesting read that. It shows the A64 is still very efficient but just lacks decent performance when the speed is ramped up, but is ideal for low power/speed solutions.

The chipset by Intel is pretty dire there.
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure that is a very good review? or at least I would have prefered it if for the sake of the bigger picture that they included a regular Core 2 Duo running undervolted/underclocked on a Intel® G43 chipset


"The Athlon 64 2000+ runs with a core voltage of 0.90 volts and uses just 8 watts"

e6300epumaxnm5.jpg



This is just a very basic result using the new ASUS EPU set to maximum power savings mode, pretty low wattage with just a nOOb friendly click although if I set the voltages manually I could get it using even less wattage and run faster. . .

This screenie below is a stock E6300 undervolted to the max while at the same time running 100% stable, that's 0.9500vCore set in BIOS. I didn't think to test the E6300 underclocked or at least with it's multi set to x6 instead of x7 which is what the EPU is doing in MAX energy saving mode, I dare say I could lower the vCore even further so will have to test that!

asusp5qdlx095000loadlinik1.jpg


It's still early days for the Atom and still early days for INTEL to realise consumers want an extreme low powered desktop product that is all singing all dancing so Kudos to AMD for being ahead of the game once again!

I'm half asleep at the moment so I may have missed it but can anyone tell me please what hard drives they used in that Tom's review? It seems to have been left out the hardware page?
 
the NB is smokin hot to touch therefor i presume as you have all said its the main power draw. However all this atom vs athlon is balls has anyone thought about size at all. How many athlons can you fit in a MID? lol
 
ah yes you just beat gOOgle! :)

Not heard that Acronym before and yeah your right it's not an apples vs apples review, kinda sending out the wrong message to readers that don't know any better.
 
nothing stopping amd re-packaging an athlon core on a smaller package without the ihs, then again its probably not viable financially, largely because the core is HUGE compared to the atom via nano - meaning it costs a lot more wafer space..

just look at the ulv intel core cpu's most come in a small bga backage and are soldered to the motherboard. but the exact same core, on a normal cpu comes in a more normal laptop socket, and the same core again on a desktop in yet another package with an ihs.
 
platinum87 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,1997.html

that article is very funny i must share..

athlon is better performance for less watts than the atom?

i thought Atom was like the size of a BB? and wasnt going to be used for anything other than phones and PDA/micro laptops?

whats going on
Click to expand...

Nothing surprising. Athlon did have their time before the launch of CORE 2. It's well known that they're very efficient in terms of their power consumption and speed. But they just can't do higher speed no matter how much power you put on them.
On the other hand, as far as I know, Atom has similar structure as Pentium 4, especially the HT bit. So I really don't like it.
C-7 M Nano would be my choice for my next UMPC.
 
OCOCOC said:
.
On the other hand, as far as I know, Atom has similar structure as Pentium 4, especially the HT bit. So I really don't like it.
C-7 M Nano would be my choice for my next UMPC.
Click to expand...

No, as far as I know Atom is a cut down NGMA(core 2) based processor. Hyperthreading could have been implemented on Core 2 with greater efficiency then it was on P4, but as Core 2 has such good performance without it, it was not implemented probably to save time.

Hyperthreading returns to the desktop with Nehalem, and its going to be considerably better at running concurrent threads than P4 ever was.

Hyperthreading is great for parallel workloads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom