Intel's Atom — First Benchmarks and a Full PC Review 155
Barence writes "PC Pro has received, benchmarked and discussed the first Intel Atom processor to be seen in the wild. A full analysis of the Atom processor itself is accompanied by a full review of the first PC — yes it's a PC, not a laptop — to use one. The benchmark results are pretty much as expected, but it's the power savings that really excite. And as a rep from the PC maker, Tranquil, joked — they could have left the Atom CPU uncooled if they'd really wanted to prove a point, as it's the old graphics chip that produces 70% of the heat coming from the motherboard. Exciting times ahead for the upcoming Atom-based Eee and friends."
MojoKid was one of several readers, too, to mention the upcoming
Eee Box mini-desktop from Asus (also Atom-based), which is supposed to start from $299, writing "although the actual dimensions are listed,
the image from ASUS' booth really gives a sense of scale. In the picture,
the Eee Box is standing next to a paperback book."
AMD competition (Score:5, Funny)
That is all.
Re:AMD competition (Score:5, Funny)
Fallout Boy could sing the ad jingle.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AMD competition (Score:5, Funny)
Intel's Atom is copying AMD's Geode (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Atom benchmarks against Celeron-M and Pentium-M (Score:5, Informative)
Nice benchmarks (Score:2)
The single 128-bit SSE unit in the Atom compares favorably with the dual 64-bit SSE units in the Pentium M, which is why the Atom approaches performance parity with the similarly-clocked Dothan in the media tests (video, audio). The only processor to maintain a significant lead is the one with TWO 128-bit SSE units, the Celeron. Media performance is one place the Atom will not falter; it is very impressi
Small Server (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Small Server (Score:5, Insightful)
1. There is a correlation between seniority and intelligence/common sense in many things. There may and can be outliers. Out of 99,999 users, you'd be bound to find a few trolls.
2. More likely it's because the poster seems to not care at all about a tiny 2W processor with reasonable performance. It's a fairly big step, but his choice of wording suggests he's completely... indignant.
"Car manufacturer comes out with car that gets 230 mpg"
Pfft. I'll care when they do that and give me a nice 0-60 time and 120 top speed. Oh, and when they seat 4 people.
OR
That's impressive, but the real test will be to see if they can make the vehicle usable, maintaining enough appeal to overcome American bias to large, powerful cars.
They say the same things, but there's a world of difference between how they come off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW: VW is claiming they will be making their "1 Liter Car" in 2010... 1 liter per 100km is just over 235 MPG. I
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay ... I'll admit, I don't work with metric units regularly, so I was curious.
100 KM = ~62.1371192237 Miles.
1 Liter = ~0.219969248299 Gallons.
So, a full gallon should go ~4.54609 times the distance or ~282.48093633 Miles.
Thats almost 50 Miles "Just over 235 MPG"!
Yes, I know there are probably other fac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah ... that'll do it then :)
... sigh.
Not only do we use a non-standard unit, but we use a non-standard unit of that unit?
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I didn't pluck 230 randomly out of the air, though I did mis-remember the number slightly
It'd be nice, but safety will be a concern. It's fairly safe for it's
Re:Small Server (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Small Server (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ooooh, tell us another story, Grandpa! Maybe about walking to school or making electricity from lemons, then making lemonade cause wasting is a sin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone will prove me wrong!?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it honestly saturates the dual GbE ports, but it does have either 4 or 8 SATA ports, and a compact flash socket for good measure. Unfortunately it has a Integrated VIA UniChromeâ Pro graphics with 2D/3D and MPEG-2 video accelerators, a serial console would be far more useful.
Even more unfortunately I can only find it on sale as part of a development kit for 300GBP, which is rather expensive.
Mind you it has occurred to me recently that even if it could
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought you implied, by saying that you *didn't* want an "old inefficient 3D video accelerator", that you wanted a "modern efficient 3D accelerator". Especially, because you specified it, and they said you needed PCIe. What's the PCIe going to be for?
I understand the need for a low-power, multi-GigE-NIC, multi-SATA server... However, I was a bit mystified that you needed an extra PCIe. Oh, a few USB would be nice to use USB harddisks for backup or something....
So, contrary to what you might think, we
Re: (Score:2)
These boards described have the intel GMA950 (which as far as I know isn't meant to be a low power device). I don't really get that... some super efficient low power chip, with a desktop chipset. I would have expected them to use some laptop or MID chipset, however owing to the multitude of Intel chipsets I don't really know which one that would be.
Personally I would be happiest with a micro watt 2D VGA sort of device.
Now as far as PCIe goes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patience, friend.
You will get what you want. It will just take some time. They're going to flood the consumer electronics market first.
The server gurus will be breaking this stuff down in their labs and building up the boxes you want soon. That's what they do.
No doubt there are engineers at CAD stations around the world right now working out how many of these Atom chips you can fit in a classic 5.25" 1/2 height drive bay.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone wake me up when theyÃ(TM)re selling a board which has a few GigE network ports (and can really saturate them), at least 4 SATA II ports, and one PCIe Slot. I don't really want some old inefficient 3D video accelerator either.
Here. [justfuckinggoogleit.com] Get yourself a Core2 capable Mini-ITX motherboard with two gigE ports, 6 SATA ports (port-multiplier capable as well) and a PCIe x16 slot.
If you need more, you're well beyond "small server". Heck, that's more than enough grunt for the average office fileserver.
Re: (Score:2)
but I'll probably windup with something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Core2 isn't doing 2 watts... yet.
Low end and mobile derivatives, however, are in single figures (or damn close to it) - and they provide a lot more processing power, which you're going to need if you want to get anywhere near "saturating" multiple gigE links.
Which brings up another point. For that sort of network bandwidth, you're going to need 2-4 drives, depending on how much redundancy you want. At ~15W each, they're going to chew up a fair swag of electricity on their own. At least, I assume you're
Re: (Score:2)
I also recognize that other solutions may offer a better alternative but felt that those were no really on topic. If it can be done at 2 watts great otherwise I'll
Re: (Score:2)
There are 320GB 2.5" drives at 7200RPM with a 24x7 rating coming on the market now. The power consumption for these is about 2~2.5W in use, with 5W at spin up.
If I could get an Atom based board with no audio, no video, no PS/2 etc. I could probably shave another 5W of the total.
As for CPU, I had a dual processor 2.8GHz Xeon at my last place of work, proper ser
Re: (Score:2)
There are 320GB 2.5" drives at 7200RPM with a 24x7 rating coming on the market now. The power consumption for these is about 2~2.5W in use, with 5W at spin up.
At twice the price of a 3.5" hard disk. How much is eleectricity where you live ?
Not to mention, if performance isn't important (which it clearly isn't in a discussion about Atom-based machines and 2.5" hard disks) and power consumption is, why wouldn't you just get a cheaper 5400rpm drive that uses less power ? For the end user, it's going to gi
Re: (Score:2)
Echoes of the "Sidewinder" (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the main downfall of that endeavor was that 1) the computers weren't Intel compatible, or Mac compatible, so you had to use Linux or BSD on them (and would have needed an Intel emulator on top of that to run any binaries compiled for Intel), I think, in order to keep them small and relatively cheap (they were still, I think, like 600 bucks, so kind of expensive, considering you could get generic PC's for about 400) and 3) the company that produced them was too small and simply lacked the funding necessary to survive in any case.
Still, I've always thought tiny-form factor PCs were nifty. If you could get one that was powerful enough, with decent enough video, you could use them as the basis for your own set-top boxes, routers, and things like that, or even just a small, low-power, inconspicuous server.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And that was the regular price.
Not saying that it was any good, mind you, but it was $499. And I think the lowest-end model was $399.
(166MHz CPU that's slower than a 60MHz Pentium? Check. 16 MB RAM... but 2 MB was stolen by the integrated graphics? Check. Proprietary 3" Western Digital hard drive (not 3.5", not 2.5"?) Check.)
Re: (Score:2)
At least it was OSR2.1, and not something like the original retail release.
Re:Echoes of the "Sidewinder" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ever heard of Soekris [soekris.com]? That's what you are asking for....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Echoes of the "Sidewinder" (Score:4, Informative)
That's it! (Score:2)
Re:Echoes of the "Sidewinder" (Score:5, Informative)
One is the Alpha-based DEC Multia/UDB [obsolyte.com], from way back in the mid '90s. LITTLE-KNOWN FACT: Slashdot was originally run on one of these.
The other is the StrongARM-based Netwinder [linuxjournal.com], which appeared around the year 2000.
They did have one thing in common other than their size - they both tended to overheat if they weren't stood up vertically.
I was thinking of the Netwinder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Sidewinder was based on an ARM processor.
Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?
Re: (Score:1)
They probably assume people will go for the most hard-drive space when they purchase their computer. So it is probably a ploy to get these people to buy a copy of XP separately and raise sales.
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no URL to back this up, but I know M$ only allows XP to be preloaded on low-end PCs. This is to keep the Vista numbers up. Maybe that's why?
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:5, Funny)
> to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?
Don't you know? MS would like to encourage users to switch to alternative operating systems. Bill Gates himself said:
> "Guys like us avoid monopolies. We like to compete."
They're crafting a challenge for themselves (:
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:5, Informative)
Snarky answers aside, MS is selling XP for miniature devices at a very, very low price, far lower than XP normally goes for. This allows OEMs to hit the low prices they want, as otherwise Windows would be a very big piece of the price. But Microsoft also had to keep the OEMs from installing this version of XP in place of a full version, so they set up fairly arbitrary limitations that ensure that it's only installed in such miniature (read: underpowered) devices. It's basically the same chain of logic as to why XP/Vista Starter Editions are so cheap; cheap Windows is for cheap devices, and hardware restrictions are a way to enforce that.
Also keep in mind that normal XP is also being retired (sales are ending) at the end of this month, MS doesn't want XP selling for so long that it's still in use in 2014 when long-term support ends, which might happen if it could be slapped on new high-powered computers after their cut-off date. This also spirals off in to the point that MS wants to retire XP sooner than later for API and security reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell is a joke on their machine configurations too - even though they've got discounts on most everything right now, an XP laptop (well, the 1520 vs Vista's 1525) is limited in CPU speed so the comparison is:
$1076: Inspiron 1525 w Vista 1680x1050(15.4") 2.4GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD 85Whr battery
or
$1091: Inspiron 1520 w XP Pro 1680x1050(15.4") 2.0GHz 2GB RAM 120GB HD (+Intel Wireless N card)
Upgrade the RAM and replace the battery and hard drive to have almost equivalent specs (plus an extra lower-capacity battery) +50 + 169 + 100 = +319 = $1,410! So Vista is getting a $300 discount!
Dell's pricing is often perplexing to me, but note that the Inspiron 1525 (with Vista) price includes "Instant Savings...$389," but the Inspiron 1520 (with XP) has no limited-time deal this week. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the XP Inspirons never gets these deals.
Also, in case you missed it, the Inspiron 1525's (Vista) chassis has significant updates over the Inspiron 1520 (XP). The 1525 is slimmer (1.00"-1.48" vs 1.47"-1.65"), lighter (5.9 lbs vs 6.4 lbs), and adds a HDMI output. So even if we disr
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect UMPC's to be capable of running Vista at that point
Re:Microsoft as Hardware Cop? (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably Microsoft's idea of a low-spec machine is something with 80GB of hard disk space, which is why they won't sell it to go on machines with more.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows XP is now only available for UMPCs, and other low-spec machines that can't run Vista.
Incorrect, but still modded up as "Informative." As others have pointed out, a special low-cost version of Windows XP has these hardware limits, specifically [techreport.com] (for laptops):
"Regular" versions of Windows XP are still available for high-end PCs, but they're getting difficult to find on "home or home office" PCs. It's still very easy to find XP on "business" PCs like Lenovo's ThinkPad/ThinkCentre PCs or on Dell's "Small
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doh, I just order the EEE PC 20g last night. (Score:3, Funny)
All well, it still looks cool.
Re: (Score:1)
Some thoughts about the article (Score:2, Interesting)
First, as we all know, power consumption is becoming more and more relevant. A quick google search a low-power server (meant for 24x7) draws 50 Watts, comparable to a light bulb. If we can get decent performance topping at 5 watts (leaving some margins for intel), you can save 90% of a big part of your power bill straight away. That alone predicts success for Intel, at least in the long term if we wait for the next hardware replacement cycle at the big companies.
Also, looki
So, if I read that right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
at 50% more power usage too.
Well, the Atom is 4W TPD while the C7 is 20W. Given that the Atom is a later generation process (45nm vs 65nm), this makes sense. I'd expect Isaiah aka Via Nano is going to do better (although not quite as good as Atom) once they get it into 45nm.
For a desktop machine, that's not as big a deal as it sounds though, because the matching "low power" northbridge and graphics tend to be a TDP of 5-20W by themselves. They mention in the article that 70% of the heat in the test system is generated by the 9
Re:So, if I read that right (Score:5, Informative)
OK, So I checked and to get a closer comparison of two new chips (the C7 is several years old now), Intel Atom (45nm) vs Via Nano (65nm).
Atom = 4 W.
Nano = 17W.
Keep in mind that the C7 has been shown to be faster than the Atom, and the Nano is twice as fast as the C7. On a performance/watt basis that puts Nano much closer to the Atom than even I thought.
Nano=17W at 1.6Ghz, 5W at 1Gz (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Acer announces £199 ($400) laptop base (Score:2)
Will someone please think of the thinkpads!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone? Bueller?
Long live battery life (Score:5, Informative)
While the Atom certainly delivers impressive power statistics compared to our typical laptop processors, they are still far from the level of the ARM family. A recent article on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] will explain why. ARM processors are by far the most common processor on the low power frontier and the reason seems apparent; even at 1GHz they claim to reach operational power consumption around 300mW [arm.com]. Now, granted, it is on a RISC instruction set, but their upcoming Cortex-A9 [arm.com] will support multicore and starts to sound like a very interesting alternative for a notebook processor.
Could someone drop me a message as soon as those things start entering the market?
Re: (Score:2)
Ummmm (Score:2)
What's the blursted wattage?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if everyone is going green you'd think they would want to advertise that their little box is energy efficient.
[\rant]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How power efficient are LCD's these days? (Score:2)
Transmeta - Crusoe (Score:5, Interesting)
You remember Transmeta. Linus worked there. Stock started out around $20/share. I bought $4000 worth. The darn thing tanked, reverse split, and tanked some more. I have about $35 worth of this company now. Yep, rode it all the way down.
But now that Intel is making a realllllly low power processor, it is big news. I hope Transmeta gets some new orders because of this.
Oh yeah, Transmeta claims about a dozen or patents have been infringed upon by Intel in the production of this chip. So we just might have a new SCO. (At least I never bought any SCO stock.)
Asus have missed a trick here (Score:2)
It's dinky, stylish enough to have in your living room, presumably pretty quiet, cheap, and more powerful than reusing an old box. What's not to like? (and if you get the bluetooth option, you can get One of these [logitech.com], or so
That's not a paperback book (Score:3, Informative)
That's a rather deceptive statement. The /. summary could have just said the dimensions ( 8.5" x 7" x 1" ) rather than taking more space to say they were given in the article. But the book used is not the size of what most readers have come to know as a "paperback book". While it is not a hard cover book, it is the size of a hard cover book, known as a "trade book" in the industry, not a much smaller paperback. And unfortunately, the picture doesn't give much else in the way of a reference, so may people are likely suckered into this belief that the computer is the size of a paperback. It's still a nicely compact system, I don't dispute that, but there seems to be an effort here to mislead.
It's sad to see more and more /. "articles" just being ads for products, and it's even sadder when deceptive hype is injected and the editors don't clean it up. And I have to think this was deliberate, why else say "although the actual dimensions are listed..." when the true 8.5" x 7" x 1" would have been more more concise, more informative and less deceptive?
Me too! (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I understand, the Atom is designed for about 2W of power usage (under load?). This should make these computers have batteries that last forever, which will be really nice.
I like the idea of a solid state drive in laptops (resistant to drops, low power consumption, etc), but I haven't found a minilap
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Though that might need to wait a while and isn't x86 friendly. Not that that matters. Debian on ARM is great.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, they came out with the P3, then they created the abortion that is the P4 architecture and managed to get it a little faster than the P3 through shrinking process, until finally, they switched back to the superior P3 architecture with a modern fab process and labelled it the Pentium M, then they glued them together in groups of two and four and called it the Pentium Core Whatever, and now they're re
Re:Me too! (Score:5, Informative)
The Atom is closest to the Pentium MMX than any other Intel CPU. It is in-order, for one thing, while every other Intel chip since the Pentium Pro has been out-of-order. It supports SMT, making it fairly unique among Intel chips (only the P4 did this before, and it has almost nothing else in common with the Atom), which helps avoid pipeline stalls caused by the lack of instruction re-ordering.
Re:Me too! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are Intel ever going to do anything interesting with processor architecture that actually works better?
You mean an interesting new architecture like Itanium? Yeah, that was a great success!
Intel and every company that targets Intel platforms have lots and lots of time, money, resources, and knowledge invested in their current architecture. Sure, there's lots of historical baggage and inefficiencies it also brings along, but if you're hoping for something new just for the sake of "interesting", you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Like it or not, we're stuck with it for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Me too! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Me too! (Score:4, Interesting)