Atom faster than Celeron?

[Zap]

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.

source

 

[IntelUser2000]

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.

 

[AdamK47]

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.

Or the same people that say a Core 2 Quad is nearly identical in performance to the Core i7.

 

[Gillbot]

Umm, no. LOL! I saw the thread title and thought NO WAY!

 

[maniac5999]

Or the same people that say a Core 2 Quad is nearly identical in performance to the Core i7.

It depends on clocks, performance and workload. Look at the bench, there are cases where an i7 and a c2Q have less than a 5% difference: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/51?vs=47

 

[Zap]

Umm, no. LOL! I saw the thread title and thought NO WAY!

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.

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.

 

[xd_1771]

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.

 

[Bateluer]

Bout the only thing an Atom D525 is going to win in is power consumption.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Bout the only thing an Atom D525 is going to win in is power consumption.

It loses badly if you count energy consumed over actual work done.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/d510mo-intel-atom,2616-13.html

 

[jihe]

Atom is probably faster than the celeron 300A before overclock.

 

[Arkaign]

Atom is probably faster than the celeron 300A before overclock.

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]

I think AMD's new netbook cpus should just totally rock Atom to the ground.

Would be interesting to see how they do in battery life, typically AMD's weak point with their mobile offerings.

 

[cbn]

Would be interesting to see how they do in battery life, typically AMD's weak point with their mobile offerings.

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.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

It depends on clocks, performance and workload. Look at the bench, there are cases where an i7 and a c2Q have less than a 5% difference: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/51?vs=47

The only one's where they are that close are Sysmark 2007 E-learning + video creation, and Crysis Warhead... so I would say Sysmark isn't the best gauge and that Crysis is probably GPU bound...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally Posted by Kaidotech
Would a USB 2.0, or USB 3.0 to DVI adapter pretty much solve that issue?

Wat?

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


I see that your friend Kaidotech has deleted his threads from embarrassment...

 

[Rifter]

The only wat a atom is going to be faster than a celeron is if you fired it out of a more powerful cannon

 

[Zap]

I see that your friend Kaidotech has deleted his threads from embarrassment...

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:

 

[jacktesterson]

Funny stuff. USB to dvi for the win!

 

[Gillbot]

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!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

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?

 

[Sahakiel]

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?

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.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

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.

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

 

[Zap]

I think Atom has it's uses.

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:

 

[Gillbot]

lol