Atom on Servers?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 12, 2009.

  1. 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=9132628&intsrc=news_list>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    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-box-b208-hdmi-vista-and-full-remote-0936890/

    Amazing.
    JohnO, May 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    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
    , May 13, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <6e2397b4-
    >,
    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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    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, May 14, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    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, May 14, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "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).
    Alan, May 14, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On May 14, 1:58 pm, "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.
    >
    > --
    >
    > 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).


    The atom will use less power and therefore should be very quiet
    (external fan-less power supply on my atom based machines),
    JohnO, May 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    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.
    Party Animal, May 14, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Party Animal Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    >
    > 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'.


    While you have the info in front of you how does the dual core Celeron
    compare against a Core2Duo as a matter of interest ?
    Party Animal, May 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:gugp5v$q39$...
    > 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'.
    >


    Hi Shaun,

    That's a massive difference!

    What benchmarks are you looking at?

    Could you post a link, or are you referring to your own 'lab'? ;->

    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).
    Alan, May 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On May 14, 9:44 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > 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.


    Also (the last time I looked) the Atom isn't necessarily any better
    than similar Celerons from a power consumption point of view when
    looking at the whole mobo.

    eg on those Intel mini-ITX boards, the chipset on the Atom model is a
    thirsty desktop beast (it's the one with the large heatsink), while
    the older Celeron model has a much less thirsty chipset. The total
    power consumption was roughly the same or less for the Celeron model.

    There are obviously low power chipsets available, but for some reason
    Intel doesn't (or at least didn't) want to put them on their otherwise
    great mini-ITX Atom boards.

    Hopefully someone will correct me with updated info :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., May 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:gugp5v$q39$...
    > 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'.
    >



    Also, can someone please tell me if I am wrong, but the Atom N230 is
    single-core, where the Celeron E1200 is dual-core?

    I got this from this page where, if you search on each, you'll find
    one listed under single-core and the other under dual-core:

    http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369

    Won't that alone account for the difference between those two chips?

    I may be completely off track here though.....

    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).
    Alan, May 14, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Party Animal wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> 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'.

    >
    > While you have the info in front of you how does the dual core Celeron
    > compare against a Core2Duo as a matter of interest ?


    With the straight CPU test I use (which fits into L2cache) the Celeron dual
    core is within 10% of the C2D clock-for-clock.

    That's straight MIPs. The C2D has certain things like SSE3 (or whatever)
    which means it'll do better for encoding etc.
    --
    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Alan wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:gugp5v$q39$...
    >> 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'.
    >>

    >
    > Hi Shaun,
    >
    > That's a massive difference!
    >
    > What benchmarks are you looking at?
    >
    > Could you post a link, or are you referring to your own 'lab'? ;->


    Hi Alan. Hehee! My own 'lab'. I've been benchmarking CPUs for years using
    CPUMark 1.0 and saving the results to compare, mainly from an architctre
    point of view. (People tend to think 1.6Ghz = 1.6GHz = 1.6GHz regardless of
    the CPU architecture which is far from the truth.)

    That benchmark measures straight MIPs, or 'horsepower' if you like and, yes,
    a huge difference.

    The C2D architecture is far more efficient per MHz than most others. The
    Celeron E1200 is based on C2D.

    The Atom however is similar 'grunt per Mhz' to the old Pentium 4s. (However
    they use 1/10th of the power of the P4s.)

    Cheers,
    --
    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Alan wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:gugp5v$q39$...
    >> 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'.

    >
    >
    > Also, can someone please tell me if I am wrong, but the Atom N230 is
    > single-core, where the Celeron E1200 is dual-core?
    >
    > I got this from this page where, if you search on each, you'll find
    > one listed under single-core and the other under dual-core:
    >
    > http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369
    >
    > Won't that alone account for the difference between those two chips?
    >
    > I may be completely off track here though.....


    No. In fact the E1200, being dual-core is capable of approx 4x the
    processing power of an Atom N230 which is single core (The Atom 330 is
    dual.)
    --
    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Alan wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:gugp5v$q39$...
    >> 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'.


    I should have added "per core".

    > Also, can someone please tell me if I am wrong, but the Atom N230 is
    > single-core, where the Celeron E1200 is dual-core?


    That is correct.

    > I got this from this page where, if you search on each, you'll find
    > one listed under single-core and the other under dual-core:
    >
    > http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369
    >
    > Won't that alone account for the difference between those two chips?
    >
    > I may be completely off track here though.....


    See my other reply. Atom gets 111 marks on CPU mark 1.0 whereas an E1200
    gets 210 x 2 cores = 420 marks. In other words 111 against 420, the Celeron
    wins hands down.

    Cheers,
    --
    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs AD. wrote:
    > On May 14, 9:44 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > Also (the last time I looked) the Atom isn't necessarily any better
    > than similar Celerons from a power consumption point of view when
    > looking at the whole mobo.
    >
    > eg on those Intel mini-ITX boards, the chipset on the Atom model is a
    > thirsty desktop beast (it's the one with the large heatsink), while
    > the older Celeron model has a much less thirsty chipset. The total
    > power consumption was roughly the same or less for the Celeron model.
    >
    > There are obviously low power chipsets available, but for some reason
    > Intel doesn't (or at least didn't) want to put them on their otherwise
    > great mini-ITX Atom boards.
    >
    > Hopefully someone will correct me with updated info :)


    You are completely correct TTBOMK, that is, unless there has been a new
    release from Intel that I'm not aware of.

    For the same amount of work they'll use roughly the same amount of power.
    The difference is that the Atom runs out of steam at around one quarter of
    the procesing power the Celeron E1200 is capable of.

    Cheers,
    --
    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.
    ~misfit~, May 14, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Malcolm Guest

    On Thu, 14 May 2009 23:51:22 +1200
    "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    <snip>
    > Hi Alan. Hehee! My own 'lab'. I've been benchmarking CPUs for years
    > using CPUMark 1.0 and saving the results to compare, mainly from an
    > architctre point of view. (People tend to think 1.6Ghz = 1.6GHz =
    > 1.6GHz regardless of the CPU architecture which is far from the
    > truth.)
    >
    > That benchmark measures straight MIPs, or 'horsepower' if you like
    > and, yes, a huge difference.
    >
    > The C2D architecture is far more efficient per MHz than most others.
    > The Celeron E1200 is based on C2D.
    >
    > The Atom however is similar 'grunt per Mhz' to the old Pentium 4s.
    > (However they use 1/10th of the power of the P4s.)
    >
    > Cheers,

    Hey Shaun
    Can you email me a copy and will run on the netbook which has a 280 CPU
    (1.66Ghz and faster FSB)

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    openSUSE 11.1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.27.21-0.1-default
    up 15:08, 1 user, load average: 0.45, 0.49, 0.42
    GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 180.51
    Malcolm, May 14, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Semion Lisyansky

    AToM (draft-martini) on 7200

    Semion Lisyansky, Apr 30, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    Semion Lisyansky
    Apr 30, 2004
  2. Walter Traprock

    Roy Fuchs the atom bomb spy

    Walter Traprock, Mar 30, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    472
  3. =?Utf-8?B?ZG91Z2hib3kzMQ==?=

    Implementing dhcp servers and dns servers

    =?Utf-8?B?ZG91Z2hib3kzMQ==?=, Jun 16, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    3,118
    Guest
    Jun 24, 2006
  4. No_Problem
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    595
    No_Problem
    Feb 13, 2007
  5. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    721
Loading...

Share This Page