«

Low-cost servers built around Intel's Atom chips? It was bad enough for the
vendors for low-margin nettops and netbooks to come out, are margins going
to be cut on servers as well?

<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9132 628&intsrc=news_list>

On May 12, 1:36*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Low-cost servers built around Intel's Atom chips? It was bad enough for the
> vendors for low-margin nettops and netbooks to come out, are margins going
> to be cut on servers as well?
>
> <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas....>

Not server but check out this one:
http://www.slashgear.com/asus-eee-bo...emote-0936890/

Amazing.

On May 12, 1:36*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Low-cost servers built around Intel's Atom chips? It was bad enough for the
> vendors for low-margin nettops and netbooks to come out, are margins going
> to be cut on servers as well?
>
> <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas....>

I am not quite sure where you are aiming for here.....so

The original idea of blades were they were high density low power
solutions....ie something running 2~5% on a Xeon might well run at 30%
on an atom for the fraction of the physical size, cost and energy
consumption, an ideal blade CPU....

Blades then got "big" CPUs as they were used for not what they were
intended to do, but as a way to sell more 'standard" servers but in a
different form factor, the vendros made dish IMHO, the users didnt get
much vale for money. these days its really its hard to justify an atom
powered physical server when you can virtualise, ie we have moved on.

regards

Thing

In message <6e2397b4-
c1ce-44ea-88ed->,
wrote:

> On May 12, 1:36 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> Low-cost servers built around Intel's Atom chips? It was bad enough for
>> the vendors for low-margin nettops and netbooks to come out, are margins
>> going to be cut on servers as well?
>>
>>
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas...>
>
> The original idea of blades ...

Nothing to do with blades. This is not about density, it's about cost.

> ... these days its really its hard to justify an atom
> powered physical server when you can virtualise, ie we have moved on.

You still have to run your virtual server on an actual physical server.

Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....

I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
powered devices such as netbooks.

How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron
E1200 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?

They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?

Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out of
the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
experience differences for the user.

What else is there that could matter?

Thanks,

Alan.


PS: Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

Alan wrote:
>
> Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....
>
> I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
> powered devices such as netbooks.
>
> How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron E1200
> 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?
>
> They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?
>
> Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out of
> the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
> experience differences for the user.
>
> What else is there that could matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan.
>
>
> PS: Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!
>

I have a D945GCLF2 dual core Atom mini-ITX board (~$200) with Ubuntu
9.04 and it works fine for me as a day to day home desktop/media server.
It does all the media stuff I want, playing divx videos, transcoding
audio and video, flac to mp4, dvd to ipod.
I'll probably replace it with a core2 at some point, but it was a cheap
fix at the time I put it in and has surpassed my expectations.

"Party Animal" <> wrote in message
news:gufl8h$k59$...
> Alan wrote:
>>
>> Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....
>>
>> I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
>> powered devices such as netbooks.
>>
>> How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron
>> E1200 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?
>>
>> They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?
>>
>> Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out
>> of the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
>> experience differences for the user.
>>
>> What else is there that could matter?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>>
>> PS: Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!
>>
>
> I have a D945GCLF2 dual core Atom mini-ITX board (~$200) with Ubuntu
> 9.04 and it works fine for me as a day to day home desktop/media
> server.
> It does all the media stuff I want, playing divx videos, transcoding
> audio and video, flac to mp4, dvd to ipod.
> I'll probably replace it with a core2 at some point, but it was a
> cheap fix at the time I put it in and has surpassed my expectations.

Hi Party Animal,

But how does the Atom compare to the (identical spec) Celeron?

I have a friend looking at two options - one with the Atom and one
with the Celeron. The Celeron system is cheaper by $50 or so.

However, they look identical on paper (same speed).

Is there any reason to favour the Atom over the Celeron despite the
higher price?

Thanks,

Alan.

--

The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
My unmunged email is: (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

On May 14, 1:58*pm, "Alan" <a...@alan.invalid> wrote:
> "Party Animal" <nore...@none.xx> wrote in message
>
> news:gufl8h$k59$...
>
>
>
> > Alan wrote:
>
> >> Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....
>
> >> I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
> >> powered devices such as netbooks.
>
> >> How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron
> >> E1200 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?
>
> >> They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?
>
> >> Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out
> >> of the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
> >> experience differences for the user.
>
> >> What else is there that could matter?
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Alan.
>
> >> PS: *Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!
>
> > I have a D945GCLF2 dual core Atom mini-ITX board (~$200) with Ubuntu
> > 9.04 and it works fine for me as a day to day home desktop/media
> > server.
> > It does all the media stuff I want, playing divx videos, transcoding
> > audio and video, flac to mp4, dvd to ipod.
> > I'll probably replace it with a core2 at some point, but it was a
> > cheap fix at the time I put it in and has surpassed my expectations.
>
> Hi Party Animal,
>
> But how does the Atom compare to the (identical spec) Celeron?
>
> I have a friend looking at two options - one with the Atom and one
> with the Celeron. *The Celeron system is cheaper by $50 or so.
>
> However, they look identical on paper (same speed).
>
> Is there any reason to favour the Atom over the Celeron despite the
> higher price?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan.
>
> --
>
> The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others.
> My unmunged email is: *1bupdv...@sneakemail.com (valid for 30 days
> min probably much longer).

The atom will use less power and therefore should be very quiet
(external fan-less power supply on my atom based machines),

Alan wrote:
> "Party Animal" <> wrote in message
> news:gufl8h$k59$...
>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....
>>>
>>> I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
>>> powered devices such as netbooks.
>>>
>>> How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron
>>> E1200 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?
>>>
>>> They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?
>>>
>>> Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out of
>>> the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
>>> experience differences for the user.
>>>
>>> What else is there that could matter?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alan.
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!
>>>
>>
>> I have a D945GCLF2 dual core Atom mini-ITX board (~$200) with Ubuntu
>> 9.04 and it works fine for me as a day to day home desktop/media server.
>> It does all the media stuff I want, playing divx videos, transcoding
>> audio and video, flac to mp4, dvd to ipod.
>> I'll probably replace it with a core2 at some point, but it was a
>> cheap fix at the time I put it in and has surpassed my expectations.
>
> Hi Party Animal,
>
> But how does the Atom compare to the (identical spec) Celeron?
>
> I have a friend looking at two options - one with the Atom and one with
> the Celeron. The Celeron system is cheaper by $50 or so.
>
> However, they look identical on paper (same speed).
>
> Is there any reason to favour the Atom over the Celeron despite the
> higher price?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan.
>

If the celeron and motherboard is $150 and that is the critical data
point, go for it, the selling point of the dual core atom 330 is the
small form and low power consumption, 22 watts. Mine stays on 24/7.
There is probably some benchmark site that would tell you all the
performance details.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Party Animal wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> "Party Animal" <> wrote in message
>> news:gufl8h$k59$...
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Slightly OT but related to Atom processors.....
>>>>
>>>> I had the impression that Atom processors are, in general, for low
>>>> powered devices such as netbooks.
>>>>
>>>> How does an Atom N230 1.6GHz processor compare to, say, a Celeron
>>>> E1200 1.6GHz processor in a day-to-day desktop?
>>>>
>>>> They are both the same speed, so no difference to the user?
>>>>
>>>> Power consumption is not a major concern, so let's factor that out
>>>> of the equation entirely - I am trying to understand the computing
>>>> experience differences for the user.
>>>>
>>>> What else is there that could matter?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Alan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS: Feel free to tell me to post a new topic!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have a D945GCLF2 dual core Atom mini-ITX board (~$200) with Ubuntu
>>> 9.04 and it works fine for me as a day to day home desktop/media
>>> server. It does all the media stuff I want, playing divx videos,
>>> transcoding audio and video, flac to mp4, dvd to ipod.
>>> I'll probably replace it with a core2 at some point, but it was a
>>> cheap fix at the time I put it in and has surpassed my expectations.
>>
>> Hi Party Animal,
>>
>> But how does the Atom compare to the (identical spec) Celeron?
>>
>> I have a friend looking at two options - one with the Atom and one
>> with the Celeron. The Celeron system is cheaper by $50 or so.
>>
>> However, they look identical on paper (same speed).
>>
>> Is there any reason to favour the Atom over the Celeron despite the
>> higher price?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>
> If the celeron and motherboard is $150 and that is the critical data
> point, go for it, the selling point of the dual core atom 330 is the
> small form and low power consumption, 22 watts. Mine stays on 24/7.
> There is probably some benchmark site that would tell you all the
> performance details.

The pure CPU benchmarks I have here give a score of 111 points per core for
a dual core 1.6GHz Atom and 210 points per core for a dual core Celeron
E1200.

Therefore the Celeron has nearly twice the 'grunt'.
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.