Synthetic Benchmark Results
Everest
Memory performance seems to be much better with the Core 2 Duo as well, mostly because of the faster and larger L2 cache, but also because of the faster DDR2 memory speeds the Core 2 Duo system offers.
Futuremark PCMark05
PCMark05 says that the Core 2 Duo E7200 offers 3.76x more processing power than the Atom 230 does.
The graphics score is closer to each other and is a bit skewed because the G31’s graphics engine is faster than the one on the Atom 230’s 945GC chipset. In addition, memory speed is faster on the G31 solution, which should also have an impact.
Overall, PCMark05 reports a 2.45x performance benefit of the Core 2 Duo E7200 over the Atom 230.
6
Comments
Read more
- intel ,
- atom ,
- efficiency
Sponsored
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
What you have to understand is that the Atom is a low-end processor targetting notebooks or netbooks. You can consider it as a low-spec celeron processor and should not be compared to a C2D processor in a performance/efficiency shootout.
i disagree.
i believe that it is good to show off the power efficiency of both CPU,
although the Atom is very out classed by the C2D, it does reflect on the very efficient C2D ability.
consider the C2D as being almost 2x faster per core with two cores to handle, the fact that the C2D can have a 30% increase of power usage with almost 400% Power ability over the atom, u start to wonder why bother with the atom at all.
This article seems like one they posted earlier. Have they run out of things to tell us.
Atom is let down here by the 945 chipset, which is using most of the power... paired with the 'Poulsbo' chipset it would use a LOT less power, however may well be more expensive. AFAIK there will be Mini-ITX boards using Poulsbo so this should be revisited then...
Atom based systems like the EEE unit (even crippled by the 945) are a lot smaller than even mATX based PCs, which is often hand-in-hand with low power system design, and the cost of a Mini-ITX Core 2 motherboard is much higher, skewing the performance per $ metric.
The systems compared here aren't really like for like, and are in different segments.
Agree with the above, didn't make it past page two when I saw they were testing with a 945... what's that made on? 90nm? not really a fair test.
What happened to the much less power hungry SiS chipset that Intel mentioned when they released Atom?
No implementations of it?
http://www.fudzilla.com/images/sto [...] atform.jpg