Atom mini-ITX bundle being introduced at 42 pounds

[Winterpool]

From Ars Technica, a British retailer is offering the Atom 230 (1.6 GHz) bundled with a 945GC chipset mini-ITX motherboard for the quite reasonable sum of 42 pounds sterling (about $80 to 85 depending on how crappy the US dollar is faring that day). Ars points out that this is cheaper than most of the available VIA mini-ITX bundles out in the wild.

Will be very interested to see what sort of prices Intel and VIA will be offering over the summer as Atom and Isaiah go head to head in the ultra-low power, supercompact sector.

 

[Winterpool]

I've been interested for some time in building low-power servers and storage solutions, ideally in a small form factor. I've always found the VIA C7s a bit underwhelming, especially as I'd like my servers to do more than just share files over SMB/CIFS. The other problem is that mini-ITX boards rarely offer enough drive connexions (I think four is my minimum -- which this Atom board satisfies but only by putting two drives on the IDE connexion).

The first-generation Atoms, however, may still be too weak for my needs. I'd like to run apps like SharePoint and a couple of VMs, so I'm being pushed towards AMD by the paucity of cheap Intel VT cpus. Intel integrated graphics are also currently too weak to run HD video in a small form-factor HTPC (946GC's graphics are GMA950).

My other great hope is that, as mini-ITX solutions proliferate, more manufacturers might build enclosures similar to HP's MediaSmart server or those Thecus NAS devices. I'd like a small server that can actually hold a few drives despite the compact footprint.

 

[aigomorla]

lol....

those atoms are suposed to be able to hyper thread too if im not mistaken.

:T

 

[Avalon]

I've still yet to see actual benches of Isaiah based systems.

 

[Fox5]

Are Isaiah and Atom even comparable? Maybe performance wise (Isaiah might even win), but I thought Atom used a fraction of the energy and dissipated a fraction of the heat.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Are Isaiah and Atom even comparable? Maybe performance wise (Isaiah might even win), but I thought Atom used a fraction of the energy and dissipated a fraction of the heat.

Well that may be somewhat true, but when it comes to these sorts of systems, platform power consumption is the important measure.
It'll be interesting to see how Isiah + chipset compares to Atom (which I think is the name for the CPU + chipset), more than comparing the CPU to CPU power consumption.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Winterpool
I've always found the VIA C7s a bit underwhelming, especially as I'd like my servers to do more than just share files over SMB/CIFS.

The AMD Geode NX's wipe the floor of the Via's

Originally posted by: Winterpool
The other problem is that mini-ITX boards rarely offer enough drive connexions (I think four is my minimum -- which this Atom board satisfies but only by putting two drives on the IDE connexion).

All the Jetway boards I've bought have at least one IDE connecter (so 2 drives there) + 2 Sata ports. They have been that way for a little while now.

Originally posted by: Winterpool
The first-generation Atoms, however, may still be too weak for my needs. I'd like to run apps like SharePoint

All my expereince with sharepoint has been Hard drive intensive, no CPU loads. This is with MOSS and MOPS with SQL installed all on the same server. Memory and hard drive speed. It would be nice to setup a ITX board with SAS.


I'm currently running 2 mini itx boards in a 1U case, awaiting a third. 2 hot swap raid 0 SATA drives for my Server 2008 setup. I'm impressed at how well the Geode runs Server 2008, granted I am only doing DFS/FRS and a small active directory.

What does the Atom compare to in desktop cpu's? Hopefully this brings the other boards down. I am waiting but I would like to throw a Barcelona or Opteron on a mini itx board as my 3rd board for my case.


Edit: Forgot to mention, It's not suprising seeing intel this low in price. As there other board DGY or whatever it is, has been cheaper than most of the mini ITX boards. The only problem with those though were they put out more heat and were taller than most people wanted.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

It'll be interesting to see how Isiah + chipset compares to Atom (which I think is the name for the CPU + chipset), more than comparing the CPU to CPU power consumption.

Atom is the processor itself. The overall platform (Atom + a single-chip chipset and possibly something else) is Centrino Atom. Yes, this is confusing for no reason. Here's a press release.

Originally posted by: mooseracing
What does the Atom compare to in desktop cpu's?

According to Ars, Intel has indicated that Atom performance should be a bit better than the Pentium M Dothan. There are a lot of variables there that make that questionable, but as a vague guideline "beefier Pentium III" is not a bad estimate.

 

[aigomorla]

you know each time i read this title, i keep thinkn.

OMG ATOM is gonna be FREAKEN HEAVY!!! lol

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Pentium M performance? I think Isaiah might actually beat atom in performance. There was an article a while back; it pulls 2-5w at idle and 20w at max load. Of course they could have improved it some more.
Also, do you have to rub it in my face that the dollar sucks. Every time I froogle something and the price is super low, then it turns out to be pounds.

 

[taltamir]

supposedly isiaha is supposed to beat the atom in performance, but the atom is supposed to take less power. but until specially designed boards arrive, the isaiah chipset will take much less power then the atom chipset.

 

[daveybrat]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
you know each time i read this title, i keep thinkn.

OMG ATOM is gonna be FREAKEN HEAVY!!! lol

Lol, that's what i was thinking.....dang this is a heavy pc!

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: taltamir
supposedly isiaha is supposed to beat the atom in performance, but the atom is supposed to take less power. but until specially designed boards arrive, the isaiah chipset will take much less power then the atom chipset.

well they are making a 1.1 ghz isiah.

it probably doesnt beat the intel chip in power though. but if they use that single chip nvidia chipset, compared to the more or less ancient 945g the atoms seem to come with (which is 2 chips also).

then it could be close for the whole system.



based on some really rough integrer numbers, a 1.1 isiah is probably comparable to a 1.6 atom from what i saw online

 

[pm]

Looking at the Atom motherboard at this site:
http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co....alog/Motherboards.html

I was amused to see that the big huge fan is on the 945 northbridge, and that the CPU is passively cooled.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: pm
I was amused to see that the big huge fan is on the 945 northbridge, and that the CPU is passively cooled.

That has to be the CPU heatsink. As you can see from this pic, the 945GC has a fairly small, passive heatsink.

edit: Well, maybe I was wrong. Here's a pic of a heatsink on an Intel branded 945GCNL that's about the same size as the one in your link.

 

[Zap]

Now, if they can hit that price point and add a second RAM slot (for dual channel) and a PCI-E 16x slot... and gigabit ethernet wouldn't hurt either.

I'll keep dreaming. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to seeing boards like this available here in the states. Still would like to have seen gigabit onboard to preserve the one expansion slot. However, a price similar to the existing Intel D201GLY(2) boards would be super sweet! IMO the 945G chipset is better than the SiS chipset of the D210GLY(2).

BTW, is there any interest in me moving this thread to SFF? I know it is about CPUs, but it is also about mini-ITX... and threads in SFF don't drop as fast.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Zap
Now, if they can hit that price point and add a second RAM slot (for dual channel) and a PCI-E 16x slot... and gigabit ethernet wouldn't hurt either.

Keep dreaming, Zap. One day, I'm sure it will happen-- the day after hell freezes over.

However, a price similar to the existing Intel D201GLY(2) boards would be super sweet!

On the linked page, their price was $82 US. Newegg will probably sell it for $10 or $15 higher, though, as usual.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Zap
Now, if they can hit that price point and add a second RAM slot (for dual channel) and a PCI-E 16x slot... and gigabit ethernet wouldn't hurt either.

I'll keep dreaming. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to seeing boards like this available here in the states. Still would like to have seen gigabit onboard to preserve the one expansion slot. However, a price similar to the existing Intel D201GLY(2) boards would be super sweet! IMO the 945G chipset is better than the SiS chipset of the D210GLY(2).

BTW, is there any interest in me moving this thread to SFF? I know it is about CPUs, but it is also about mini-ITX... and threads in SFF don't drop as fast.

why bother running gigabit in the pci slot anyway, the slot is only 133mbps so its barely faster than 10/100.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

atom performance totally sucks esp for people used to quad core chips

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: OBLAMA2009
atom performance totally sucks esp for people used to quad core chips

not compared to a windows pocket pc phone

 

[pm]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: pm
I was amused to see that the big huge fan is on the 945 northbridge, and that the CPU is passively cooled.

That has to be the CPU heatsink.

On the link to TranquilPC, they say

Note the maximum height component is the fan cooled north bridge chip (45mm above the main board)

<shrug>

If it really is a 4W TDP CPU, then that small heatsink should be sufficient. But, that said, I wouldn't have thought that the 945 chipset would need that big a heatsink and fan...

 

[OBLAMA2009]

but this atom chip and motherboard is meant for a full on pc right? someone else said they wanted one for a home entertainment system or something, how the heck would you be satisfied with that? i like the car pc's but how would you get the web?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: OBLAMA2009
atom performance totally sucks esp for people used to quad core chips

It doesn't suck for people used to 900 Mhz Celeron-M's in their eee's.

Originally posted by: OBLAMA2009
but this atom chip and motherboard is meant for a full on pc right?

No, no mini-ITX board is meant for a case that would hold three of the cases they'll actually be installed in.

Originally posted by: pm

Originally posted by: myocardia
I was amused to see that the big huge fan is on the 945 northbridge, and that the CPU is passively cooled.

That has to be the CPU heatsink.

On the link to TranquilPC, they say

Note the maximum height component is the fan cooled north bridge chip (45mm above the main board)

I missed the small print, or I never would have mentioned it. It makes no sense to me, though, to have a northbridge heatsink that's that huge, on a mini-ITX board. My mini-ITX board has a small passive heatsink on the northbridge. The heatsink they've got on that northbridge is as large as the passive heatsink on my processor.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: OBLAMA2009
atom performance totally sucks esp for people used to quad core chips

It doesn't suck for people used to 900 Mhz Celeron-M's in their eee's.

Originally posted by: OBLAMA2009
but this atom chip and motherboard is meant for a full on pc right?

No, no mini-ITX board is meant for a case that would hold three of the cases they'll actually be installed in.

Originally posted by: pm

Originally posted by: myocardia
I was amused to see that the big huge fan is on the 945 northbridge, and that the CPU is passively cooled.

That has to be the CPU heatsink.

On the link to TranquilPC, they say

Note the maximum height component is the fan cooled north bridge chip (45mm above the main board)

I missed the small print, or I never would have mentioned it. It makes no sense to me, though, to have a northbridge heatsink that's that huge, on a mini-ITX board. My mini-ITX board has a small passive heatsink on the northbridge. The heatsink they've got on that northbridge is as large as the passive heatsink on my processor.

dont forget that intels chipsets are always at least 1 process behind (so 65nm).

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I missed the small print, or I never would have mentioned it. It makes no sense to me, though, to have a northbridge heatsink that's that huge, on a mini-ITX board. My mini-ITX board has a small passive heatsink on the northbridge. The heatsink they've got on that northbridge is as large as the passive heatsink on my processor.

Makes perfect sense to me. The Atom is new chip with new process @ 45nm. The 945 north bridge chip is relatively old and uses older 65nm (or even 90nm) process. Thus, the cooling requirement will be higher for the northbridge, instead the CPU. It's interesting change from traditional cooling requirement, but I definitely welcome it.