even the 700/900mhz @ eeepc are snappy critters
what all these low-watt cpus need is fast/er hdd/ssd
Printable View
even the 700/900mhz @ eeepc are snappy critters
what all these low-watt cpus need is fast/er hdd/ssd
Did you actually read my post or just turned the first sentence into "snip"?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
That's not the chipset the Nano will be coupled with, so you can't compare their power consumption yet.
What good is a 2.5W CPU if you're going to pair it with a 10W chipset?
Yes, I read it... ¿? I can say that this 945 power sucker is not the definitive Atom chipset, and then what? The current platform sucks, that doesn't mean the CPU sucks. You quoted Shintai, and Shintai was talking about the CPU alone. So if you talk about the CPU alone your argument is not valid at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
That's simply impossibile.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
At 1.6Ghz according to the whitepaper the nano has a max TDP of 17W (Atom is under 3W) which falls under 10W (8W) at 1.3Ghz.
8W vs 2.5W and probably worse performance (1.3Ghz Nano won't have better performance than a 1.6Ghz Atom).
Shintai was referring to the CPUs alone (25W vs 2.5W is 10x more TDP so he was absolutely right), and so was STaRGaZeR, if you wanted to talk about the entire platform (and both the reviewed platform suck badly, their idle power consumption is higher than a geforce 8300 + X2 4850e) you shouldn't have quoted Shintai's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
To bad Intel used an older not mobile chipset for Atom. What good is a 2 watt CPU when the chipset takes more then 10 watts? Huge mistake if you ask me. Still I bought Atom for my home server. I'm wondering how many days it will take to compile Gentoo but at least my parents won't be nagging about the power bill again.
This was my thought.... also, they are using a bad power supply. If they compared the two power consumptions with power supplies suited to the low power draw Perf/Watt I think Atom would crush the Nano.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
They utterly botched their power measurements. Also, is this a typo or what?? Does anyone think that on either the Atom or Nano a 8800 GTX (power sucker extraordinaire) would show an idle in the upper 40 W range?
correction: the nano isnt strong, the atom is even weaker than the nano! :P
they are both too slow even for lag free webrowsing and watching movies without having frames skipped...
and they are way too hot and consume too much power to be used in real mobile devices...
those power charts look very wrong, system idle power consumption of 150 watts for amd x2 and core2 duo is not right...
maybe with cool n quiet and eist disabled... even then its very high.
my x2 4400+ system pulls 120W under load... and thats a 90nm dualcore!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
Very interesting power consumption comparison indeed. :)Quote:
Using the same method to gauge the results of our CineBench 10 test, we find that the VIA Nano used 63,434 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy to render the scene while the Intel Atom used 65,893 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy - an advantage of 3.8% to the VIA CPU.
These kinds of power comparisons are incredibly insightful and you can clearly see how both teams of CPU designers have made trade offs for the either power consumption or speed. The VIA Nano L2100 is able to perform these tasks faster (by as much as 30% in some cases) while still using less total energy than Intel's Atom.
im watching silky smooth dvds on my 900mhz eeepc - no lagQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
these cpus are more than capable of playing dvd/webrowsing.. 20-30MB/s hdd/ssd is the problem
~100MB/s storage would make these cpus fly..
Maybe if you have 700 flash animations playing at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
My 1.46Ghz Athlon XP 1700 in my back up rig, which I'm typing on now handles everything the web can throw at it just fine. Hell, I have an original Slot A 650Mhz Athlon that manages the web quite easily.
lol TDP means jack nowadays and refers only to absolute peak consumption.. Those power consumption graphics prove that exactly. In idle the 1.6Ghz Nano actually consumes less than the 1.6Ghz Atom (0.1W vs 0.22W). The power consumption in these CPUs fluctuate so much that the only scenario where you can compare the platforms is by draining an equal-capacity battery in a similar-specced netbook (same screen, same RAM, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapo84
They are obviously using only the IGP in the Nano and the Atom. The Atom mobo doesn't even have a PCI-e connector.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
That would be true.. if you were talking about 1080p movies and web-based 3D games.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Nano more power-efficient?
PerkamQuote:
Originally Posted by PCPer
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
So if it is getting the job done sooner, it is really using less power. If it ain't buggy, I easily go with the Nano for low power and performance=P PCI-E slot? For CUDA or something?Quote:
Using the same method to gauge the results of our CineBench 10 test, we find that the VIA Nano used 63,434 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy to render the scene while the Intel Atom used 65,893 watt-seconds (Joules) of energy - an advantage of 3.8% to the VIA CPU.
These kinds of power comparisons are incredibly insightful and you can clearly see how both teams of CPU designers have made trade offs for the either power consumption or speed. The VIA Nano L2100 is able to perform these tasks faster (by as much as 30% in some cases) while still using less total energy than Intel's Atom.
Much rather use a MATX and an E2180 or something.
Sorry didn't see yours but I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Yeah, so the Nano wins thanks to watts per performance ratio. Say, it takes 8 seconds to load up a complex web page on the Nano, but 12 seconds on the Atom. The Atom ends up using 3% more power than the Nano to load up that web page.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
So, who's the real winner here? 4 seconds saved and 3% power saved, thank you... (idle is nearly the same, so it could be within margin of error.. so it's almost moot and unnoticeable in real-world usage).
Yeah.... and completely wrong. They are using high power rated PSUs for ultra low power boards. At < 20% loading, a 500W PSU drop efficiency like a brik... some to below 50% efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
If they did the measurement right, the Atom board can be shown to consume no more than 34-35 Watts with drives and with a power delta of no more than 2 Watts idle to load.
All the sites so far that have published numbers have failed to specify what PSU they used. At these loads, it is impossible to draw correct conclusions when your 20-30W board is being driven by a massive power supply.
To demonstrate this I profiled the same board in these reviews using a CoolerMaster 500W RP-500-PCAR power supply, I used OCCT 2.0 with a CPU only selection and a 20 min custom duty cycle. I then compared the exact same board, just switched out PSUs and used a Sparkle 220 W 80+ efficiency PSU.
As you can see there is about a 20 W difference between the two traces, i.e. PCPer, Hothardware, and Ars have at least a 40% error in their measurements. In the case of the coolermaster PSU idle was 55.3 and on the Sparkle Idle was 34.0. Basically, I can reproduce the 55is-60is Watt numbers with easy, but only when using the worst possible choice of PSU for the job.
From the sparkle data I can derive a better approximation of the CPU loading power from idle to peak, http://www.silentpcreview.com/article773-page4.html . I am measuing 2.1 W idle to peak, and accounting for the efficiency at the input power around 34 W, the actual CPU consumption is around 1.6-1.7 W well within the TDP (as expected).
2 watts out 60 vs 2 watts out 34 is a huge difference, and the Atom tests are being dominated by the cruddy choice of PSUs. Taking this out, Atom take a strong lead in perf/Watt (I suspect). I would need to get my hands on a Nano board/CPU to do the same tests.
EDIT: BTW power is recorded on a data logger, a WattsUP Pro ES.
The review sites are getting sloppy.... very sloppy.
Jack
Idle power for the X2 and C2D look ok accounting for the GTX 8800.... it is a power hog. Massive power hog.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I measure 170is to 190ish idle on quad core rigs with a single GTX 8800 in the system.
I don t adopt sides but arent eepc and such gonna be based on atom dual core?
I'm not sure people here are getting the real picture.
Via Nano is a 20w TDP CPU.Atom is 2.5w for midis and 4-8w for desktops/embedded IIRC.
The tests featured a desktop Atom with a desktop board.
Had it been a mobile Atom ( 2.5w ) and a mobile board ( ~6w ) things would have been totally different.However , that's not the full story.
Nanon burns a healthy amount of power when loaded.Try to get its power to Atom like level ; I'd say the Atom will outperform it by 50% of more.
Nano really competes with low ( not even ultra low ) voltage dual core Penryns.Try 2GHz at 17w.We're talking same system power draw as Nano.Wanna bet who is going to win ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Correct, I am testing a 201GLY2A right now. Idle power is at 37.1 W using the right PSU, about 3 W higher than Atom.
His conclusion is incorrect because he is measuring total efficiency of a power supply over that time and not of the system itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
its time that reviewers use PSUs with higher efficiency for such review... heck there are even PUS out there that have 92% efficiency @ 20% load
http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/psu_r...50W_Report.pdf
if im gona rebuild my HTPC this baby is gona power it. :yepp:
Maybe i don't fully understand, but wouldn't an overpowerful psu, be a detriment to both systems... or are you saying it is unfairly skewing the results in favour of the nano?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
It is unfairly skewed toward Nano on the power measurements. You could power both these boards with a 1200 W power supply if you wanted... why you would do this is beyond me... in fact, why you would use even a 200W power supply is beyond me. But that is what these numnuts did... they used a high rated power supply to power a low wattage board. Just because a PSU is rated at say 500 Watts does not mean that it outputs to that wattage to the board. The PSU will only output what the load is requesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Just a quick lesson in power supplies. Power supplies come rated in the total peak power they are able to deliver, sustained power is a bit lower....
Power supply makers are also interested in quoting you power efficiency, which is essentially the % of the power input that makes it to power output at a given load.
For example, say I measure at the wall socket 100 Watts, but the efficiency is only 80%, the actual power delivered is only 80 Watts.
Ok... now, here is the kicker. The efficiency quoted for a power supply is between 20% and 80% of it's rated power. Above or below that, the efficiency is drops of rapidly.
Here is an example Anandtech did of a recent 900 W PSU:
http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling...spx?i=3364&p=7
Notice at 200 W the efficiency starts to drop off rapidly, going to 73% at 90 W load... now look at how steep that curve is.... at 20 W (which is about what these boards are pulling) efficiency is down near the 40 or 50% range.
Ok... now think about it. If 30 or so W of the raw numbers in these reviews is wasted by the PSU, how much penalty does that put on a 2-3 W CPU vs a 17 W CPU?
Example ... 17 out 70 is much less than 17 out 30 (percent wise), but 2-3 out of 50 is nothing, you are essentially vs 2-3 out 30 is quite a bit different.
If you are thinking of building a very low wattage nettop like computer --- the last thing you want to buy is a 650 W thermaltake toughpower to power you Nano or Atom board. This is a much better power supply to build the system: http://www.mini-box.com/picoPSU-90-power-kit
And after all is said and done, the peak atom draw will be in the 30-35 range.
Not 60 like they review sites are telling you. In fact, their data is so far off... you should completely disregard any conclusions they make about power efficiency or performance per Watt. I am writing it off as either laziness or groteseque incompetency.
Jack