Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU

New news and release discussion.
Locked
Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12622
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU

Post by Andy »

Intel Atom 230 ultra low-power desktop CPU
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!

win98
Donator
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:45 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by win98 »

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

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

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.

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

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.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

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).

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

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.

Locked