Intel Atom vs. Pentium-M Banias?

phaxmohdem

Golden Member
Aug 18, 2004
1,839
0
0
www.avxmedia.com
I was wondering how an Atom stacks up to the Pentium M Banias CPU. My current laptop has a 1.6gHz Banias at its heart and for me it is still plenty fast for just about everything I do with my laptop.

I've been mulling over the prospect of a nice little netbook with one of the 1.6gHz Atoms in it, and was wondering how performance would compare to my present notebook. I seem to remember Intel originally stating before Atom was released, that their goal with the project was to give it 1st gen Pentium M performance in a low wattage package.

I guess the main things I would be interested in knowing performance for are:

- basic Photo manipulation (resize, compress) using imageMagik from the command line
- LAME mp3 conversion
- archiving performance (.zip, .7z, .rar, etc)
- (edit)and I might as well add Java performance as well
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
I believe it will be slower than your current CPU.

Intel Atom Initial Benchmarking Data vs. Pentium and Celeron M Processors Before Official Release
As per the Super PI result published on the website, the Atom processor was tested at 1.6GHz for single threaded application. It was ranked second, from the last, only a bit faster than the old Pentium M (Tualatin) running at 1.13GHz frequency. However, it was not able to compete with Celeron M (Dothan) although the chip was only clocking at 900 MHz frequency.

Atom against C7-M and Celeron
On a synthetic test like Cinebench R10, you can see that the Celeron showed approximately twice the performance at an identical frequency. Still, HyperThreading let the Atom gain a few points.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
I wish they'd put an Atom processor into a laptop form factor that did not involve these tiny sub-11" screens.

A nice Atom processing packaged in a 12" or 14" laptop screen would be nice.

I don't need the horsepower for a 3GHz quad-core in my laptop, pretty sure an Atom will do nicely.

What I do want is my bits to not be cooked while the thing literally sits on my lap for hrs, and a screen that handles 1280x1024 or (ideally) 1920x1200.

But I could see Intel intentionally restricting the form factor for Atom just as Microsoft intentionally restricts the amount of ram that is allowed to be installed in an XP laptop build. No doubt Intel does not want Atom to undermine the margins of their ULV/LV line of C2D processors in those 14" screen laptops.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Originally posted by: Idontcare
I wish they'd put an Atom processor into a laptop form factor that did not involve these tiny sub-11" screens.

A nice Atom processing packaged in a 12" or 14" laptop screen would be nice.

I don't need the horsepower for a 3GHz quad-core in my laptop, pretty sure an Atom will do nicely.

What I do want is my bits to not be cooked while the thing literally sits on my lap for hrs, and a screen that handles 1280x1024 or (ideally) 1920x1200.

But I could see Intel intentionally restricting the form factor for Atom just as Microsoft intentionally restricts the amount of ram that is allowed to be installed in an XP laptop build. No doubt Intel does not want Atom to undermine the margins of their ULV/LV line of C2D processors in those 14" screen laptops.

It's not fast enough for Vista so it wouldn't be in competition with the 14"ers.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Idontcare
just as Microsoft intentionally restricts the amount of ram that is allowed to be installed in an XP laptop build.
Reference?

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_ho...with_1gb_ram_limit.htm

Microsoft's license agreement with netbook makers limit the RAM to 1GB and the HDD to 160GB (formerly 80GB). This is the limit during initial sale, and is AFAIK not a hardware or software limit. Some netbooks have a hardware limit of 1.5GB RAM (512MB onboard, single SODIMM slot supporting 1GB).
 

Concillian

Diamond Member
May 26, 2004
3,751
8
81
Originally posted by: soccerballtux


It's not fast enough for Vista so it wouldn't be in competition with the 14"ers.

not fast enough for Vista? The CPU?

I haven't seen CPU usage be anything more with Vista than any other OS (that is, extremely minimal.) Since when does an OS use much CPU time?
 

trapnine

Junior Member
Apr 27, 2005
2
0
0
I know it's been awhile since dontcare pined for a bigger Atom, but you could get the Dell Mini 12.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The Atom is for battery life and cost alone. If you want 8 hours of battery life to do basic applications on the go, Atom is perfect.

Pretty much all modern Intel/AMD cpus will outperform it significantly.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
^^ current netbooks dont givr 8 hours of batterylife

My eeePC gives me about 7 hours of general usage (with the screen dimmed to the lowest setting), and its not the best model for battery life. I write papers at work all the time (im a tutor at a college) and surf the net for my entire shift unplugged.

Shutting off the wireless controller gives me even more life, but I use wifi on campus.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: Zap
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Idontcare
just as Microsoft intentionally restricts the amount of ram that is allowed to be installed in an XP laptop build.
Reference?

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_ho...with_1gb_ram_limit.htm

Microsoft's license agreement with netbook makers limit the RAM to 1GB and the HDD to 160GB (formerly 80GB). This is the limit during initial sale, and is AFAIK not a hardware or software limit. Some netbooks have a hardware limit of 1.5GB RAM (512MB onboard, single SODIMM slot supporting 1GB).

As far as i know, all Intel based 965P boards support 2GB SODIMMs.
 

MustangSVT

Lifer
Oct 7, 2000
11,554
12
81
*limit is 2gb of ram

*it handles vista fine (with 2 gb ram) as well as windows 7

*6cell battery will give you about 6 hours with normal use even with dimmed lcd.

*but there are higher capacity batteries which can be bought frou $50ish



 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
17
81
a banias is like twice as fast per clock more or less.

The celeron M 900 in the first asus netbooks is faster than an atom 1.6 and its more or less a banias class chip (i think its a dothan but 1mb version since its a celeron so more or less a pentium M banias equivalent)
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
My 1.7 Dothan lappy kicks butt. I actually just tried ProTools 7.4 on it. Pretty potent studio recording software. I admit, it put a bit of a hurting on the Dothan, but it still recorded in real time while playing back numerous other analog audio and MIDI sequences back at the same time. I was impressed. But there is no way in hell I think an Atom can come anywhere near this. Thats just one example I had.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Originally posted by: Acanthus
As far as i know, all Intel based 965P boards support 2GB SODIMMs.

The Atom netbooks are bundled with the Mobile Intel® 945GSE Express Chipset which supports up to 2GB DDR2. You are partly right though (even if you got the chipset wrong ;) ). I've heard of people popping in a 2GB SODIMM in and having it work. However, total RAM available remained 2GB, not 2.5GB or 3GB.

Oh, and trapnine, thanks for the necro thread. Now go back to lurking!






J/K :D
 

SpeedEng66

Diamond Member
Jul 10, 2002
4,501
1
81
provided by (phaxmohdem) op in another thread
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=2275709

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
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,785
136
Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
Good info, thanks... so roughly PIII coppermine 1GHz-ish performance

It's actually not that slow. 1.6GHz Atom is in the range of ~900MHz Pentium M, which in Pentium III range it would be 1.2-1.3GHz or so. SuperPI, Sandra FP/ALU, and Cinebench tests the execution units much more than other parts of the CPU so Atom will look extra weak.

Here's the comparison of Atom 1.6GHz vs. Celeron 420 1.6GHz: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu...ws/0805/1298943_4.html

Celeron 420 is based on Core microarchitecture. The Atom is slower, but not THAT much slower(like 1/3 of performance as people are expecting).
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Idontcare
I wish they'd put an Atom processor into a laptop form factor that did not involve these tiny sub-11" screens.

A nice Atom processing packaged in a 12" or 14" laptop screen would be nice.

I don't need the horsepower for a 3GHz quad-core in my laptop, pretty sure an Atom will do nicely.

What I do want is my bits to not be cooked while the thing literally sits on my lap for hrs, and a screen that handles 1280x1024 or (ideally) 1920x1200.

But I could see Intel intentionally restricting the form factor for Atom just as Microsoft intentionally restricts the amount of ram that is allowed to be installed in an XP laptop build. No doubt Intel does not want Atom to undermine the margins of their ULV/LV line of C2D processors in those 14" screen laptops.

It's not fast enough for Vista so it wouldn't be in competition with the 14"ers.

It's not fast enough for Vista with Intel graphics. It's fine for Vista with another chipset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vniz4YamdDc
 

Dadofamunky

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2005
2,184
0
0
Hmmmf. Pretty uninspiring numbers. Good luck running Flash on that puppy. I guess it's OK for Notepad, or vi. Ick. Why would I want a PIII equivalent just so I could have a tiny notebook? I tossed my PIII five years ago. Sheesh. I know they're popular right now, but they're definitely not professional tools.
 

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,721
1
0
Originally posted by: Idontcare
I wish they'd put an Atom processor into a laptop form factor that did not involve these tiny sub-11" screens.

A nice Atom processing packaged in a 12" or 14" laptop screen would be nice.

I don't need the horsepower for a 3GHz quad-core in my laptop, pretty sure an Atom will do nicely.
Buy an eight year old laptop then? Because that's more or less what you would be getting.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,785
136
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Hmmmf. Pretty uninspiring numbers. Good luck running Flash on that puppy. I guess it's OK for Notepad, or vi. Ick. Why would I want a PIII equivalent just so I could have a tiny notebook? I tossed my PIII five years ago. Sheesh. I know they're popular right now, but they're definitely not professional tools.

It really isn't that bad. SuperPI and ALU/FPU benchmarks does not stress anything much outside the execution units. Your Core 2 Duo with 2MB cache and 45nm version with 6MB cache will perform the same on ALU/FPU benchmarks because they didn't change execution units.

Even then I am disappointed to know you guys don't know the CPU itself isn't everything about the performance. 2/3 of Athlon 64's 30% clock-for-clock superiority over Athlon XP comes from the vastly improved memory subsystem with the integrated memory controller.

If you compare the Atom and Pentium M fair and square, the Atom 1.6GHz will perform about the level of 900MHz Pentium M in single thread applications, and greater in multi-thread. Pentium M is about 30% faster per clock than Pentium III. Yes, not awe-inspiring but not useless as people here are trying to make it look.
 

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,155
0
0
Well also remember the power savings of the atom over the pentium 3....

Then again, most laptops are bottlenecked by the video chipset so you probably wont be doing any extreme graphics on most laptops. The atom alongside the GMA950 makes a nice little combo set. I only wish they would put the atom on a new damn chipset that takes less power. :(
 

Jman13

Senior member
Apr 9, 2001
811
0
76
Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
^^ current netbooks dont givr 8 hours of batterylife

My Asus D150 netbook gives 8 hours of battery life with the screen fully up and using wireless the whole time. Came with a 5800 mAh battery. :)