BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 6d, 6h, 20m | CPU: 33% | MEM: 2129MB of 4273MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU        Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:11 pm 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12392

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU

Quote:
You can build an incredibly small and cheap PC around the D945GCLF, but the Atom CPU is a severe disappointment on the desktop as it doesn’t have the grunt to do any useful work. The bizarre form-factor and layout of the I/O panel also reduce the options for finding a niche for this incredibly cheap motherboard and processor. Perhaps the next-gen, dual-core Atom will make a world of difference but for now this is one to avoid unless you're really keen to build an internet-oriented PC.


Full 5 Page Review:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/24 ... _atom_230/


Looks like a bit of a disappointment which is a shame because the name makes it sound so cool!

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:13 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:45 am

Posts
936

Location
New Zealand
Atom would have been a better name for a core2 successor if you ask me.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:30 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
This is prefect for older people that only read newspapers online and checking a couple of email. I think this is great for a kid that only need to type reports or preint pictures.

For us, computer geeks, umm price is great but games is a no no. graphics and multiemedia is no good either.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:44 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
I'm a bit disappointed. It looks actually quite inefficient in terms of performance. Just judging by that, I'm sure my much slower clocked Celeron M in my EeePC could at least keep pace with that. I was expecting more from Intel, who are supposedly the experts at efficient, low-cost performance.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:20 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
hounsell wrote:
I was expecting more from Intel, who are supposedly the experts at efficient, low-cost performance.

I don't know what you're talking about. The T2600 they compared it to is much worse, performance-per-watt wise. According to their benchmarks, it's about three times faster, while it takes around 12 times more power (2.5W against 31W). What you (and apparently, the guys at Register Hardware) don't realize is that the Atom isn't designed for PCs. It's targeted at the embedded market. Running Vista (or even XP) isn't what it was designed for.

That aside, I think it's not good as an embedded CPU, either. A modern ARM can outperform the Atom and take 10 times less power. Yet another proof that the x86 architecture is crap, and that its only advantage is that everybody uses it (so it's cheap). Hopefully this will save the Atom (as it has saved the Geode).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:32 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
ppc_digger wrote:
hounsell wrote:
I was expecting more from Intel, who are supposedly the experts at efficient, low-cost performance.

I don't know what you're talking about. The T2600 they compared it to is much worse, performance-per-watt wise.


Yeh, OK, My wording was wrong, I had no doubt that it was better on performance per watt. Maybe a better (more worthwhile certainly) comparison would be how it stacks up against the Celeron M currently found in the EeePC, which the Atom is set to replace, and some of the VIA processors.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS