Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Atom 230 Versus Celeron 220 and VIA Nano

  1. 07-29-2008, 10:44 PM #1
    DaveDog
    DaveDog is offline
    Maximum Bitrate DaveDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Greenacres, WA
    Posts
    515

    Atom 230 Versus Celeron 220 and VIA Nano

    Not quite exactly, but there are a couple of benchmark articles out so if you want to compare numbers...

    bottom line:

    Celeron 220 (D201GLY2) on top
    Nano looks very promising
    Atom 230 not too bad,

    Power consumption follows the same lines, but be sure to note that a lot of people are saying the Atom only consumes 4W, which is not true. It consumes 4W more at full utilization than at idle, but the Nano is not far behind.

    Atom vs Celeron

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ient,1981.html

    Atom vs. Nano

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...ano-review.ars
    TruckPC - gutted, being used for test setup
    BoatPC - off season - Inelmac screen needs serviced again!
    BlazerPC - last vehicle PC I'll build
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 07-30-2008, 05:23 AM #2
    FPeter
    FPeter is offline
    Variable Bitrate FPeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    229
    Send a message via MSN to FPeter
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveDog View Post
    Not quite exactly, but there are a couple of benchmark articles out so if you want to compare numbers...

    bottom line:

    Celeron 220 (D201GLY2) on top
    Nano looks very promising
    Atom 230 not too bad,

    Power consumption follows the same lines, but be sure to note that a lot of people are saying the Atom only consumes 4W, which is not true. It consumes 4W more at full utilization than at idle, but the Nano is not far behind.

    Atom vs Celeron

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ient,1981.html

    Atom vs. Nano

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...ano-review.ars
    there were several promise around new and new VIA cpu-s, but the result was always a big...

    the only advantage of VIA boards are extra features (tv out, spdif out, CF slot, etc), but in speed the intel based boards are much faster

    the Cel 215-220 D201xxx boards are fast in both ALU and FPU instructions, but the capabilities of SiS Mirage video are limited (but much faster than VIA, thanks to FPU).

    the new Atom 230 is much slower in floating point instructions, but if you will not play on the carpc, its not a huge problem, and the onboard VGA able to run aero, for example...
    "case": Skoda Superb Elegance 1.8T
    Asrock G41MH-GE, E2180 2GHz dualcore, 1024MB DDR2/800, Samsung F1 750GB/7200RPM/32MB, M4-ATX, Lilliput FA1011 HDMI touchscreen, ASUS Xonar DG PCI, homemade Quectel L10 USB GPS
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 07-30-2008, 02:01 PM #3
    BlackStealth
    BlackStealth is offline
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveDog View Post
    Power consumption follows the same lines, but be sure to note that a lot of people are saying the Atom only consumes 4W, which is not true. It consumes 4W more at full utilization than at idle...
    You misread the article. The Atom 230 (desktop version) is running 4W which is full load, and because the chipset used on the motherboard do not support Speedstep, the power consumption remains the same for idle. The measured increase of 3.7 W that you're referring to is the Atom motherboard, not the processor when it's under full load.

    Once someone offers the Atom 230 with a mobile chipset, you'll get a much better overall power reduction.

    Good article, I'm gonna check out the nano article next.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules