[Fud] Drop single-core Celeron for dual Atom - Page 2 - Overclock.net

Tator Tot · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuckieHo

Intel finally realized that Atom was gonna cannibalize there Celeron markets anyway.

Took them long enough.

I mean seriously, very similar performance, for a fraction of the heat, power, or space.

Celeron just needed to be retired. Just like Pentium.

Manyak · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

A dual core Atom is about 75% as fast as an E1200 (both at 1.6ghz)

Not quite.

The main reason that the Atom is extremely power efficient is because they took a lot of instructions and emulated them in software. For example, the command for multiply could be turned into a loop of additions (instead of 3*3, do 3+3+3). Obviously they didn't do that with the multiply command, but they did do it to a lot of other, more complex instructions.

If you look at only the basic instruction set - standard x86/x64 instructions - yes it will be about 75% the speed of an E1200. But if you look at the FPU/ALU and all the extensions added over the years like SSE/SSE2/etc, you're looking at only about 30% of the speed.

This means two things:
1: The E1200 is more cost beneficial in terms of performance. Unlike the Atom, it can actually handle really large flash animations, HD video, and some more demanding video games. And compressing and uncompressing files takes a fraction of the time it does on the Atom. I don't know about the prices that OEMs get their parts at, but at retail an E1200+MB combo costs only $20 more than a dual core atom board. Which is peanuts considering that even the average user will get a lot more out of it.

2: If someone gets one of those cheap nettops as their main PC, they will have to upgrade it more often to keep up with more demanding and resource-intensive apps. With a standard LGA775 Celeron PC, instead of upgrading the entire system in a year or two they'll be able to find a used Pentium Dual/Quad and be able to double their RAM for less than half the price of a new PC. And it will still end up more powerful than the low end systems then. But with an Atom they'll be forced to upgrade the entire system - and much more frequently. This does nothing but translate into more sales for Intel in the long run, which is all they care about.

Atoms are great for netbooks because they allow for many hours of battery life without needing to weigh anywhere near as much. But it does absolutely NOTHING for a desktop.

Tator Tot · 07-04-09

Yes & No Manyak.

While almost all your points are correct, couple the Atom 230 w/ a 9400, or 8400, or HD3450 GPU and it will handle 1080p playback just fine.

sLowEnd · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tator Tot

While almost all your points are correct, couple the Atom 230 w/ a 9400, or 8400, or HD3450 GPU and it will handle 1080p playback just fine.

Assuming the Atom system even has an expansion slot

Quite a few don't, so you could be stuck with crappy intel graphics like the GMA950

Tator Tot · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by sLowEnd

Assuming the Atom system even has an expansion slot

Quite a few don't, so you could be stuck with crappy intel graphics like the GMA950

You can get those cards in PCI (Long live Still Legendardy

)

And the 9400 comes built into the nVidia ION platform.

slngsht · 07-04-09

Bah. I'll keep my mATX with my celeron 430. On a $29 MSI board on stock cooling, I took it to 3.0ghz from 1.8.

Let's see an Atom do that.

Tator Tot · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by slngsht

Bah. I'll keep my mATX with my celeron 430. On a $29 MSI board on stock cooling, I took it to 3.0ghz from 1.8.

Let's see an Atom do that.

Someone pulled 2.4 out of an Atom, it's highly possible with good cooling and proper BIOS settings. Mind you 2.4 was software Overclock.

WhiteCrane · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manyak

Not quite.

The main reason that the Atom is extremely power efficient is because they took a lot of instructions and emulated them in software. For example, the command for multiply could be turned into a loop of additions (instead of 3*3, do 3+3+3). Obviously they didn't do that with the multiply command, but they did do it to a lot of other, more complex instructions.

If you look at only the basic instruction set - standard x86/x64 instructions - yes it will be about 75% the speed of an E1200. But if you look at the FPU/ALU and all the extensions added over the years like SSE/SSE2/etc, you're looking at only about 30% of the speed.

This means two things:
1: The E1200 is more cost beneficial in terms of performance. Unlike the Atom, it can actually handle really large flash animations, HD video, and some more demanding video games. And compressing and uncompressing files takes a fraction of the time it does on the Atom. I don't know about the prices that OEMs get their parts at, but at retail an E1200+MB combo costs only $20 more than a dual core atom board. Which is peanuts considering that even the average user will get a lot more out of it.

2: If someone gets one of those cheap nettops as their main PC, they will have to upgrade it more often to keep up with more demanding and resource-intensive apps. With a standard LGA775 Celeron PC, instead of upgrading the entire system in a year or two they'll be able to find a used Pentium Dual/Quad and be able to double their RAM for less than half the price of a new PC. And it will still end up more powerful than the low end systems then. But with an Atom they'll be forced to upgrade the entire system - and much more frequently. This does nothing but translate into more sales for Intel in the long run, which is all they care about.

Atoms are great for netbooks because they allow for many hours of battery life without needing to weigh anywhere near as much. But it does absolutely NOTHING for a desktop.

Rep + and I ask other to do the same.

I use an atom and am VERY displeased with its performance, even on a netbook. Would MUCH rather have a VIA Nano or the AMD equivalent, and pay $100 more for having it.

I am a dissatisfied customer.

sweet_3025 · 07-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteCrane

Rep + and I ask other to do the same.

I use an atom and am VERY displeased with its performance, even on a netbook. Would MUCH rather have a VIA Nano or the AMD equivalent, and pay $100 more for having it.

I am a dissatisfied customer.

Same here. Just sold my atom based netbook and about to order either a Gateway LT3100 or a HP DV2.

spice003 · 07-04-09

i was actually pleased with my atom 330. it was fast enough for what i was using it for. you can't expect it to encode HD video for you in 30min.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Hardware News
[Fud] Drop single-core Celeron for dual Atom

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)