Intel Atom N270 vs Intel Pentium III 800
Comparative analysis of Intel Atom N270 and Intel Pentium III 800 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark.
Intel Atom N270
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium III 800
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Atom N270
- Around 100% higher clock speed: 1.6 GHz vs 0.8 GHz
- Around 13% higher maximum core temperature: 90°C vs 80°C
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 45 nm vs 180 nm
- 7x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
- 2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- 7x lower typical power consumption: 2. 5 Watt vs 20.8 Watt
Maximum frequency | 1.6 GHz vs 0.8 GHz |
Maximum core temperature | 90°C vs 80°C |
Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm vs 180 nm |
L1 cache | 56 KB vs 8 KB |
L2 cache | 512 KB vs 256 KB |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 2.5 Watt vs 20.8 Watt |
Reasons to consider the Intel Pentium III 800
- Around 45% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 237 vs 164
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 182 vs 175
PassMark — Single thread mark | 237 vs 164 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 182 vs 175 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Atom N270
CPU 2: Intel Pentium III 800
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|
||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|
Name | Intel Atom N270 | Intel Pentium III 800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 164 | 237 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 175 | 182 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel Atom N270 | Intel Pentium III 800 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture codename | Diamondville | Coppermine T |
Launch date | 1 March 2008 | n/d |
Launch price (MSRP) | $44 | |
Place in performance rating | 2715 | 2687 |
Processor Number | N270 | |
Series | Legacy Intel Atom® Processors | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Vertical segment | Mobile | Desktop |
64 bit support | ||
Base frequency | 1. 60 GHz | 800 MHz |
Bus Speed | 533 MHz FSB | 133 MHz FSB |
Die size | 26 mm2 | 80 mm |
Front-side bus (FSB) | 533 MHz | |
L1 cache | 56 KB | 8 KB |
L2 cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 180 nm |
Maximum core temperature | 90°C | 80°C |
Maximum frequency | 1. 6 GHz | 0.8 GHz |
Number of cores | 1 | 1 |
Number of threads | 2 | |
Transistor count | 47 million | 44 million |
VID voltage range | 0.9V-1.1625V | 1.75V |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 69 °C | |
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
Package Size | 22mm x 22mm | |
Sockets supported | PBGA437 | PPGA370, SECC2, SECC2495 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 2. 5 Watt | 20.8 Watt |
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
FSB parity | ||
Idle States | ||
Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE, Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | |
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
Thermal Monitoring | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Atom N270 with others
Intel
Atom N270
vs
Intel
Atom Z520
Intel
Atom N270
vs
Intel
Core 2 Duo SL9600
Intel
Atom N270
vs
Intel
Atom N455
Intel Atom D2550 vs Intel Pentium III 800
Comparative analysis of Intel Atom D2550 and Intel Pentium III 800 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphics interfaces, Compatibility, Peripherals, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.
Intel Atom D2550
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Pentium III 800
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Atom D2550
- 1 more cores, run more applications at once: 2 vs 1
- Around 133% higher clock speed: 1.86 GHz vs 0.8 GHz
- Around 25% higher maximum core temperature: 100 °C vs 80°C
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 32 nm vs 180 nm
- 16x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
- 4x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- 2.1x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 20. 8 Watt
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 318 vs 237
- 2.3x better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 423 vs 182
Number of cores | 2 vs 1 |
Maximum frequency | 1.86 GHz vs 0.8 GHz |
Maximum core temperature | 100 °C vs 80°C |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm vs 180 nm |
L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) vs 8 KB |
L2 cache | 1024 KB vs 256 KB |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 20. 8 Watt |
PassMark — Single thread mark | 318 vs 237 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 423 vs 182 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Atom D2550
CPU 2: Intel Pentium III 800
PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|
||
PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|
Name | Intel Atom D2550 | Intel Pentium III 800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — Single thread mark | 318 | 237 |
PassMark — CPU mark | 423 | 182 |
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 95 | |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 271 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel Atom D2550 | Intel Pentium III 800 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture codename | Cedarview | Coppermine T |
Launch date | 5 January 2012 | n/d |
Place in performance rating | 2694 | 2687 |
Processor Number | D2550 | |
Series | Intel® Atom™ Processor D Series | Legacy Intel® Pentium® Processor |
Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
64 bit support | ||
Base frequency | 1. 86 GHz | 800 MHz |
Die size | 66 mm | 80 mm |
L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 8 KB |
L2 cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 180 nm |
Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 80°C |
Maximum frequency | 1.86 GHz | 0.8 GHz |
Number of cores | 2 | 1 |
Number of threads | 4 | |
Transistor count | 176 million | 44 million |
VID voltage range | 0. 91V -1.21V | 1.75V |
Bus Speed | 133 MHz FSB | |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 69 °C | |
Max memory channels | 1 | |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB | |
Supported memory types | DDR3 800/1066 | |
Graphics base frequency | 640 MHz | |
Processor graphics | Integrated | |
Number of displays supported | 2 | |
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
Package Size | 22mm X 22 mm | |
Sockets supported | FCBGA559 | PPGA370, SECC2, SECC2495 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 20. 8 Watt |
Max number of PCIe lanes | 4 | |
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 | |
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 36-bit | |
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Itanium (VT-i) |
Navigation
Choose a CPU
Compare processors
Compare Intel Atom D2550 with others
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
Intel
Pentium D 945
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
Intel
Core 2 Quad Q6600 (105W)
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
AMD
Athlon 64 2000+
Intel
Atom D2550
vs
Intel
Atom D525
What is the Difference Between Intel Atom vs Intel Celeron vs Intel Pentium CPUs?
Intel has one of the most confusing naming convention for its CPUs. The names tell you absolutely nothing about where a processor stands in the speed hierarchy.
To confuse you even more, Intel has three lines of budget CPUs namely Atom, Celeron and Pentium CPUs all aiming for a very specific segment of the market.
However, for an average user, the difference between Intel Atom vs Intel Celeron vs Intel Pentium can sometimes be too minute to deduce.
And if that wasn’t enough to confuse you, there are even different sub-segments of the series i.e Intel Pentium Gold and Intel Pentium Silver.
Looking at these three entry level series of CPUs as a fresher can easily overwhelm you. In this article, we will break down each of these lines of CPUs and talk about how they compare with each other.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Intel’s Three Different Lines of CPU for the Budget Segment
Essentially, Intel Atom, Celeron and the Pentium series all belong to the entry level market segment.
Why have three different lines of CPUs for the budget segment?
Well, this has to do more with the nuances of what the budget market entails.
Some segments of the budget market are far lower demanding as compared to the rest.
So while Intel Celeron CPUs are highly affordable and intended for very light use-cases, the Intel Pentium CPUs are slightly more expensive but great for basic productivity.
In the price/performance hierarchy, the series are ranked as follows:
Rank | CPU Series |
Products Used In | Remarks |
1 | Intel Pentium | Desktop Laptops |
For Basic Productivity |
2 | Intel Celeron | Desktop Laptops |
Highly Affordable |
3 | Intel Atom | Netbooks Mobile Devices |
Discontinued for all mobile devices; only used for Servers now. |
1. Intel Atom Processors
Intel Atom processors were originally designed to compete directly with the leading ultra-low powered mobile processor companies for smartphones and tablets namely:
- Qualcomm Snapdragon
- Apple Bionic
- Samsung Exynos
However, they proved to be a failure as they were unable to make a significant dent in the smartphone and tablet market.
And hence, the Atom processors have been discontinued for all mobile devices since 2016.
Perhaps the most successful application of the Intel Atom processors was with the netbooks.
Netbooks were the baby version of the conventional laptops using Windows OS. They were small, cheap, compact and used weak processors such as the Intel’s Atom processor.
However, as the tablets advanced and as Google Chromebooks became an alternative option for affordable and ultra-portable computing, netbooks became obsolete and so did the value for Atom processors for the overall laptop market.
In the final days of the Intel Atom processors, the following were the most powerful CPUs from the series for mobile devices:
CPU | Specs | Passmak Score | Year Released |
TDP |
Intel Atom x5-Z8550 |
(4c/4t) | 1.44-2.40 GHz | 1198 | 2016 | 2W |
Intel Atom x7-Z8750 |
(4c/4t) | 1.6-2.56 GHz | 1373 | 2016 | 2W |
While the Intel Atom series has been discontinued for all commercial based mobile devices and computers, it continues its existence for Servers, Embedded Storage Appliances, Cellular Infrastructure Applications etc.
Also Read: Intel K vs KF vs F Series CPU
2. Intel Celeron CPUs
Intel Celeron CPUs are synonymous with ultra-budget computing.
With the discontinuation of Intel Atom CPUs for computers in 2016, Intel Celeron now hold the notorious title of being the slowest CPUs that you can find the market for laptops and desktops in any given generation.
Intel Celeron CPUs are basically dual core CPUs WITHOUT hyperthreading enabled. Hence they feature 2 threads only.
They are some of the worst performing CPUs in both single-core and multi-core performance benchmarks.
There are exceptions however. The newest Intel Celeron N5100 for instance features 4 cores and 4 threads.
Popular and Latest Intel Celeron CPUs
There are separate lines of Intel Celeron CPUs for Desktop and Laptops.
- “G” Series Celeron CPUs are for Desktops
- “N” Series Celeron CPUs are for Laptops
As is the case with all CPUs, the desktop based Celeron CPUs are more powerful compared to their laptop based counterparts. They also have a much higher TDP.
Note on CPU TDP
The higher the TDP (in Watts)
- The higher is the power consumption by the CPU.
- The higher is its clock speed (Generally).
- The better is its performance (compared to its lower TDP counterparts).
- The more heat it generates (very high TDP CPUs are thus not viable for mobile/laptop devices).
- The shorter is the battery life.
Currently, the Intel N4020 released back in 2019 is still a very popular Celeron CPU for entry level laptops. The newer Intel Celeron N4500 and the N5100 are more powerful but are rare. They may pick up steam soon.
For desktops, one of the most popular and powerful Celeron CPUs is the Intel Celeron G5905.
CPU | Passmak Score |
Type |
Remarks |
TDP |
Intel Celeron N4020 (2c/2t) | 1.10-2.80 GHz |
1606 | Laptop/ Mobile |
A popular Celeron CPU found on many laptops; released in 2019 | 6W |
Intel Celeron N4500 (2c/2t) | 1. 10-2.80 GHz |
2060 | Laptop/ Mobile |
Latest value based Celeron CPU; Not very popular |
6W |
Intel Celeron N5100 (4c/4t) | 1.10-2.80 GHz |
2540 | Laptop/ Mobile |
Flagship; Rare and latest Celeron CPU with 4 core ; Not very popular |
6W |
Intel Celeron G5905 (2c/2t) | 3.50 GHz |
2846 | Desktop | Flagship and Popular desktop based Celeron CPU |
58W |
The table above shows how some of the newer and popular Celeron CPUs compare in terms of performance.
It should be noted that just because a certain CPU is flagship – the most powerful in series – it does not mean it is popular.
Therefore, as a buyer, when comparing Celeron CPUs with the rest, you would essentially take a model that is readily available for comparison.
For instance, currently for laptops, the most powerful Intel Celeron CPU is the N5100. However, since it is rare and almost none existent in products at the moment, it is not a great basis for comparison – for now.
Instead, you would rather look at the N4020 released in 2019 for a better comparison.
Compared to Intel Atom CPUs, judging by the benchmarks, even the weakest N4020 is more powerful than the Intel Atom Intel Atom x7-Z8750.
However, in Intel Atom x7-Z8750’s defense it was released in 2016 (three years earlier than N4020).
Also Read: Difference Between Intel Celeron vs i3
What is an Intel Celeron CPU Suitable For?
Intel Celeron CPUs are very popular among those who have a very basic computing need. This includes tasks like:
- Web browsing
- Video conferencing
- Basic Homework/Schoolwork – research, essay and report writing etc
- Email correspondence
- Social media use
- Netflix and video entertainment
Also Read:
- Is Intel Celeron Good for School Work?
- Is Intel Celeron Good for Gaming?
3.
Intel Pentium Processors
Intel Pentium processors position themselves as being the basic productivity CPUs.
They are far more inferior to the next CPUs series in line, the Core i3, but for those who want a seamless performance and a fair degree of multitasking capability, Intel Pentium CPUs are the way to go.
Basically the idea here is that while Intel Celeron CPUs can show lag and a lacking performance even in the most basics of tasks (particularly in multitasking), Intel Pentium CPUs can provide a smoother performance.
They can even be used for light gaming.
Intel Pentium CPUs used to be the flagship CPUs prior to the release of Intel Core series CPUs in 2006.
However, as it stands, compared to the original Pentium CPUs, the current Pentium CPUs share very little in common in terms of architecture.
The Pentium series is further bifurcated into two lines: Pentium Silver and Pentium Gold.
Intel Pentium Silver vs Intel Pentium Gold
As if the Intel entry level line of Intel CPUs wasn’t confusing enough, Intel has further divided the series into the Silver and Gold lines.
For starters, despite what common intuition entails, the Intel Pentium Gold isn’t necessarily made to be superior to the Intel Pentium Silver CPUs.
They are two completely different products.
Intel Pentium Silver CPUs:
Intel Pentium Silver CPUs are essentially the souped-up version of the Celeron processors.
For instance, Intel Celeron N4020 and the Intel Pentium Silver N5030 both belong to Intel’s Gemini Lake generation.
They are intended for completely different product category as compared to the Pentium Gold CPUs.
You cannot buy Intel Silver CPUs off the shelf, instead, these come with pre-built OEM only PCs and devices.
Intel Pentium Silver CPUs are intended for very low powered devices and promise a very long battery life. Hence, they primarily target the mobile/notebook segment.
Here are some of the popular and latest Intel Pentium Silver CPUs.
CPU | Passmak Score |
Type |
Remarks |
TDP |
Intel Pentium Silver N6005 (4c/4t) | 2.0-3.30 GHz |
3224 | Laptop/ Mobile |
Flagship Intel Pentium Silver CPU; released in 2021 | 10W |
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 (4c/4t) | 1.1-3.10 GHz |
2637 | Laptop/ Mobile |
A Popular Intel Pentium Silver CPUs; released in 2019 | 6W |
Intel Pentium Gold CPUs:
Intel Pentium Gold CPUs follow the Core series architecture. Intel Pentium Gold is thus a rebranding of the Core series processors except that they are a weaker version of a typical Core i3 processor.
Hence, they offer a lower amount of cores, clock speed or TDP compared to an Intel Core i3 processor but essentially hail from the same generation.
Again, the “Gold” in the name here does NOT entail that Intel Pentium Gold CPUs are superior to the Intel Silver CPUs. In fact, particularly in the mobile segment, Intel Pentium Gold CPUs perform worse compared to the Intel Pentium Silver CPUs.
The segment in which Intel Pentium Gold CPUs shine compared to the rest is in desktops.
Compared to the rest of series mentioned here i.e Atom, Celeron, Pentium Silver, the Pentium Gold series has best performing desktops CPUs.
CPU | Passmak Score |
Type |
Remarks |
TDP |
Intel Pentium Gold 6405U (2c/4t) | 2.4 GHz |
2359 | Laptop/ Mobile |
Flagship and Popular laptop based Intel Pentium CPU – weaker than Intel Celeron N5100 and Pentium Silver CPUs | 12. 5W |
Intel Pentium G6400 (2c/4t) | 4.0 GHz |
4155 | Desktop | Popular; desktop based Pentium CPU. | 58W |
Intel Pentium G6600 (2c/4t) | 4.2 GHz |
4396 | Desktop | Flagship; desktop based Pentium CPU. | 58W |
As shown in the table above, the Intel Pentium Gold CPUs have an excellent performance for the desktop segment.
The laptop based Intel Pentium Gold 6405U is inferior not just to the Pentium Silver CPUs but also to some mobile grade Celeron CPUs.
Therefore, for an entry level desktop build for productivity, Intel Pentium Gold processors are recommended.
What is an Intel Pentium CPU Suitable for?
Intel Pentium CPUs are great for
- Light multitasking (having multiple browser windows open for instance).
- Light productivity (i.e for casual editing)
- Light gaming (i.e playing games like League of Legends, Minecraft, and even Fortnite).
Following video shows Fortnite being played on Intel Pentium Gold G6400:
Watch this video on YouTube
Also Read: Is Intel Pentium Good for Gaming?
Intel Atom vs Intel Celeron vs Intel Pentium Benchmarks
The following shows the overall Passmark score of the various processors mentioned here. I have also added a 10th Intel Core i3 CPU in the mix for reference.
Intel Atom vs Intel Celeron vs Intel Pentium Passmark Scores
- Results taken from CPUbenchmark.net
Also Read: Difference Between Pentium and Core i3 Processors
Celeron vs Pentium Performance/Dollar Value Consideration
The overall performance/dollar value of the Intel Celeron and Pentium is quite consistent meaning a higher dollar would give you a fair and a direct increase in performance.
For instance, take the popular current gen Desktop-Based Celeron CPU such as the Intel Celeron G5905. It has an MSRP of $42.
A popular current gen Intel Pentium G6400 CPU has an MSRP of $64 – so about a 65% increase in price compared to the Celeron.
As far as the performance scores go, Intel Celeron G5905 scores 2846 on Passmark whereas the Intel Pentium G6400 scores 4155 – so about a 68% higher score compared to the Celeron.
Of course, Passmark isn’t the only benchmark you should rely on, you should also consider Cinebench R15 and R20 benchmarks for comparison, but overall, the performance/dollar ratio of Celeron and Pentium CPUs is quite consistent.
Final Words
In the end the differences between Intel Atom vs Intel Celeron vs Intel Pentium are subtle but significant if you have a tight budget.
Essentially both the Celeron and the Pentium processors intend to target different segments of the market.
The Celeron is more focused toward very basic computing. In fact, it does not get any more basic than a Celeron CPU.
The Pentium CPUs, however, are essentially stripped version of the Core i3. If there ever was an Intel Core i1, the Intel Pentium (Gold) would essentially be replaced with it.
Pentium CPUs offer a better performance are great for tasks beyond basic computing such as light gaming, casual editing etc.
As far as the Atom processors are concerned, do not worry too much about them. They are obsolete and therefore should be of little significance to you.
Intel Atom N2600 vs Intel Pentium G4560: What is the difference?
18points
Intel Atom N2600
46points
Intel Pentium G4560
Comparison winner
vs
64 facts in comparison
Intel Atom N2600
Intel Pentium G4560
Why is Intel Atom N2600 better than Intel Pentium G4560?
- 50MHz faster GPU clock speed?
400MHzvs350MHz - 0. 5MB bigger L2 cache?
1MBvs0.5MB - 50.5W lower TDP?
3.5Wvs54W - 0.25MB/core more L2 cache per core?
0.5MB/corevs0.25MB/core
Why is Intel Pentium G4560 better than Intel Atom N2600?
- 2.19x faster CPU speed?
2 x 3.5GHzvs2 x 1.6GHz - 1600MHz higher ram speed?
2400MHzvs800MHz - 18nm smaller semiconductor size?
14nmvs32nm - 6.46x higher PassMark result?
3531vs547 - 16KB bigger L1 cache?
128KBvs112KB - 8.29x higher PassMark result (single)?
2123vs256 - 3 newer version of DirectX?
12vs9 - 62GB larger maximum memory amount?
64GBvs2GB
Which are the most popular comparisons?
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Atom D2500
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i7-7500U
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Atom D2550
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i3-7100
Intel Atom N2600
vs
AMD E-450
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
AMD Ryzen 3 1200
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Core i3-2100
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Celeron N3350
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-3470
Intel Atom N2600
vs
AMD E-300
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-7400
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Atom N570
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i3-6100
Intel Atom N2600
vs
AMD E-240
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-6500
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Atom N2800
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Pentium Gold G6405
Intel Atom N2600
vs
Intel Core i3-3110M
Intel Pentium G4560
vs
Intel Core i5-3450
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
Intel Atom N2600
0 User reviews
Intel Atom N2600
0. 0/10
0 User reviews
Intel Pentium G4560
3 User reviews
Intel Pentium G4560
8.3/10
3 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
7.7/10
3 votes
Gaming
No reviews yet
7.7/10
3 votes
Performance
No reviews yet
7.0/10
3 votes
Reliability
No reviews yet
9.0/10
3 votes
Energy efficiency
No reviews yet
10.0/10
3 votes
Performance
1.CPU speed
2 x 1.6GHz
2 x 3.5GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
2. CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
3.turbo clock speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
4.Has an unlocked multiplier
✖Intel Atom N2600
✖Intel Pentium G4560
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
5.L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
6.L3 cache
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
7. L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
8.L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.25MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
9.L3 core
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
1.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Memory
1.RAM speed
800MHz
2400MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
38.4GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
4.memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
5.maximum memory amount
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
6.bus transfer rate
2.5GT/s
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
7.Supports ECC memory
✖Intel Atom N2600
✖Intel Pentium G4560
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
8.eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
9.bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Benchmarks
1.PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
2.PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
3.Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
4.Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
5.Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
6.Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
7.Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
8.Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
9.performance per watt
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Features
1. uses multithreading
✔Intel Atom N2600
✔Intel Pentium G4560
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads. This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
2.Has AES
✖Intel Atom N2600
✔Intel Pentium G4560
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
3.Has AVX
✖Intel Atom N2600
✖Intel Pentium G4560
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
4.SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
5. Has F16C
✖Intel Atom N2600
✖Intel Pentium G4560
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
6.bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
7.Has MMX
✔Intel Atom N2600
✔Intel Pentium G4560
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
8.Has TrustZone
✖Intel Atom N2600
✖Intel Pentium G4560
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
9.front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Atom N2600)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Intel Pentium G4560)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best CPUs?
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 vs Intel Atom N270
|
|
|
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 vs Intel Atom N270
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Pentium Silver N5030 on one side and the Intel Atom N270 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the entry-level notebook sector, It has 4 cores, 4 threads, a maximum frequency of 3,1GHz. The second is used on the netbook segment, it has a total of 1 cores, 1 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 1,6 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
Processor | Intel Pentium Silver N5030 | Intel Atom N270 | ||||||
Market (main) | Entry-level notebook | Netbook | ||||||
ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
Microarchitecture | Goldmont Plus | Bonnell | ||||||
Core name | Gemini Lake Refresh | Diamondville | ||||||
Family | Pentium 5000 | Atom N | ||||||
Part number(s), S-Spec | FH8068003067442, SRFDC |
AU80586GE025D, SLB73 |
||||||
Release date | Q4 2019 | Q2 2008 | ||||||
Lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm | ||||||
Transistors | — | 47. 000.000 | ||||||
Cores | 4 | 1 | ||||||
Threads | 4 | 1 | ||||||
Base frequency | 1,1 GHz | 1,6 GHz | ||||||
Turbo frequency | 3,1 GHz | — | ||||||
Cache memory | 4 MB | 512 KB | ||||||
Max memory capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB | ||||||
Memory types | DDR4/LPDDR4 | DDR3-600 | ||||||
Max # of memory channels | 2 | 1 | ||||||
Max memory bandwidth | 38,4 GB/s | 1,57 GB/s | ||||||
Max PCIe lanes | 6 | — | ||||||
TDP | 6 W | 3 W | ||||||
GPU integrated graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 605 | None | ||||||
GPU execution units | 18 | — | ||||||
GPU shading units | 144 | — | ||||||
GPU base clock | 200 MHz | — | ||||||
GPU boost clock | 750 MHz | — | ||||||
GPU FP32 floating point | 230,4 GFLOPS | — | ||||||
Socket | BGA1090 | BGA437 | ||||||
Maximum temperature | 105°C | 90°C | ||||||
Security | — | Execute Disable Bit | ||||||
PassMark single thread | 1. 329 | 161 | ||||||
PassMark CPU Mark | 2.524 | 174 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core |
2.200 | 468 | ||||||
(Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
5.817 | 602 | ||||||
(Windows | Android) Geekbench 5 single core |
485 | 73 | ||||||
(Windows | Android) Geekbench 5 multi-core |
1.277 | 111 | ||||||
(SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
42,42 GFLOPS | 1,34 GFLOPS | ||||||
(Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
970 pts / W | 241 pts / W | ||||||
Amazon | ||||||||
eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
The processor Intel Pentium Silver N5030 has more cores, the maximum frequency of Intel Pentium Silver N5030 is greater, that the thermal dissipation power of Intel Atom N270 is less. The Intel Pentium Silver N5030 was designed earlier.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 |
1. 329 2.524 |
Intel Atom N270 |
161 174 |
In single core, the difference is 725%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1351%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Windows 64-bit:
Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 |
2.200 5.817 |
Intel Atom N270 |
468 602 |
In single core, the difference is 370%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 866%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
On Android:
Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Android | |
---|---|
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 |
519 1.477 |
Intel Atom N270 |
73 111 |
In single core, the difference is 611%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1231%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
Equivalence:
Intel Pentium Silver N5030 AMD equivalentIntel Atom N270 AMD equivalent
Intel Pentium G3250 vs. Intel Atom S1240
Intel Pentium G3250
The Intel Pentium G3250 operates with 2 cores and 2 CPU threads. It run at No turbo base No turbo all cores while the TDP is set at 53 W. The processor is attached to the LGA 1150 CPU socket. This version includes 3.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 2 memory channels to support DDR3-1333 RAM and features 3.0 PCIe Gen 16 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Haswell S Architecture is enhanced with 14 nm technology and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d. The product was launched on Q3/2014
Intel Atom S1240
The Intel Atom S1240 operates with 2 cores and 2 CPU threads. It run at No turbo base No turbo all cores while the TDP is set at 6.1 W.The processor is attached to the BGA 1283 CPU socket. This version includes 1.00 MB of L3 cache on one chip, supports 1 memory channels to support DDR3-1333 RAM and features 2.0 PCIe Gen 8 lanes. Tjunction keeps below — degrees C. In particular, Centerton Architecture is enhanced with 32 nm technology and supports VT-x. The product was launched on Q4/2012
Intel Pentium G3250
Intel Atom S1240
Compare Detail
3. 20 GHz | Frequency | 1.60 GHz |
2 | Cores | 2 |
No turbo | Turbo (1 Core) | No turbo |
No turbo | Turbo (All Cores) | No turbo |
No | Hyperthreading | Yes |
No | Overclocking | No |
normal | Core Architecture | normal |
Intel HD Graphics (Haswell GT1) |
GPU | no iGPU |
1.10 GHz | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
14 nm | Technology | 32 nm |
1.10 GHz | GPU (Turbo) | No turbo |
11.1 | DirectX Version | |
3 | Max. displays | |
DDR3-1333 | Memory | DDR3-1333 |
2 | Memory channels | 1 |
Max memory | ||
Yes | ECC | Yes |
— | L2 Cache | — |
3. 00 MB | L3 Cache | 1.00 MB |
3.0 | PCIe version | 2.0 |
16 | PCIe lanes | 8 |
14 nm | Technology | 32 nm |
LGA 1150 | Socket | BGA 1283 |
53 W | TDP | 6.1 W |
VT-x, VT-x EPT, VT-d | Virtualization | VT-x |
Q3/2014 | Release date | Q4/2012 |
Show more data |
Show more data |
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular to generate forms and other stuff in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU internal graphic unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Comparison. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Comparison’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Electric Usage Estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU Utilization (0-100%)
Power cost, dollar per kWh
Intel Pentium G3250 | Intel Atom S1240 | |
53 W | Max TDP | 6.1 W |
NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per day | NA |
NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
NA | Running cost per year | NA |
Popular Comparision
Comments
New Atom versus old Celeron and Pentium 4
From a theoretical point of view, Intel Atom was described in great detail on our website. One can even say that it is exhaustive 🙂 However, not to the end — the question of the practical performance of systems based on it was not seriously raised. However, Intel itself often avoids this issue, preferring either to say nothing at all about performance, focusing only on the ability to run any x86 code, or to make comparisons that, let’s say, say little. For example, at one of the presentations I managed to hear the phrase: «In video encoding tasks, the new Atom is faster than the Pentium 4 520.» On the one hand, at least some information, on the other hand, not everyone already remembers how fast this same 520 worked. Moreover, Pentium 4 is a single-core processor, Atom is a dual-core processor (in older versions, but firstly, they were meant, and secondly, buyers of single-core models are far from interested in performance in the first place), video encoders are relatively well parallelized , so the gain can be explained by this. In general, we get by simple estimates that the Atom core is about one and a half times faster than the Pentium 4 core at the same clock frequency. Somewhere like that. Or not. Or not quite. Or not so at all 🙂 And for many, the Pentium 4 is a completely forgotten stage.
In principle, while testing some products based on Atom, we performed a number of performance tests that allow us to make assumptions about the speed of this processor. However, this work was not carried out deep enough, to which the readers had fair complaints. The ideal way to solve the problem would be to fully test Atom according to our full methodology. However, this path, for all its attractiveness, is not without pitfalls. The main one is the video system. In the first generation of the platform, this problem was not too acute — the chipset is separate, there are 16 PCIe lanes, so you can install any video card and conduct a full-fledged comparison (which has already been done, albeit in a limited mode). In Pine Trail, the video core is built-in, and very weak — GMA 3150, in fact, not far removed from GMA 950 chipsets from five years ago. And the use of an external one is difficult, since there are only four PCIe lanes left. Moreover, using them to organize an x4 slot means completely abandoning the use of any other PCIe peripherals. Therefore, manufacturers either ignore this possibility altogether, relying on the built-in Pine Trail video adapter, or integrate a low-performance notebook video chip directly onto the board connected by a single PCIe line — this is the new ION2 «platform» from NVIDIA.
In general, one has to come to terms with the idea that full-fledged testing will not work anyway. On the other hand, is it really necessary? Obviously, some applications will simply not work on entry-level integrated graphics, but no one will run most of them on such systems. Moreover, in our test method, almost all of them are concentrated in four groups: 3D visualization, rendering of three-dimensional scenes, scientific and engineering calculations, and, of course, games. But even if we get rid of these applications, there will still be enough tests within the methodology to evaluate the suitability of Atom for practical use on their basis. What are we going to do now.
But another «competitor» is more interesting — Celeron E1400. How? And the fact that this is one of the slowest dual-core processors based on a relatively modern architecture (first generation Core). It has not been produced for a long time, although it is still found in the computers of some users, and in retail chains too. But the main thing is not this, but the fact that it is slow 🙂 Accordingly, competition with it will be decisive for the verdict on the future fate of Atom. In the sense that if it turns out that the older models of this family are faster (or at least equal) to the ancient and slow Celeron, then it makes sense to study them further. And if they are even unable to compete with it, then it is better to put them aside until the manufacturer manages to significantly increase the speed of this family. And until this happens, it will be possible to simply remember that these are processors capable of executing x86 code and running mass operating systems, and having very low power consumption, but if at least some requirements, it is better, nevertheless, to turn your attention to completely different lines.
However, the E1400 is a slow processor, but not the slowest of those that are still found in modern life. Even in home computers, not to mention the offices of large and not very companies. Therefore, we decided to make testing more interesting by taking two more processors. The first — Celeron 430 — has been tested for a very long time. And then it demonstrated a slightly higher performance than the Pentium 4 521 — the same 520 (with which Intel sometimes compares new Atoms), but with support for the EM64T instruction set. But the Pentium 4 631 was not studied in detail, since it appeared later than the moment when the NetBurst architecture began to lose its relevance. Processors based on CedarMill differ from more familiar models on the Prescott core in the manufacturing process — 65 nm instead of 90 nm. Otherwise, the Pentium 4 631 is just a Pentium 4 🙂 With a frequency of 3 GHz (which processors with more modern architectures managed to repeat not so long ago), a 2M-byte L2 cache running at 800 MHz FSB and, most importantly, supporting Hyper-Threading, which allows it to perform two computational threads on one core at once.
Motherboard | RAM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BGA559 | Gigabyte D525TUD | KingSton KVR1333N9K3/6G (1 × 800; 6-6-6-15) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LGA775 | GIGABYTE G41M-SES2H (G41) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AM3 | GIGABYTE 890FXA-UD7 (AMD 890FX) | Corsair CM3X2G1600C9DHX (2 × 1066; 7-7-15-15-15-15-15, no matter , especially since Atom processors, as a rule, are simply soldered to the boards, but we tried to minimize the number of boards used. True, we had to take different memory, so perhaps over time we will return to the issue of Atom performance together with DDR2 — it is obvious that DDR3 in systems based on it is useful only in terms of power consumption, but it can also reduce performance (due to low frequency and, accordingly, large delays). For processors under LGA775, we used a G41 board with DDR2, since we really wanted to test the Pentium 4, and it’s not so easy to find a board that supports both it and DDR3 memory at the same time. Note that not all boards on the G41 support processors with the NetBurst architecture. For example, these are Intel boards. Gigabyte, as it turned out, has partial support, as a result of which we had to abandon one potential runner at the last moment — Celeron D 347. Moreover, Celeron on the CedarMill core is officially supported by the board, but only starting from model 352 and higher, and our 347, differing from them only by a multiplier, refused to start.
This time we took a mobile Winchester — Seagate Momentus 5400. 5 ST9320320AS (2.5 ″, rotation speed 5400 rpm, capacity 320 GB, 8 MB cache, SATA300 interface). For two reasons — firstly, many compact nettops are designed specifically for the use of portable hard drives, and secondly, desktop drives in older computers are often even slower. But we did not save on the amount of memory — after all, we use a modern 64-bit system, and 4 GB of RAM is now inexpensive. Of course, this greatly improves the results of older processors, which in reality often have to work in a much tighter environment (with 1-2 GB of RAM). However, the operating systems on ancient computers are rarely changed, preferring to use the one with which the system unit was sold, so we have a certain parity. TestingPerformance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in a separate article. For ease of perception, the results on the diagrams are presented in percentages (the result of AMD Athlon II X4 620 is taken as 100% in each of the tests). Detailed results in absolute terms are available as a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format. As mentioned above, we have completely removed four groups of tests. However, all the scores on the charts, except for the final one, are compatible with «full-format» tests, which allows you to quickly compare the presented processors with any of our tested ones. In order to make this possible, we removed the entire groups, instead of finer work with specific applications. The latter could give a more useful result in the narrow sense (since some of the discarded applications will probably work on Atom, and no one will run some of the stopped ones on such systems), but would not ensure compatibility of the results in the broad sense 🙂 Graphic editorsAdobe Photoshop looks like a black sheep here, but only at first glance — after all, in our country this program is still one of the most famous objects of piracy, which also leads to the fact that «amateur» programs (significantly cheaper and somewhat more adequate for personal use) are much less popular than in other countries. In general, «our man» is able to pile up Photoshop on a netbook, not to mention a nettop. Another question is that you can do this only out of desperation — theoretically, two cores and four computation threads in Photoshop can give a gain compared to one or two threads of other test participants, but in practice this did not help Atom. However, Pentium 4’s presence of Hyper-Threading allowed it to «wrestle» with the Celeron 430. In general, as we can see, the Atom D525 in this group is twice behind the junior dual-core processors of the Celeron E1400 level and four times behind the older models with two computing cores. Yes, and single-core Celeron and Pentium 4 cope with this work one and a half times faster than the D525. ArchiversTwo compute threads and 2 MB of cache memory help the Pentium 4 631 keep up well with the Celeron 430, but the E1400 is noticeably ahead. Modern dual-core budget processors outperform their outdated single-core counterparts by a couple of times. But the Atom D525, although it has reduced the gap (thanks mainly to 7-Zip, where it overtook both the Pentium 4 631 and the Celeron 430), is still lagging behind. CompilationAgain, at first glance, this is a professional use of a computer, but if you think a little… Programming is now studied in schools, not to mention institutes. And in a hostel, a cheap netbook or nettop is much more appropriate than a top-end computer: it’s more accessible to a student, and it’s not a pity if something happens. So this student may well try to compile something on such a platform. We would, however, advise him to think three times before doing this … …because here, too, four computation threads helped the Atom only slightly outperform the dual-thread Pentium 4, but not catch up with the dual-core Celeron E1400. However, in this group of tests, the spread between slow processors is generally very small, so the second place of the D525 can be regarded as a success. Although it is obvious that this “success” matters only when compared with old processors: modern dual-core processors demonstrate a completely different level of performance, and they are the slowest of all modern processors in this area of application 🙂 JavaThere are a lot of Java applications around us lately. “Private traders”, however, usually encounter completely undemanding computer resources (for example, in Internet banking), however, serious companies have been eyeing Atom for a long time, replacing ancient and exhausted systems on the same Pentium 4 or Athlon XP (the Moreover, electricity is expensive in many countries). And they don’t do it in vain! Of course, this second place does not hold a record, because modern budget processors are many times faster, but if the task is “not to be slower, but more compact and more economical”, then the dual-core Atom models quite successfully solve it. Internet browsersWe have finally reached a platform where the results of these two scripted benchmarks can be of practical interest. True, this platform has managed to disappoint us somewhat here. Once upon a time everyone laughed at the advertisement in which «Pentium 4 speeded up the Internet.» But they laughed in vain — compared to Atom, the “old man” is really capable of speeding up something 🙂 And now the complaints of netbook users who bought them “cleanly to browse”, but found out that “browsing” with comfort does not work out. As long as the pages are simple and not overloaded with interactive, the role of the processor in rendering them will be minimal (the communication channel is more important). However, it is worth adding complex scripts, as it immediately turns out that not all processors are equally useful. Moreover, this is all the more sad because if Flash, videos and similar multimedia content have already learned how to accelerate the hardware of the video chip, then JavaScript execution can be accelerated only by increasing the performance of the central processor itself. However, there is one more workaround: if you look at the detailed results, you can see that the D525+Chrome combination is still an order of magnitude faster than Internet Explorer running on Athlon II X2 260, i.e. a competent approach to choosing software provision, this problem can be mitigated. But still, this approach does not lead to victory, but only to honorable surrender: Intel rightly considers compatibility with all applications created for x86 systems one of the key advantages of Atom over competing architectures. And then it suddenly turns out that there is not so much benefit from this compatibility: run everything is possible , but not everything costs to run. How this is better than a limited set of software for ARM, for example, is not entirely clear — all the same, you will have to give up your favorite IE or Firefox. Audio encodingOur audio encoding test «plays along» with multi-threaded processors a little on purpose — by launching simultaneous encoding of as many files as the number of streams will be supported by hardware. For the Atom D525, this number is four, which is more than for all other processors. However, as we can see, this doesn’t help it much: it is still one and a half times behind the Celeron E1400 — at a close clock frequency and despite Hyper-Threading support. Video encodingObviously, no one in their right mind would buy an Atom computer for video work. However, if he is already there, sometimes such a task can “fall” on him. In any case, people who transcode video for mobile devices on NAS are personally known to us. The reason is simple — this is where everything is stored, and the NAS may turn out to be the only constantly on computer in the house, so let it not be idle, but also slowly engaged in transcoding. And indeed, if the speed is not of great importance (that is, they loaded the computer with work, and whether it will perform it for a night or an hour is not important), this approach is quite justified. Now, if performance is important, then it should be taken into account that in fact any dual-core processor (with the possible exception of the junior Pentium D) is more than one and a half times faster than the older Atom. Modern dual-core models — by 3.5 times, and budget quad-core models — by all four times. In general, the destiny of Atom is to compete with old budget single-core processors or with even older non-budget ones, but also single-core ones 🙂 TotalEven the significant optimization of the latest version of the testing methodology (to be more precise, of the applications included in it) for multithreading did not allow the Atom D525 to reach the level of equal-frequency single-core processors with the Core microarchitecture (Core 2 and later). Here, it certainly outperforms the Pentium 4 of equal frequency, but what’s the point of such a gain? Not to mention the fact that in the conditions of using a smaller number of computational threads, a gain can easily turn into a loss. Thus, we can make the following verdict: the performance of the Atom line of processors in today’s performance is such that … it can not be seriously studied 🙂 That is, it is possible to determine what tasks the systems will cope with on this processor, and what should not be run on them. But you shouldn’t compare it with «full-fledged» processors — the lag is too big. One might even say that it is fundamentally great. On the other hand, such a loss should not be considered a strategic defeat. Yes, of course, a modern (and not even the most modern) budget dual-core processor priced at $50-100 (not to mention more powerful processors) is several times faster than Atom, and nothing can be done about it. However, there is a certain set of tasks where a further increase in processor performance simply does not give anything — it is not a bottleneck. Unfortunately, such situations are difficult to simulate in tests, but they do happen. And the fact that companies still employ a large number of computers based on Pentium 4, and even Celeron D or Athlon XP, just shows that they are not so rare: if a more productive system unit could increase labor productivity employee, they would have been changed long ago. In addition, older systems are usually equipped with much less memory than in our testing, and slower hard drives too. And in a multitasking environment, they can feel worse, because background processes (at least an antivirus or a firewall) on single-threaded devices will “guzzle” resources from foreground applications, including the user interface. In short, the availability of Atom-based systems for sale allows you to choose when upgrading your computer park — either the same level of power consumption, but higher performance, or remain at the same level of performance, but significantly reduce energy costs. Yes, of course, one can argue that modern processors consume little power at partial load (thanks to efficient energy-saving technologies), which makes the comparison less head-on, but . .. why buy extra computing resources? 😉 If it weren’t for the Atom, there would be no question: there is only one way, and you can’t turn off it. But Atom is! And there is a choice. And everyone can choose what he really needs — performance or energy efficiency 🙂 We thank the Russian representative office of the company Gigabyte , Comparison of Intel Atom 230 and Intel Pentium III 800
Comparative analysis of Intel Atom 230 and Intel Pentium III 800 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Compatibility, Security and reliability, Technology, Virtualization. Intel Atom 230 versus Intel Pentium III 800 AdvantagesCauses to choose Intel Atom 230
Reasons to choose Intel Pentium III 800
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: Intel Atom 230
Feature comparison
Pentium III — frwiki.wiki Pentium III is Intel’s x86 microprocessor range. It is 6- and generation such as Pentium II and Pentium Pro. The fifth processor sold under the Pentium brand (after the Pentium, Pentium MMX, Pentium Pro and Pentium II) was developed under the code name Katmai and was released in late February 1999. It differs from its Pentium II predecessor by the addition of 70 new SSE vector instructions (SIMD) executed by individual units (vector integers) or FPUs (vector floats). Pentium III went through a number of production runs from 450 MHz to 1.13 GHz — even up to 1.4 GHz for the latest models released (Tualatin) — engraved models 0.25 µm = 250 nm (Katmaï), 0.18 µm. = 180 nm (Coppermine), then 0.13 µm = 130 nm (Tualatin). Its system bus was 100 MHz (BX circuit), then 133.33 MHz. First offered with a BX chipset and SDRAM memory, it was later offered with a Rambus-related i820 chipset, but chipset issues (we could only use two memory cards) and memory cost made the i820 a commercial failure, the i810 and i815 turned out to be more successful. Initially, it was distributed in the form of a cartridge (slot 1) up to versions with a frequency of 1000 MHz, then on socket 370 until the end of sales. Cartridge versions have a 512 KB L2 cache on the daughterboard that runs at half the microprocessor frequency. Socket 370 versions include 256 KB L2 directly on-chip for faster access (and microprocessor-identical frequency), 512 KB for Pentium III-S for servers. Pentium III supports multi-processor configuration, commercial motherboards support up to four processors. For server and workstation, there are Pentium III Xeons available in cartridges (slot 2), such as the Pentium II, but this has a different shape, and also supports higher frequencies than for slot 1, and allows «» has more efficient cooling system. The price level was addressed primarily to companies. The Pentium III processor (special edition) is used in the Xbox game console. The 1133 MHz version of the Pentium III Coppermine was quickly discontinued because that frequency caused an internal radiation problem that made the microprocessor unstable. Summary
VersionsSlot version 1 — SECC2
Socket 370 version
See alsoRelated article
External link
wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1×1″ alt=»» title=»»> History of Intel Atomprocessors Intel History of Intel Atom processorsEgor Morozov — In the 80s, when the first laptops appeared, they differed little from personal computers — it was a large box with a built-in keyboard, motherboard, screen and carrying handle, even the battery was not always there. And this was understandable — there was no point in developing special processors for laptops, since the solutions existing on the market did not even require 1 watt. By the end of 90th processors already required at least radiators for cooling, but by the beginning of the 2000s, Intel realized that they needed to release separate processors for laptops with reduced power consumption — this is how the Intel Pentium M line appeared: such processors had a heat pack of 20-25 watts, which was quite suitable for their installation in laptops. In fact, these processors are heavily redesigned Intel Pentium III with lower frequencies: However, a couple of years later, when Microsoft introduced Windows XP Tablet Edition, the question arose of an even greater reduction in heat dissipation — this is how the Intel Celeron ULV line was born (great-great-grandfather of all modern Intel Core i ULV): these processors represented even more stripped-down Pentium M — if the latter worked at frequencies of 1.5-2 GHz, the Celeron frequencies were often less than a gigahertz! In principle, this was enough to run XP (it required a processor with a frequency of at least 233 MHz), but the system worked quite thoughtfully. In 2007, Intel introduced the «daddy» Intel Atom — the A100 and A110 processors, which were stripped down single-core 90 nm Pentium M with frequencies of about 600-800 MHz. Perhaps their only advantage was that their heat dissipation did not exceed 3 W, that is, they could be cooled passively. However, the performance was also passive — even worse than that of the Celeron M, so such processors were not found on the market. Intel realized that, firstly, it was time to transfer processors to a new process technology, and secondly, it was too early to make solutions with a passive cooling system — and in 2008 they introduced Intel Atom. Intel Atom Bonnel The performance of such a processor was, of course, not high — in 3Dmark 06, the processor scored only 500 points, and the video card 150. For example, the processor in the original 2008 Macbook Air, Intel Core 2 Duo T7500, scored 1900 points, and its , GMA X3100, 430 points. As a result, on a netbook with such a processor, it was possible to open documents, surf the Internet, but nothing more — even 720p from YouTube slowed down, and you could forget about games in general. Nevertheless, netbooks with such processors were very popular — firstly, they were very compact and light (10-11″, 1-1.2 kg), secondly, they were cheap — basically no more than $ 200-300, and secondly, third, long-lived — 6 hours with a mixed load was easily achieved, which was rare in 2010. As a result, such devices were massively sold out by students and schoolchildren, because it was an ideal version of a typewriter with the ability to access the Internet.0003 Intel Atom Saltwell Therefore, Intel pulled themselves up and released the Atom Z2xxx line — most often the Z2760 was installed in tablets and netbooks on Windows, and we will consider it. This is a dual-core four-threaded processor with a frequency of about 1.8 GHz, built on a 32 nm process technology, with the same PowerVR graphics (albeit slightly modified), 1 MB L2 and support for up to 2 GB LPDDR2 memory. In terms of processor performance, it was already a completely different level — in 3Dmark 06 it already scored 1000 points, and the video card — about 350. At the same time, the heat pack was reduced to only 2 watts, that is, the processor cooled perfectly passively. Its performance was already enough for a fairly fast system operation, and somewhat improved graphics (they now had 6 computing units instead of 2 in the first generation of Atom) already made it possible, at the very least, but even to do the simplest photo processing in Photoshop. Well, of course, there were no problems with playing 720p and even some 1080p formats. However, in two years, from 2010 to 2012, user requests grew significantly, and the Z2760, which could only handle 768p resolution normally, faded somewhat compared to the iPad 4, which pulled 2048×1536, so Intel had room to grow. Intel Atom Silvermont I must say that Intel made simply excellent processors: firstly, they were able to «shove» 4 cores into a 2-3 W heat pack, secondly, the processors learned to work with DDR3, and thirdly, now they are equipped with a full-fledged Intel HD Graphics of the Ivy Bridge generation, so now there is support for DX11, SSE 4 and other modern instructions, which in theory made it possible to run almost any modern game on such a graphics. The final processor performance in 3Dmark 06 was as much as 1800 points — the level of Intel Core i ULV 2nd generation, which was just an excellent result — Windows started and ran quickly, and with 4 GB of RAM there were no problems with multitasking. Tablets on such hardware easily digested not only 1080p, but also 1440p video. The result of the video card was no worse — 1900 points: yes, a full-fledged HD 4000 scores about 4000 points in 3Dmark 06, but there are 16 computing units with a frequency of about 1000 MHz, and here there are only 4, with a frequency of about 600 MHz. Nevertheless, Civilization 5 performed tolerably on such a schedule — in comparison with the mobile truncated Civilization, this was a breakthrough. The same applies to other games — there are still no analogues of the same Dirt 3 for mobile OSes, and yet it ran briskly on these Atoms at the minimum settings. Intel Atom Cherry Trail Let’s take, perhaps, the most popular representative of the new line — Z8300. This processor is built on a 14 nm process technology, has the same 4 cores with frequencies of about 2 GHz, but a much better video card — now, firstly, it is based on the integrated graphics of the new Broadwell generation at that time, and secondly, it has either 12 (as in this processor), or 16 (as in the Z8700) computing units with a frequency of about 500 MHz. It would seem that the increase in graphics should be 3-4 times, but in reality everything rested on the heat pack: if Bay Trail 2-3 W was enough in principle, then for full-fledged work of the graphics it was required at least 2-3 times more. Therefore, as a result, the video card became only 30-50% more powerful, while the processor generally remained at the same level. So it makes little sense to change tablets from Z3740 to Z8300 — the system will work the same way, the programs will run at the same time. The only increase is observed in games, but in general, if the game did not go to Bay Trail, then it will most likely be unplayable on Cherry. Further development of the Intel Atom line Recommendations
RecommendationsTelegram may be removed from the Apple App Store AliExpress again took away the opportunity for Russians to save. This time seems to be forever ? How to install applications removed from the App Store on iPhone — Sberbank, Alfa and others «Yandex» greatly worsened the terms of the subscription «Yandex.Plus» See alsoResearch
Don’t send «eggplant» to girls. This could end badly
|