Atom question

[SpeedEng66]

i will bench it when i get home @ 3:30

 

[taltamir]

the atom takes 2 watts... it is much slower, but it is power efficient. i would bet the athlonxp @2ghz is twice as fast as the 1.6ghz single core atom.

 

[pm]

Unfortunately, I don't have an atom device laying around Hopefully someone fortunate enough to have an Atom netbook, or similar device can finish the benchmarking for us. I am curious as well to see how it stacks up.

I have an atom-based netbook, but it's running Linux. I'm not keen to install XP on it though just because everything on it is running great. If you can think of anything I could run under Linux, I'd be happy to do that though.

 

[phaxmohdem]

Originally posted by: pm

Unfortunately, I don't have an atom device laying around Hopefully someone fortunate enough to have an Atom netbook, or similar device can finish the benchmarking for us. I am curious as well to see how it stacks up.

I have an atom-based netbook, but it's running Linux. I'm not keen to install XP on it though just because everything on it is running great. If you can think of anything I could run under Linux, I'd be happy to do that though.

I don't really know many linux benchmarks, but ffmpeg is a linux app as well, you could run that benchmark if you get bored.

 

[MustangSVT]

since i am bored at work, ill run the benchies

I have 904ha with 2gb ram on xp . hmm perhaps I should test it in win7 as well since that runs fine.

downloading ffmpeg now

 

[MustangSVT]

hmm how do I run ffmpeg? it just loops through and goes back to desktop. is this dos application?

anyway, ran the super pie.
101seconds @ 1.6ghz
85.9secs @ 2.0ghz

 

[SpeedEng66]

Pcmarks 2002
cpu 2494
mem score 5689
hdd 1123

ffmpeg
??
not sure how to run this

Prime 95
(add all 11ffts divided by 11)
306.4922

super pi 1million
89.297 seconds

 

[judasmachine]

well it's in, and I'm on it now. it feels pretty snappy, so to speak, but i haven't ran the benchies yet. i'm glad some other kind folks have chimed in. i'll get to downloading them here in a minute.

 

[SpeedEng66]

sandra 09
ALU 3892 mips
FPU 3443 mflops

 

[MustangSVT]

after reading speed's post I ran the test again, but this time without msn and skype and chrome off. weird I didnt think it wouldnt effect it but it did.
73.6seconds on 2.0ghz

 

[phaxmohdem]

ffmpeg is a command line utility. so to run it, first extract it to a folder somewhere Call it c:\ffmpeg for this example.

Launch your command console, either from Start > Accessories > Command Prompt, or bu going to Start > run and type in "cmd" (without quotes)

then navigate to your folder:

c:
cd \
cd ffmpeg

if you are using the "killer" video file I posted, make sure it is inside the ffmpeg folder then type the following command:

ffmpeg.exe -i killer.avi killer.wmv

("ffmpeg.exe" calls the main program, "-i killer.avi" indicates the input file you want to convert, and "killer.wmv" indicates the output file. With noother options declared, ffmpeg will simply use whatever .wmv defaults it has set.) IF you are using another video file, replace "killer.avi" with your file name)

If should start to convert the video file, and when done, will show you the average FPS during the encode.

 

[phaxmohdem]

Thanks to SpeedEng66's test results, here is what the master table of benchmarks looks like thus far:

CPU's Tested:
Atom 1.6GHz
Pentium 4 2.66/512K/533
Pentium M Banias 1.6GHz/1M/400
Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67GHz/266 FSB
Athlon 1100MHz Thunderbird
Duron 750MHz
Pentium III 866/256K/133
PII Mobile 366 MHz

Benchmark Programs Used:
PcMark 2002 Build 100 CPU Score
Prime95 v. 23.8.1 Benchmark
SuperPi Mod 1.4 (1 million)
Sandra Lite 2009 SP1 Arithmetic Test
ffmpeg FPS encoding a 35 second DV-AVI file into WMV

Here is a link to a folder containing my original spreadsheet I made while benchmarking (for more detailed benchmark info) and the program install files I used to test with.

http://www.TechTimeMachine.com/files

Results:
PCMark 2002 (Pts. Higher is Better):
Atom 1.6 ---------- 2494
P4 2.66 ---------- 6542
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 4884
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 2876
Pent-M 1.6 ----------5131
Duron 750 ----------1984
PIII 866 ---------- 2057
PII 366 ---------- 940

ffmpeg (FPS, Higher is Better):
Atom 1.6 ---------- ????
P4 2.66 ---------- 58
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 45
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 29.3
Pent-M 1.6 ----------47.6
Duron 750 ----------21.6
PIII 866 ---------- 15.6
PII 366 ---------- would not run

Prime95 (Avg. Time (ms) Lower is Better):
Note: Prime 95's benchmark spits out 11 different times for various size fft's. I added all the returned times together and divided by 11 to find the average, and that is what is reported below.
Atom 1.6 ---------- 306.4922
P4 2.66 ---------- 37.33733
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 111.9293
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 164.2003
Pent-M 1.6 ----------109.843
Duron 750 ----------261.9173
PIII 866 ---------- 380.2193
PII 366 ---------- 720.6173

SuperPi 1mil. (Seconds, Lower is Better):
Atom 1.6 ---------- 89.297
P4 2.66 ---------- 56.31767
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 71.74
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 126.8623
Pent-M 1.6 ----------61.582
Duron 750 ----------166.833
PIII 866 ---------- 209.351
PII 366 ---------- 338.3263

Sandra 2009 Drhystone ALU (MIPS. Higher is Better):
Atom 1.6 ---------- 3892
P4 2.66 ---------- 5816
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 4626
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 3043
Pent-M 1.6 ----------4657
Duron 750 ----------2068
PIII 866 ---------- 2051
PII 366 ---------- 855

Sandra 2009 Whetstone FPU (MFLOPS. Higher is Better):
Atom 1.6 ---------- 3443
P4 2.66 ---------- 4936
A-XP 2000+ ---------- 2670
T-Bird 1100 ---------- 1740
Pent-M 1.6 ----------3832
Duron 750 ----------1173
PIII 866 ---------- 1149
PII 366 ---------- 477


Edit: Added PIII 866 Benchmarks
Edit: Benched my P-II 366 Thinkpad 600E because I can

 

[LOUISSSSS]

^^ so the ATOM gets SMACK AROUND by a 5 year old CPU called the Pentium-M released in March 2003.

i dont care how little electricity it uses, its slow as hell

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
^^ so the ATOM gets SMACK AROUND by a 5 year old CPU called the Pentium-M released in March 2003.

i dont care how little electricity it uses, its slow as hell

Yeah I wouldn't call it fast at all, but we have all heard the disclaimer that it's not meant for much beyond Youtube, web browsing, and basic office stuff. In it's defense it gets the job done, and should never be someone's primary machine. I intend to use it as a light weight alternative to when I ride my bike to various places I like to write around town. (read seawall, and cafe) It beats the seven pound monster when stuffed in my messenger bag, and on my bike. I don't know if it would be good for taking notes at school as the keyboard is prolly too small, but again I am getting used to that.
A little more on topic though, this cpu isn't great, but it is a good little workhorse, so long as you do not expect it to haul too much.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
^^ so the ATOM gets SMACK AROUND by a 5 year old CPU called the Pentium-M released in March 2003.

i dont care how little electricity it uses, its slow as hell

Yeah I wouldn't call it fast at all, but we have all heard the disclaimer that it's not meant for much beyond Youtube, web browsing, and basic office stuff. In it's defense it gets the job done, and should never be someone's primary machine. I intend to use it as a light weight alternative to when I ride my bike to various places I like to write around town. (read seawall, and cafe) It beats the seven pound monster when stuffed in my messenger bag, and on my bike. I don't know if it would be good for taking notes at school as the keyboard is prolly too small, but again I am getting used to that.
A little more on topic though, this cpu isn't great, but it is a good little workhorse, so long as you do not expect it to haul too much.

In other words the Atom is the perfect cpu to pair with Intel's IGP which is designed to do not much more than as well.

32nm Atom + Clarkdale-like 45nm IGP/IMC would be awesome for low-power consumption platform.

I spent the last 6 yrs doing the majority of my web-browsing on a 2002 Dell X200 laptop with a P3 800Mhz and 640MB ram on win XP and a 12" screen. For what I did with it, it really was enough horsepower. Coding, light mathematica usage, office apps, etc, not a problem with any of them.

I would have loved to go atom when I bought a new laptop last fall but they were all 10" screens and smaller, my min was 12", so I went the other direction and got a celeron with 15" widescreen for $600. I don't regret the purchase, it has more CPU power than I will ever use but at least the screen real-estate isn't lacking.

 

[SpeedEng66]

Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
ffmpeg is a command line utility. so to run it, first extract it to a folder somewhere Call it c:\ffmpeg for this example.

Launch your command console, either from Start > Accessories > Command Prompt, or bu going to Start > run and type in "cmd" (without quotes)

then navigate to your folder:

c:
cd
cd ffmpeg

if you are using the "killer" video file I posted, make sure it is inside the ffmpeg folder then type the following command:

ffmpeg.exe -i killer.avi killer.wmv

("ffmpeg.exe" calls the main program, "-i killer.avi" indicates the input file you want to convert, and "killer.wmv" indicates the output file. With noother options declared, ffmpeg will simply use whatever .wmv defaults it has set.) IF you are using another video file, replace "killer.avi" with your file name)

If should start to convert the video file, and when done, will show you the average FPS during the encode.

Thank u I will re run ffmpeg when I get home from work
(I was too lazy to figure it out heh )

 

[SpeedEng66]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
^^ so the ATOM gets SMACK AROUND by a 5 year old CPU called the Pentium-M released in March 2003.

i dont care how little electricity it uses, its slow as hell

ohh god!?!
enough already

if your buying a netbook ,unless you have not read the millions of reviews out there..

you know what your buyin it for

 

[LOUISSSSS]

but the atom based netbooks are like $400 for a laptop with the speed of a 5 year old cpu (Keep in mind how much cpu speed increases per year.) with a low resolution lcd.
quality of them seems to also be on the low end compared to main-stream 12,14,15,17in laptops.

okay i'm done bashing the slow little cpu, but really, why buy a 5 year old cpu today??? is this what recessions do to people?

 

[phaxmohdem]

I would love to own a netbook, atom or not, just something that can run XP and I can stick in my hoodie pocket, so I can edit HTML/CSS/PHP files, and check email easily without having to "lug" around my full sized Thinkpad everywhere (which is actually pretty slim as PC laptops go). Form factor is the issue here, not performance.

However, I have noticed Atoms working their way into 12 inch "netbooks" WTF is that all about? I say if you want a 12 inch screen, get a real friggin laptop... I think the 8.9 inch 1024x600 screens are about the right size for an atom device (to me anyway). 10" possibly but getting questionable. I think you're a little quick to hate on the Atom Louisssss, but I start to agree with you as the size of the "netbook" increases.

 

[taltamir]

an atom netbook should be slightly bigger than a PDA as phaxmohdem said... and about 200$... 400-900$ with 12+ inch screen is a joke, it should use a real CPU for something this big.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
an atom netbook should be slightly bigger than a PDA as phaxmohdem said... and about 200$... 400-900$ with 12+ inch screen is a joke, it should use a real CPU for something this big.

I don't understand this desire to limit the screensize just because the computing power under the hood is less than other CPU's on the market

I web-browse with my X200 (12" screen, P3 800MHz, laptop from 2002) and it works like a champ. I want to replace this 12" screen laptop with a modern equivalent, I don't need a dual-core core2 laptop to browse the web, but I do like the larger form factor of a 12" laptop with the bigger keyboard and larger screen for my eyes, etc.

Why the near-hostility at the sentiment of 12" laptop's with atoms under the hood?

If you don't want one yourself then I understand why you wouldn't buy one if it were available, but why would you like to see the option taken away from (or simply never made available to) those of us who would find such a system to be exactly the right balance of cost and computing power to meets our needs and wants?

There is a palpable level of arrogance in some of these "12" laptop with atom is absurd!" comments.

 

[phaxmohdem]

Idontcare, you are correct, and I suppose there is a market for such devices. My point is, as the screen and chassis size of the atom notebooks rises, so does the subsequent cost. If bigger keyboards and screens are what is important to you, then why not get a low end budget 15.4 or 14.1 inch real laptop with a celeron, pentium dual, or turion processor (for close to the same price), that can be upgraded better/easier, and will be able to run future software better?

Now if someone can come forward and offered up a super thin, very sexy looking 12" atom solution that doesn't cost more than a much better spec'd laptop, I'd be all for it. (Thinking modern day HP Sojourn/Mitsubishi Pedion). Such a device would be a godsend for students looking to slip something featherweight and thin into their backpacks for class.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
If bigger keyboards and screens are what is00 important to you, then why not get a low end budget 15.4 or 14.1 inch real laptop with a celeron, pentium dual, or turion processor (for close to the same price)

Ironically this is exactly what I ended up doing as DELL was offering their inspiron 1525's at the sub-$600 level which fit my budget while the even lower priced atom netbook maxed out at a 10" screen.

My argument is just that if 10" netbooks can retail for $400 and less, and 15" cheap dualcore laptops can retail for $600, there really is no cost argument against expecting an atom-based 12-14" laptop/netbook retail for $500.

I understand the forced market segmentation that is preventing it (Microsoft won't allow XP on new units with >1GB ram, and Intel won't allow atom on laptops with >10" screens) but I don't agree with the argument that the product isn't available because there would be no market for it.

But yes in the end I ended up trading in my sleek comfortable 12" form factor for a 15" behemoth that weighs a ton but was cheap nonetheless.

 

[dbcooper1]

In the laptop and especially the netbook world, performance is battery life for some of us; they need a suitable chipset to match the energy sipping Atom.

 

[phaxmohdem]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
But yes in the end I ended up trading in my sleek comfortable 12" form factor for a 15" behemoth that weighs a ton but was cheap nonetheless.

I do understand your plight, after doing a little poking around, there is a noticeable deficiency of reasonably priced, new 12 inch notebooks out there.