atom!?!?

[dealcorn]

The bandwidth of PCI is 133 MB/s per lane so 16 lanes gives you total bandwidth of 2.128 GB/s. The bandwidth of PCI-e 2.0 is 500 MB/s per lane so the total bandwidth available from the 4 PCI-e lanes provided by Atom's NM-10 is 2.0 GB/s or a decrease of 6.015%. What are you trying to do that this difference in bandwidth matters? If you need more bandwidth it is available from many vendors but those products cost more and use more electricity.

I want more bandwidth in a planned headless server so I am waiting for the Atom Xeon chip with 8 PCI-e lanes for total bandwidth of 4.0 GB/s. The chip is currently sampling but I do not know its name. The ECC memory is also nice. However, I am not going to waste any of this precious resource on a video card. Your tastes are different.

I also have ordered a N2800 Atom motherboard for silent HTPC use. I am upset that 64 bit Linux video drivers are not available today and I would have refused to buy it except that when you live on my island (Luzon), electricity costs are real high and I did not see anything that looked remotely competitive for what I was trying to do.

By the way, I run a 64 bit version of Debian on both my Atom with GUI (d510) and the one without (d525).

 

[VirtualLarry]

The bandwidth of PCI is 133 MB/s per lane so 16 lanes gives you total bandwidth of 2.128 GB/s.

WAT? PCI does not have "lanes". It's a shared bus, with a total overall bandwidth for 32-bit, 33Mhz PCI of 133MB/sec. Period.

The bandwidth of PCI-e 2.0 is 500 MB/s per lane so the total bandwidth available from the 4 PCI-e lanes provided by Atom's NM-10 is 2.0 GB/s

That much is correct.

or a decrease of 6.015%. What are you trying to do that this difference in bandwidth matters? If you need more bandwidth it is available from many vendors but those products cost more and use more electricity.

The difference between 2.0GB/sec and 133MB/sec is quite significant, either for graphics, or for storage.

 

[dealcorn]

WAT? PCI does not have "lanes". It's a shared bus, with a total overall bandwidth for 32-bit, 33Mhz PCI of 133MB/sec. Period.


That much is correct.


The difference between 2.0GB/sec and 133MB/sec is quite significant, either for graphics, or for storage.

You caught me speeding. I screwed up. Is the correct calculation is that Atom went from the 133 MB/s of the 330 to 2.0 GB/s on the NM-10 (a 15 times increase in bandwidth). What am I missing or is that a really big increase that enables people to do lots of stuff they could not do before?.

 

[anikhtos]

The bandwidth of PCI is 133 MB/s per lane so 16 lanes gives you total bandwidth of 2.128 GB/s. The bandwidth of PCI-e 2.0 is 500 MB/s per lane so the total bandwidth available from the 4 PCI-e lanes provided by Atom's NM-10 is 2.0 GB/s or a decrease of 6.015%. What are you trying to do that this difference in bandwidth matters? If you need more bandwidth it is available from many vendors but those products cost more and use more electricity.

I want more bandwidth in a planned headless server so I am waiting for the Atom Xeon chip with 8 PCI-e lanes for total bandwidth of 4.0 GB/s. The chip is currently sampling but I do not know its name. The ECC memory is also nice. However, I am not going to waste any of this precious resource on a video card. Your tastes are different.

I also have ordered a N2800 Atom motherboard for silent HTPC use. I am upset that 64 bit Linux video drivers are not available today and I would have refused to buy it except that when you live on my island (Luzon), electricity costs are real high and I did not see anything that looked remotely competitive for what I was trying to do.

By the way, I run a 64 bit version of Debian on both my Atom with GUI (d510) and the one without (d525).

pci-e was 250mb/s not 133
so 16 full lanes was 4gb combared with the 4 lanes at nm10
which in some mobos are used to lan or other aspects leaving you one lane
so even if you have 4 lanes at the mobo thats 2gb
a decrease of 50%
plus at old atom i found and own a mobo with also another pci-e x1
so totaly 17 lanes in the mobo.

 

[dealcorn]

I thought we were discussing whether Atom has improved over the years. The introductory motherboard was D945GCLF2 and it's description is still available on the ARK http://ark.intel.com/products/42491/Intel-Desktop-Board-D945GCLF2. Intel seems to think it had a single PCI slot and no PCI-e at all. That also matches the burned out motherboard I am looking at (really cheap power supplies sometime bust stuff). If you have knowledge that the 330 Atom was introduced with some different expansion capabilities, could you kindly share same with us.

As long as we are on this topic, given the increased bandwidth Intel has committed to Atom processors, I wonder how the IGD built in to Cedar Trail compares to the best PCI graphics card other than the 30 =/ 29.97 issue that some people can see. I guess we will have to wait for the NDA expiration before we can get meaningful benchmarks.

 

[anikhtos]

I thought we were discussing whether Atom has improved over the years. The introductory motherboard was D945GCLF2 and it's description is still available on the ARK http://ark.intel.com/products/42491/Intel-Desktop-Board-D945GCLF2. Intel seems to think it had a single PCI slot and no PCI-e at all. That also matches the burned out motherboard I am looking at (really cheap power supplies sometime bust stuff). If you have knowledge that the 330 Atom was introduced with some different expansion capabilities, could you kindly share same with us.

As long as we are on this topic, given the increased bandwidth Intel has committed to Atom processors, I wonder how the IGD built in to Cedar Trail compares to the best PCI graphics card other than the 30 =/ 29.97 issue that some people can see. I guess we will have to wait for the NDA expiration before we can get meaningful benchmarks.

yes but because intel mainboard for first gen where with only pci slots it does not mean that all manufaucters built atom boards with pci slots.
i found a bought a uatx mainboard of atom 330 with 965 chipset
which had one full pci-e x16 v1.0 one pci-e x1 v1.0 and one pci.
so in the first generation atom because of the chipset you could have 17 pci lanes even if they were 1.0.
thus in second generation the 4 lanes are a 50% decrease in bandwith
53% if you count that i had a mainboard with 17 pci lanes
so that does not make newer atom worse???

 

[ultimatebob]

D945GCLF

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D945GSEJT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D525MW

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D425KT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D510MO

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D410PT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

DN2800MT

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700MUD

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2700DC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500HN

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

D2500CC

32-bit only
32-bit only
32-bit only​

I can't speak for companies that I don't work for but with the Intel® Atom™ based boards and the systems that we have released it seems that we don't support any 64bit OS. Support is generally more than just having drivers it also means that technical support will also help you with the product with issues that may come up with that OS. For all of the Intel Atom based board above that we have release there is no 64bit support. The Intel® Atom™ processors that are used may be em64t and able to run a 64bit OS but we are not supporting them in a 64bit OS. So ECS may have written some drivers for Windows XP 64bit but we are not. I guess we will have to disagree in that I believe that the Intel Atom based processors are more capable today then what they have been in the past for what they were designed for.

Wow... that really sucks. We currently use the Intel Atom D525 processor, which supports 64bit Linux with the system board that we're using. That makes the D2700 a downgrade as far as I'm concerned, since now I need to support multiple versions of Linux for my embedded product line if I want support from Intel, apparently.

Tell your bosses that they screwed up, Intel Enthusiast.

 

[anikhtos]

Wow... that really sucks. We currently use the Intel Atom D525 processor, which supports 64bit Linux with the system board that we're using. That makes the D2700 a downgrade as far as I'm concerned, since now I need to support multiple versions of Linux for my embedded product line if I want support from Intel, apparently.

Tell your bosses that they screwed up, Intel Enthusiast.

another one that agrees with me
that the atom line is goign from bad to worse

 

[NTMBK]

I agree with OP! Personally, I think Atom is CRAP, and should never have been developed. It's an interesting concept, sure. But it brings about the idea of "just barely good enough" computing, and that idea is incompatible with the performance ecosystem of existing x86 designs. I look forward to faster, better desktop CPUs, not "slow, same performance, but lower power". I could, within reason, give a crap less about power-consumption. (Currently rocking an AMD X6.)

Atom is a clear step BACKWARDS in the desktop computing world.

There's a simple reason for that; Atom ISN'T DESIGNED FOR A TRADITIONAL DESKTOP. It's for incredibly small and low powered applications. If you want a decently powerful desktop CPU at a fair price, go buy a freaking Pentium.

 

[dealcorn]

yes but because intel mainboard for first gen where with only pci slots it does not mean that all manufaucters built atom boards with pci slots.
i found a bought a uatx mainboard of atom 330 with 965 chipset
which had one full pci-e x16 v1.0 one pci-e x1 v1.0 and one pci.
so in the first generation atom because of the chipset you could have 17 pci lanes even if they were 1.0.
thus in second generation the 4 lanes are a 50% decrease in bandwith
53% if you count that i had a mainboard with 17 pci lanes
so that does not make newer atom worse???

You are correct that some manufacturers offered the 330 with the 965 chip set which permitted a total of 17 PCI-e v.1 lanes at 250 MB/s each. This is more than double the bandwidth of 4 PCI-2 v2 lanes at 500 MB/s each. I am not aware that Intel ever paired the 330 with 965 on an Intel motherboard. I suspect their perspective favored a more balanced approach rather than a spec driven approach. It is old news that Atom's Bonnell core is not a valid platform for meaningful gaming. I personally see the need for more bandwidth to support a beserko raid6 configuration for an archival storage server. I remain surprised that folks see a need for more than 2.0 GB/s bandwidth for video in a non gaming environment, but to each their own.

Even with the unreleased Xeon Atom, while they will give you 8 PCI-e lanes, you will not get any IGD. Intel has its own sense of what makes a platform balanced and tries to do something reasonable.

Also, Intel has already gone public that Atom will move to Ivy Bridge graphics which will eliminate the ability of a third party to screw things up. From your perspective, this is a disaster because when paired with a goosed out-of-order quad core, there is the potential that Atom becomes a semi credible low end gaming platform.

 

[anikhtos]

You are correct that some manufacturers offered the 330 with the 965 chip set which permitted a total of 17 PCI-e v.1 lanes at 250 MB/s each. This is more than double the bandwidth of 4 PCI-2 v2 lanes at 500 MB/s each. I am not aware that Intel ever paired the 330 with 965 on an Intel motherboard. I suspect their perspective favored a more balanced approach rather than a spec driven approach. It is old news that Atom's Bonnell core is not a valid platform for meaningful gaming. I personally see the need for more bandwidth to support a beserko raid6 configuration for an archival storage server. I remain surprised that folks see a need for more than 2.0 GB/s bandwidth for video in a non gaming environment, but to each their own.

Even with the unreleased Xeon Atom, while they will give you 8 PCI-e lanes, you will not get any IGD. Intel has its own sense of what makes a platform balanced and tries to do something reasonable.

Also, Intel has already gone public that Atom will move to Ivy Bridge graphics which will eliminate the ability of a third party to screw things up. From your perspective, this is a disaster because when paired with a goosed out-of-order quad core, there is the potential that Atom becomes a semi credible low end gaming platform.

the question is are new itnel atoms get worse every generation or not
by lacking some ascpects the previous had
and since you mention it
e3-1220l is a 20 watt procesor without any igp
there is always i3-2100t with 35 watt consume and igp
so where that leaves atom?!?!?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2100t_11.html
interesting reading
with double the power consumption you get 4 times the cpu power
or even worse at light work you have similar power consumption

atom was a handicaped procesor from day one
well maybe not that handicaped cuase it is 3-4 years
but in those years perfomance is practically the same
330 to d525 to d2700 what is the % improvement??
and to make things worse for the platform they start handicapting the procesor even more every generation
i compare atom generation not atom with xeons or what ever cpu out there
and if we start compering then only price?!?!?? or ignorance keeps the sale of atom these days
asus at5iont-i cost 145 euro
i3-2100t cost 125 euro
so what leaves atom at price ?!!? for 40-50 euro more you have the same capable platform at wattage and 4 times better
worths the 50 euro more my book

 

[podspi]

People who are concerned about the Atom's performance really don't get what this thing is about. If you are looking for a budget box that still delivers for gaming, Atom isn't your cup of tea.

However for certain use cases it is actually far superior to Brazos simply because of better software compatibility (owing to its ubiquity, not anything special Intel has done), especially on Linux. I have two Atom boxes in my home: one is in my Synology NAS, the other is in one of my XBMC front end boxes mated to a bunch of other low power kit including a successor to the ION2 platform (this is a Cedar Trail based system) for 1080p hardware decode.

When it comes to a use case that involve embedded systems, the priorities look like this:

1) Enough performance to run your given use cases.
2) Compatibility.
3) Power consumption.
4) Cost.
.
.
.
5) Everything else.

What compatibility issues do Brazos have? I haven't had a compatibility issue with a CPU in a very long time. Like before the K6.

That being said, I agree Atom is fine for some tasks. I have an old Netbook running as a file server/print server in my home.

 

[sm625]

Intel has really failed with the atom. It's still a success for them I suppose, but compared to the potential, it is a failure. They need to take the atom core and reduce its power even more. Then take that ultra low power core and merge it right into their larger x86 designs. They need to do this because they are so dependent on microsoft, and microsoft operating systems wont let a cpu run in a reduced power state. Even if you're just staring at your desktop, or the new start screen on windows 8, there is still a LOT of cpu work going on in the background. This keeps the cpu awake all the time. On iOS, if you're just staring at the home screen, or sometimes even just staring at a web page, the cpu is asleep. It isnt just mostly idle. The thing is actually asleep. Then it wakes up when needed, all transparent to the user. In windows, the cpu might reduce its speed, but it is still sucking a ridiculous amount of power. Better than in the past, but still many more watts than needed. This is where atom comes in. If Intel wants to compete they need a low power x86 core that can process idle tasks and allow 97% of the cpu die to be powered down.

 

[anikhtos]

Intel has really failed with the atom. It's still a success for them I suppose, but compared to the potential, it is a failure. They need to take the atom core and reduce its power even more. Then take that ultra low power core and merge it right into their larger x86 designs. They need to do this because they are so dependent on microsoft, and microsoft operating systems wont let a cpu run in a reduced power state. Even if you're just staring at your desktop, or the new start screen on windows 8, there is still a LOT of cpu work going on in the background. This keeps the cpu awake all the time. On iOS, if you're just staring at the home screen, or sometimes even just staring at a web page, the cpu is asleep. It isnt just mostly idle. The thing is actually asleep. Then it wakes up when needed, all transparent to the user. In windows, the cpu might reduce its speed, but it is still sucking a ridiculous amount of power. Better than in the past, but still many more watts than needed. This is where atom comes in. If Intel wants to compete they need a low power x86 core that can process idle tasks and allow 97% of the cpu die to be powered down.

or maybe just give us a 20 watt atom which will actually will have the muscle to do something or at least stop making every generation worse and worse
if atom was not that cripled in characteristic could have made an excellent cpu for nas even with its low envelope of 10 watt
and why not replace some light weight web servers.
after all internet was here at the age of p4 and atom is comperable to an p4 in perfomanse.
yes a low power cpu has a market to cover
yes there will be people that will matter watt more than an yother thing
but at least give to that poor cpu some characteristic do not strip it down every generation
fewer pci-e lanes adding a raid card for nas is hmmmmmm limited at the best
no 64bit support loose a 25% of the theoretical max memory from
4giga to effectively 3.2
i do not see supermicro upgrade its server line mobo of atom

 

[dealcorn]

the question is are new itnel atoms get worse every generation or not
by lacking some ascpects the previous had....

Intel has focused on moving Atom towards lean rather than bulking up by providing capabilities that are better served in the Celeron or Pentium lines. For some reason Intel thinks it is a big deal to move the platform to a point where it can capture mobility market share. Looks like they are having some success so I can see where they are coming from. As I am fond of disposable prepaid cells, I have no skin in that game.

However, I do not need any separate video device to be delighted with an Atom N2800 in a silent HTPC context at 1080p. I am upset that my Nvidia ION card burned out my case fan and then overheated and died. I want to move to a fully, passively cooled solution that consumes roughly half the electricity of the old set up and has a decent clock speed bump over the d510 which I already know provides livable performance for what I want to do. It is lots cheaper than any Atom/ION package even before you factor in the value of a reduced electricity bill and equipment that is less likely to self destruct. For an archival storage server running RAID6 with a hot spare, CPU performance means almost nothing as long as you can get to 11 sata ports and an Ethernet connection to boot off of (no need to waste a sata port on a boot drive).

Atom is Intel's low end CPU and basically anyone's x86 CPU should be able to outperform it on a bunch of benchmarks. The appeal of Atom is how delightful it can be if you appreciate and respect what it is capable of. Recently it has done pretty well in the NAS market and is gaining share in embedded markets. However, with Cedar Trail, Atom looks increasingly attractive for a HTPC if you value cheap, silent, and real skinny (in both the energy use and motherboard height senses.)

Still, it is never going to play Crysis at 32 NM. If that is your thing, look at Pentiums or if you are far enough North, look for a chip that can double as a space heater. I run a lean operating system which I believe Anand suggested in one of his intro pieces. If it is important to you to run many heavy background processes, I would not be surprised if your Atom experience is not good. I keep coming back to the question of what non gaming application are people running that requires more than PCI-e 2.0 x4 video.

To make a lean chip Intel committed to mainstream requirements in spec'ing NM-10. I think you are saying they did it wrong. Lets watch customer acceptance to get a sense of how well or poorly they did.

 

[anikhtos]

Intel has focused on moving Atom towards lean rather than bulking up by providing capabilities that are better served in the Celeron or Pentium lines. For some reason Intel thinks it is a big deal to move the platform to a point where it can capture mobility market share. Looks like they are having some success so I can see where they are coming from. As I am fond of disposable prepaid cells, I have no skin in that game.

However, I do not need any separate video device to be delighted with an Atom N2800 in a silent HTPC context at 1080p. I am upset that my Nvidia ION card burned out my case fan and then overheated and died. I want to move to a fully, passively cooled solution that consumes roughly half the electricity of the old set up and has a decent clock speed bump over the d510 which I already know provides livable performance for what I want to do. It is lots cheaper than any Atom/ION package even before you factor in the value of a reduced electricity bill and equipment that is less likely to self destruct. For an archival storage server running RAID6 with a hot spare, CPU performance means almost nothing as long as you can get to 11 sata ports and an Ethernet connection to boot off of (no need to waste a sata port on a boot drive).

Atom is Intel's low end CPU and basically anyone's x86 CPU should be able to outperform it on a bunch of benchmarks. The appeal of Atom is how delightful it can be if you appreciate and respect what it is capable of. Recently it has done pretty well in the NAS market and is gaining share in embedded markets. However, with Cedar Trail, Atom looks increasingly attractive for a HTPC if you value cheap, silent, and real skinny (in both the energy use and motherboard height senses.)

Still, it is never going to play Crysis at 32 NM. If that is your thing, look at Pentiums or if you are far enough North, look for a chip that can double as a space heater. I run a lean operating system which I believe Anand suggested in one of his intro pieces. If it is important to you to run many heavy background processes, I would not be surprised if your Atom experience is not good. I keep coming back to the question of what non gaming application are people running that requires more than PCI-e 2.0 x4 video.

To make a lean chip Intel committed to mainstream requirements in spec'ing NM-10. I think you are saying they did it wrong. Lets watch customer acceptance to get a sense of how well or poorly they did.

i do not expect to play games
or i did not expect in the first place atom to break any speed records
i expected to be a slow but higly slow machine.
but intel cutting the characteristic of the atom to shift it to another market?!?!?
i think thats why there was a 230/330 option in the first place
for the desktop market
not neetop not any other device but for the desktop
and 230/330 was found only in desktop mainboard if i remember correct
from that first attempt intel is killing the atom
franly i find e0350 or e-450 much better deal than atom any more.
and no 64 bit support and having some mainboard manufacteurs that actually disabled 64bit suppor ton bios on mainboard thus making incapable of installing any 64 os not plain windows
cause intel removed all graphic drivers for 64 os for the latest atom
if you see some post up in the link at tomshardware you will see that a jetway mobo has disabled the 64 bit feuture of the cpu.
so that does not make the new atom worse from the older one?
asus has e450 with completly passive cooling also

 

[dealcorn]

I am comfortable deferring to the judgment of mainstream consumers. They can generally be trusted to make an accurate assessment of what they want even when knowledgeable experts sometimes get it wrong.

 

[anikhtos]

I am comfortable deferring to the judgment of mainstream consumers. They can generally be trusted to make an accurate assessment of what they want even when knowledgeable experts sometimes get it wrong.

me too especially when they still think that there are still small peopel inside the box that give the answers. the majority of the people know nothing about computers. they buy cause someone told them to by that not because they made a market decision. so the market you refer is so victim of the salesperson in the computer shop.
at the first p4 era when it was shiped with both rambus and sdram
if used with sdram you had a -30% penalty you know how many shops advertised a p4 system cheaper than expected
and you can guess it was not paired with rambus
people bought them though p4 was the fastest they could go.
it could have been if paired with rambus not plain ram.
actually amd was faster but that days noone trusted amd
so because the salesperson said intel is faster and made a sale
that means that the market is driven corectly?
well i think intel may not really know how some products of her lines are sold in the market
if there are really people that going for them
or it is simply the policy of a store to sell them???

 

[Olikan]

you know that one chips sucks, when even VIA can be competitive with it

 

[anikhtos]

you know that one chips sucks, when even VIA can be competitive with it

no it is not that atom sucks or it is slow
maybe it is because via has an excelent chip very fast
warp speed fast lol

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Let me see if I got this right...

What Atom was originally intended for:

What people used Atom for instead:

Last intel desktop cpu that was as slow as Atom:

People that don't understand benchmarks and spec sheets:

 

[anikhtos]

Let me see if I got this right...

What Atom was originally intended for:



What people used Atom for instead:



Last intel desktop cpu that was as slow as Atom:



People that don't understand benchmarks and spec sheets:

nope we argue if every generation of atom is gettign worse or not

 

[Topweasel]

nope we argue if every generation of atom is gettign worse or not

No, the contention isn't whether its getting worse or if it is getting closer to eventual goal.

What you haven't yet tried to explain is what you are trying to use an Atom in that can't be done with a low power Pentium. They have these down to damn near 10 watts now. The original Atom was 8 watts. You seem to think that when you are buying a new Atom, you are buying a CPU made for same job as the Atom you purchased 3 years ago. What I and others have been trying to get you to understand, that the Atom chip sold 3 years ago was to fill a void that the current Core2dou's and first Gen i5/i3's could not. The Atom CPU was never meant to supplant their bigger faster chips, but to expand market penetration. It isn't supposed to get faster or better, it is supposed to get smaller and use even less power, because those are the markets that Intel want to grow into that they still can not get a SB based chip into.

Look at it this way Atom was first put into 7-10" laptops that people could run for hours on single tasks and cost ~$300. That is what the Atom needed to do at the time. Now fast forward for $350 you can get a dual core Pentium G series, at 15" that can run circles around that atom chip and the combined power savings from SB and Win7 means it lasts just as long as those Atom based netbooks ever did. Intel isn't interest in spending development costs of a more advanced Atom that fits only in a specific window between the current Atom and the Pentium G, specially when IB and its power savings will again bring their major processor line into what the Atom had typically filled.

Stop being obsessed over the Atom name. It will save you a lot of anguish.

 

[RU482]

I wouldn't say atom is going from Bad to worse.
I benchmarked an N2800 vs N450 vs Z530 systems. Even taking into account the speed bump on the N2800, there is a significant performance gain (CPU and graphics) with this latest generation, and also a significant battery life gain.

 

[LoneNinja]

Atom is getting better with every generation in my honest opinion, it is a product line designed for extremely low power and mobile usage, which its getting better at! It isn't designed for desktop/server use, there is no reason a tablet/phone needs to support 64bit, and there is no need for it to grow more powerful right now as it's target is better performance/watt for mobile use!

I would never buy an Atom to slap in a desktop or regular laptop, for the same reasons I would never buy a Tegra 2 or any other ARM chip for that use.