Atom question

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: 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.

You just know somewhere in Intel is a guy who worked on the Atom project who forwards all these comments and review article (to the annoyance of his coworkers) with a big "I TOLD YOU SO" appended to the bottom every time.

Everybodys like "sigh, :roll:, we know Bill, shut up already nostradamus and help us finish up this 32nm atom refresh would ya..."

But I agree 10x over, how they walked into that one is beyond me. Surely the top 90% of engineers, management, and marketing knew this would be the precise conclusion when Atom debuted with a 130nm chipset package and yet they did it anyways.

 

[SpeedEng66]

Originally posted by: 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?

you can get the netbooks for about 200 now

 

[SpeedEng66]

this is what my wife wants(it looks sick but my fat fingers = epic fail)
http://www.sonystyle.com/webap...parentCategoryId=16154

 

[SpeedEng66]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: 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.

You just know somewhere in Intel is a guy who worked on the Atom project who forwards all these comments and review article (to the annoyance of his coworkers) with a big "I TOLD YOU SO" appended to the bottom every time.

Everybodys like "sigh, :roll:, we know Bill, shut up already nostradamus and help us finish up this 32nm atom refresh would ya..."

But I agree 10x over, how they walked into that one is beyond me. Surely the top 90% of engineers, management, and marketing knew this would be the precise conclusion when Atom debuted with a 130nm chipset package and yet they did it anyways.

heh
or it's intel new money making idea!
how many ppl bought the original eee
just to upgrade when atom came out

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SpeedEng66

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: 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.

You just know somewhere in Intel is a guy who worked on the Atom project who forwards all these comments and review article (to the annoyance of his coworkers) with a big "I TOLD YOU SO" appended to the bottom every time.

Everybodys like "sigh, :roll:, we know Bill, shut up already nostradamus and help us finish up this 32nm atom refresh would ya..."

But I agree 10x over, how they walked into that one is beyond me. Surely the top 90% of engineers, management, and marketing knew this would be the precise conclusion when Atom debuted with a 130nm chipset package and yet they did it anyways.

heh
or it's intel new money making idea!
how many ppl bought the original eee
just to upgrade when atom came out

Bingo! You could be right about that, doesn't mean the dicky engineer ever got the memo from marketing, thus continues the office space saga...:laugh:

 

[SpeedEng66]

sorry for the delay (that killer file took forever to dl)
ffmpeg edited (28 fps)

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 ---------- 28
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

 

[judasmachine]

Looks like the Atom fits around a 1000MHz T-Bird ~ 866MHz PIII. That's a bit less then I had hoped, but after a few days with my 904HA for $319.99, I am still happy with how it runs.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: SpeedEng66
this is what my wife wants(it looks sick but my fat fingers = epic fail)
http://www.sonystyle.com/webap...parentCategoryId=16154

Those are sweet looking, and at 1.4lbs I definately see the attraction, but no way in hell would I spend $900 for an atom based netbook, I would sacrifice the little bit of extra weight and get one of the <$400 models

*edit*
When I think about it a bit more, women=style>function. When compared to a $400 handbag or pair of shoes, this might be a reasonable addition

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: 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.

pragmaticism.. a large screen means there is all that empty space underneath it, which can be filled with better batteries and hardware... Also it increases the cost, a larger screen costs more money, so pairing an expensive large screen with a crappy CPU seems like a waste.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: 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.

Correction, actually the 945GMS used on the Atom Netbooks are extremely power efficient. The TDP is at 4W.

Some f-ed up review confused 945GMS with the 945GC desktop used in the Nettops and clustered them together.

Nope, the mini-ITX Atom boards use the much more power consuming desktop 945GC chipset while all netbooks use 945GMS.

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Looks like the Atom fits around a 1000MHz T-Bird ~ 866MHz PIII. That's a bit less then I had hoped, but after a few days with my 904HA for $319.99, I am still happy with how it runs.

It'll probably end up around T-bird 1100 more often in single threaded than the 866MHz P3. Overall single thread performance is around equal to 900MHz Pentium M for the 1.6GHz Atom and Pentium M's are 30%+ faster per clock than Pentium IIIs.

Then there's multi-threading which speeds up Atom a lot.

 

[SpeedEng66]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

*edit*
When I think about it a bit more, women=style>function. When compared to a $400 handbag or pair of shoes, this might be a reasonable addition

lol very true (A bag I bought for the wifes bday was almost 300, for a bag!! now add all the crap she bought afterwards to match the bag :disgust