• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Atom faster than Celeron?

Zap

Zap

Elite Member
Original thread

Cliffs: Guy "upgrades" from a Celeron E1400** to an Atom D525 because, "A 2ghz Atom D525 is more powerful then an E1300 Celeron dualcore @ 2ghz. It has more L2 cache, two more virtual cores and a higher FSB." He also "builds systems for a living." 😱

**Note that he said earlier in the thread that he had an E1400, but then compares against an imaginary E1300.

8ball.png

source
 
No way. That E1400 is based on Core 2, and even with 512KB L2 cache, it'll be faster per clock than the original Pentium M. 1.6GHz Atom is equal to 900MHz Pentium M. He also had to overclock the Atom while leaves the Celeron alone.

I can see why he made the mistake but its probably the same people that say Core 2 Quad 3.0GHz is really a 12.0GHz CPU.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
No way. That E1400 is based on Core 2, and even with 512KB L2 cache, it'll be faster per clock than the original Pentium M. 1.6GHz Atom is equal to 900MHz Pentium M. He also had to overclock the Atom while leaves the Celeron alone.

I can see why he made the mistake but its probably the same people that say Core 2 Quad 3.0GHz is really a 12.0GHz CPU.
Click to expand...

Or the same people that say a Core 2 Quad is nearly identical in performance to the Core i7.
 
Gillbot said:
Umm, no. LOL! I saw the thread title and thought NO WAY!
Click to expand...

That's why I posted a magic 8 ball screenshot. :biggrin: If anyone noticed, I already replied in that thread over an hour before posting here.

Zap@HardForums said:
You are so wrong that it wouldn't be funny except for the fact that you said you "build computers every day for a living." 😉

A dual core Celeron is indeed a Core 2 architecture CPU. Intel even says so right here! It is "Conroe based" just like the Core 2 Duo. Your dual core E1400 would totally destroy the Atom in pure performance.

Read this review of the D510 (same thing as D525 but only 1.66GHz). You can see the Intel Celeron 420 (1.6GHz) beating the D510 in many benchmarks even with merely a single core, with less MHz and less cache.
Click to expand...
 
The Atom D525 could edge out a Netburst-based Celeron, but won't perform even 50% as much as that Core-architecture Celeron at the same speed.
 
jihe said:
Atom is probably faster than the celeron 300A before overclock.
Click to expand...

lol yeah. It's really garbage imho. I think AMD's new netbook cpus should just totally rock Atom to the ground. Intel generally wins at everything, but the Atom is a smoking pile of sh*t.
 
Zap said:
Would be interesting to see how they do in battery life, typically AMD's weak point with their mobile offerings.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/articles.x/19937/2

On the power efficiency front, Brazos trims platform TDP from 25W to 21W, with active core power draw tumbling from 10.8W on average to just 6.5W. Consequently, AMD expects to see battery life spiral up to 8.5-9 hours for Zacate laptops with 55Wh batteries. Ontario netbooks will purportedly reach a stratospheric 10.5 hours. Those are official estimates, of course. AMD quoted roughly eight hours of run time for Nile earlier this year, but we got just under five hours of web browsing out of our first Nile notebook using a 61Wh battery.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Kaidotech
Would a USB 2.0, or USB 3.0 to DVI adapter pretty much solve that issue?
Click to expand...

Wat?

Is there such a thing as a USB -> DVI adapter?


I see that your friend Kaidotech has deleted his threads from embarrassment...
 
The only wat a atom is going to be faster than a celeron is if you fired it out of a more powerful cannon 🙂
 
PlasmaBomb said:
I see that your friend Kaidotech has deleted his threads from embarrassment...
Click to expand...

Wow, LOL. Seriously though that was an entertaining thread while it lasted. The guy had the nerve to call other people idiots when he was so wrong. :awe:
 
I think Atom has it's uses. I have a 330 and it's not bad at all for general use really, but when you begin to task it, man..... It just seems to choke itself out, LOL!
 
Scholzpdx said:
I do remember seeing a USB to DVI adapter for a macbook in 2004. Haven't seen it since.

Is this what he was talking about?
Click to expand...

Google USB DVI

Companies have been making USB video adapters for quite some time. Not a powerhouse by any means, but if all you want is multiple 2D displays, they do the trick.
 
Sahakiel said:
Google USB DVI

Companies have been making USB video adapters for quite some time. Not a powerhouse by any means, but if all you want is multiple 2D displays, they do the trick.
Click to expand...

I did search for it, but whatever terms I used yielded different results (sites showed things that looked like USB -> USB cables). USB DVI gives the correct results (actual USB -> DVI adapters). Thanks 🙂
 
Gillbot said:
I think Atom has it's uses.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. I should know - in a variety of netbooks, nettops and ITX boards I currently own SIX various Atom processors. 😳 (Eventually I want to trim that down to half the number - anyone want to buy some used netbooks or a nettop for cheap?)

The thing was that the guy insisted that due to certain specifications (FSB, cache amount, HyperThreading) a dual core Atom was more powerful than a Conroe-based Celeron dual core, at the same MHz. He argued with everyone who told him it wasn't, and went as far as calling people idiots and stating that he knows because Celerons are crappy and he builds systems for a living. I suppose by "for a living" he means "living in mom's basement." :twisted:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top