Conclusion
We found it amazing to see all three competitors doing a good job when it comes to offering low-power systems, although the approaches are fundamentally different. AMD has its efficient 780G mainstream system with integrated graphics, which we equipped with a low-power Athlon 64 2000+ model at 8 W TDP. Intel’s Atom platform is based on an ECS motherboard using the 945G chipset that isn’t really a low-power product. But the Atom 230 processor requires so little power that it still hits the same 28 W idle power level as AMD and VIA’s devices do.
VIA With Best Performance And Best Features
VIA clearly offers the best processor performance with its new Nano L2100 CPU on the EPIA-SN mini-ITX motherboards, but the processing performance comes at a price—its peak power is significantly higher than the peak powers of the AMD and Intel systems. In addition, the performance crown only applies to single-threaded applications, as Intel’s Atom 230 does amazingly well thanks to its Hyper-Threading feature and higher memory subsystem performance. This does not leave much room for AMD’s 1,000 MHz of the Athlon 64 2000+, which cannot dominate the benchmarks. Since this processor isn’t really available in retail, we cannot consider it as an option anyway.
Atom Is Ambivalent
We are not sure what to think of the Atom solution, as it offers an interesting, extremely low-power processor, which delivers at least acceptable performance. But Intel stopped somewhere on the way and decided to pair its excellent low-power processor with an average mainstream chipset, which consumes four times the power as the processor. The efforts to develop an adequate chipset were probably too large, especially since Intel wants to release an Atom successor that includes graphics and memory in 2009. Atom eventually is economical enough for Intel to afford throwing in a timeworn chipset.
Recommendation: Watch Out for Other Options
Intel’s Atom has one definite advantage over the two other solutions—the power requirement stays within very controllable boundaries, which means that the delta between idle power and peak power is very small. If you know your performance requirements then you can be sure that Atom will be the lowest power solution, although not necessarily the most efficient one when more performance is required. The VIA device benefits from its integrated random number generator and hardware encryption support, which is both favorable for networking and security appliances.
Desktop users should look at some other options on the market, namely a current Intel mainstream chipset such as G31 or G33 paired with one of the low-end Core 2 models. The M0 steppings of Intel’s mainstream processors are especially efficient, and using an efficient power supply will move such a solution rather close to the idle power we’ve seen with the three low-power machines in this roundup. Performance will benefit a lot, as you can see in our additional test results, where we compare the three platforms to a Core 2 Duo E8500.
Latest Motherboards News
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 04/05 – 54 Million Enthusiast and Performance PC Gamers Globally
- 01/05 – Intel's Next Unit of Computing Rivals Raspberry Pi in Size
- 10/04 – Intel P67 Express Chipset Begins Product Discontinuance Cycle
- 26/03 – Tom's Hardware Benchmark Charts and Database Updated
Latest Motherboards reviews
- 30/04 – Six Sub-£160 Z77 Motherboards, Benchmarked And Reviewed
- 23/04 – Video Teaser: Intel's DZ77GA-70K Motherboard
- 17/04 – Overclocking: Asus Rampage IV Extreme Versus EVGA X79 FTW
- 08/04 – Intel’s Z77 Express And Lucidlogix MVP: New Features...
- 27/02 – Six £165-£215 LGA 2011 Motherboards, Reviewed
"WinRAR is a thread-optimized file compression tool (versions 3.6 and up), which Intel’s Atom can take advantage of. Still, VIA’s Nano still is more powerful."
"Atom is a low-power product, but it is not really fast."
Does low power imply high performance? Not in my book!
hmmmz, interesting..so it's the VIA for netbooks, then?!
shame lazy intel couldn't have coupled the atom with a better chipset.
p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum
^
It's a pity Intel will do better simply because it's Intel and the people know the name.
Via has been at the forefront of low-power devices for quite some time, but 1MB L2 cache..that's got to have a significant impact on energy consumption. Similary, if AMD could release a 45nm Sempron with reduced HT speed and L2 cache (say, 128 or 256k), I think they'd make a good product even better. AMD's overall solution appeals to me most, however there are embedded devices available that draw even less energy for specific applications, devices that are more reliable.
^It's a pity Intel will do better simply because it's Intel and the people know the name.
It is indeed a pity. The viewpoints are projected onto desktop processors as well..if it's not as fast as this core 2 duo or core 2 quad it must be useless. The rest of us build cheap, powerful computers and put them to good use regardless of the name on the top of the heat spreader..
Also, the real-world differences..aside from trying to watch movies, I doubt very much you'd actually 'feel' much difference between any of these systems for say, basic productivity or web-browsing. I've clocked Athlon64's down from 2.5 to 1.0GHz and sure, there's a difference, but in the cases above the difference isn't really that huge. Let's also keep in mind the fact the AMD rig has an onboard memory controller running at clock speed..both the Intel and Via hardware would draw more power if they had the same hardware.
Also, the real-world differences..aside from trying to watch movies, I doubt very much you'd actually 'feel' much difference between any of these systems for say, basic productivity or web-browsing. I've clocked Athlon64's down from 2.5 to 1.0GHz and sure, there's a difference, but in the cases above the differences aren't really that huge.
Let's also keep in mind the fact the AMD rig has an onboard memory controller running at clock speed..both the Intel and Via CPU's would draw more power if they had the same hardware.
I'm just wondering why (or probably) they couldn't find a 780G Mini-ITX for AMD? Jetway and J&W both make mini-ITX motherboards that support AM2+ (up to 95W Phenoms). Both have 128MB sideport memory, with the only real difference is PCI vs. PCIe.
J&W: MINIX™ 780G-SP128MB
JetWay: NC81-LF
its all very well to slate intel, but fact is, some software runs on intel and wont run on via ( dont know about amd ) - in particular the windowsCE development environment. no good having a low power cpu if you cant run your software on it.
You forgot the most important difference - the Atom is available! Good luck in trying to find the Nano or low power Athlon anywhere. Even if you do find one of those processors, I doubt it will be at or less than the £60 at Atom motherboard can be had for.
I'm disappointed that more cpu/mb models from the three competitors were not tried. I'd be especially interested in the amd geode, an underclocked and undervolted athlon x2 4850e and some of the core2duos (also underclocked and undervolted)
Any VIA mini-ITX board costs four times a Atom board in same form factor. How many netbooks will you find with Nano and how many with Atom? Money talks! Low power users will prefer battery lifetime before power.