intel atom 330...wonder about overclocking it..

[computerlab]

aight..all u guys know about intel atom 330..its a dual core processor and each core has HT enabled...so its like 4 threads being processed at a time..and this processor has got 1mb of l2 cache..i know its meant for machines to have low power consuption...very low..i generally see this site to a processor's performance...the benchmarks on this site are more or less accurate and one gets a good idea of how a processor compares to the other..and atom 330 scores 609 points in their benchmark..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

its clocked at 533mhz fsb and has a multiplier of 12..so i was just wondering whether anyone has overclocked it to 800 mhz fsb or so(wud reach 2.4ghz from current 1.6ghz)..and how it performs at that speed with execution of 4 threads at a time..i dint find good benchmarks on google...

[p_o_s_pc]

it wouldn't be that good performance wise and it may not even be possible to get it to overclock. What do you plan on doing with it?

[computerlab]

na na i dont plan to go with it..just wondering about its overclocking results..coz its only 1.6ghz and got a whole lot of overclocking headroom...the temperatures on idle are only 23-27C...and some silly site i found on google says that the world record with atom 330 is 2240mhz something...i really dont think so...the main thing which make me wonder is 4 threads at a time..

[computerlab]

does anybody have atom 330?

[hat]

cdawall has an atom.. dunno if it's a 330 though

[Spectrobozo]

here they tested it at 2.1ghz
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/279..._hd/index.html

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by computerlab

na na i dont plan to go with it..just wondering about its overclocking results..coz its only 1.6ghz and got a whole lot of overclocking headroom...the temperatures on idle are only 23-27C...and some silly site i found on google says that the world record with atom 330 is 2240mhz something...i really dont think so...the main thing which make me wonder is 4 threads at a time..

The Atom330 doesn't have as much headroom as you would expect. The temps are low for a reason, low voltages. So low, in fact, that pushing it past 2.0GHz sometimes isn't possible. And because there are no motherboards with decent voltage control available with the Atoms, overclocking is very limitted.

[erocker]

Thing is what little overclock you may achieve might be the difference between playing 720p or not. I managed to get my eeePC oc'd 150mhz and it does make a good difference with video.

[newtekie1]

The HT on the Atom 330 doesn't really do all that good, the processor are actually rather inefficient. For HTPC/Desktop use, a Celeron E1400 would probably work out much better. It is more powerful at stock, and has a huge amount of overclocking headroom, or you can undervolt it for cooler running.

Originally Posted by erocker

Thing is what little overclock you may achieve might be the difference between playing 720p or not. I managed to get my eeePC oc'd 150mhz and it does make a good difference with video.

Definitely true. My EeePC stutters slightly with 720p@1.6GHz. Luckly ASUS built in a "Super Performance" mode that automatically pushes the CPU to ~1.7GHz, and 720p content is smooth as can be then. Not that I can tell the different between 720p and 480p on the little monitor anyway...

I would think the 330@1.6GHz wouldn't have such a problem though, with the second core helping decode the video and audio streams.

[Meecrob]

Atom=fail, lack of OOOE really sucks, 2009 and intel has a cpu that lacks OOOE......*shakes head*

I cant wait to see the dual core nano's that via announced a while back.....should be a far superior platform for these kinda uses, where nano would be great in stuff like cellphones/pda's.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Meecrob

Atom=fail, lack of OOOE really sucks, 2009 and intel has a cpu that lacks OOOE......*shakes head*

I cant wait to see the dual core nano's that via announced a while back.....should be a far superior platform for these kinda uses, where nano would be great in stuff like cellphones/pda's.

Out Of Order Execution? So what? Atom works great for surfing the web and writing in my man journal.

[Meecrob]

but whats the point of a dual core atom with HT(seen as 4 cores) when it lacks a basic feature cpu's have had for many years now?

who needs 2real+2 virtual cores for surfing the net?

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Meecrob

but whats the point of a dual core atom with HT(seen as 4 cores) when it lacks a basic feature cpu's have had for many years now?

who needs 2real+2 virtual cores for surfing the net?

Not me, mines a single core. My thoughts on HT is that it's just as useless at the P4 days, for my needs anyway. Idk, a dual core Atom is almost an oxymoron, I thought the purpose of the Atom chip was to just have something simple, low voltage, low heat for netbooks. If someone wants that in a dual core, wouldn't a low voltage/wattage Core 2 be best?

[Meecrob]

at least on the P4 it had a point for a few spicific applications such as encoding, but the atom lacks the grunt to be an encoding box, so HT seems utterly useless........like putting a turbocharger on a 3 cylinder geo metro :P

[newtekie1]

The Hyperthreading on the Atom is largely why the single core even has enough grunt to handle basic media tasks. The processor would seem a lot more sluggish without it. Hyperthreading on the single core chips was, IMO, necessary.

The purpose of the dual core Atom is mainly to provide a little bit better of an experience for nettop users, which have the nettop connected to either a higher resolution monitor or a HDTV. Basically, it was put into place so that HD content would be watchable. Now, Hyperthreading here, might not be as necessary. However, because of the way the chip is designed, using two single core chips on a single package, hyperthreading was present with the single core chips already, so why not include it.

But, we've already covered the fact that a low wattage Core 2 based processor would probably do the job better, though probably at a significant power usage increase. I mean, even the Celeron E1200, which was stock at the same 1.6GHz as the Atom330, has a TDP of 65w. Compare that to the 8w of the dual core Atom...

The Atom's main purpose is to be small, to be cheap, and to use as little power as possible.

Originally Posted by Meecrob

at least on the P4 it had a point for a few spicific applications such as encoding, but the atom lacks the grunt to be an encoding box, so HT seems utterly useless........like putting a turbocharger on a 3 cylinder geo metro :P

Actually, it is odd you should say that. The Metro was available from 87-90 with the turbocharged 1.0L 3-Cylinder engine...

IMO, if it make the difference between getting on the freeway safely, or getting rear-ended because you can't get up to speed, I'll take it.

[Meecrob]

thought thats what coreavc was for?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Meecrob

thought thats what coreavc was for?

There are several problems with Coreavc, the main issue that most people have is that it drops frames to make the content watchable, which lowers the quality.

On the single core Atom, it makes 720p content watchable, but frames still drop, and 1080p content is impossible. Even 720p can still stutter, but overclocking the Atom takes care of this.

A dual-core Atom is essentially what is required to watch 1080p content. Mainly, the dual-core helps in the way of allowing the video and audio streams to be decoded on seperate cores.

[hat]

In short, build a htpc with a small, cozy case and a mid-power, low-energy, low-heat dual core cpu.

[Meecrob]

would be better off looking at a low end pentium or k8e setup, my buddys got an msi wind mini-desktop thing, his old htpc thats got a 4850e in it is faster in every way, totaly silent, and when not in use clocks itself down to save even more power, OH and the onboard video doesn't struggle with HD video unlike the GMA options start to, really the only places I see atom having a place where pc's are concerned are.

1. business systems that are just used for net and office work
2. file servers
3. netbooks

you can ofcorse have variants on those uses, but the fact is that atom really isnt a great cpu for general use, its a TOY more then anything, not that its a bad thing to have a toy like that, but if you want to do any serious work, atom isnt the cpu for you.

Have any of you gotten to play with a via nano yet?

I have, and no, its NOT THAT FAST, BUT it is faster then atom, and the platform is more well balanced, the onboard video from via isnt great ofcorse BUT it KILLS INTELS GMA, you can even play basic games on it, it can deal with 1080p video playback without choking, honestly its DECENT for that kinda use, again, it is NOT HIGH POWER, but platform wise nano rigs use LESS ENERGY then atom.....(mostly due to that HORRIBLE chipset intel saddled atom with)

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Meecrob

would be better off looking at a low end pentium or k8e setup, my buddys got an msi wind mini-desktop thing, his old htpc thats got a 4850e in it is faster in every way, totaly silent, and when not in use clocks itself down to save even more power, OH and the onboard video doesn't struggle with HD video unlike the GMA options start to, really the only places I see atom having a place where pc's are concerned are.

We've already gone over this. Those solutions would be more powerful, but also use more power and put out more heat, even with cool n' quiet/speedstep.

You are proposing solutions where the processor alone consumes more power than the entire Atom system...

Originally Posted by Meecrob

you can ofcorse have variants on those uses, but the fact is that atom really isnt a great cpu for general use, its a TOY more then anything, not that its a bad thing to have a toy like that, but if you want to do any serious work, atom isnt the cpu for you.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that the Atom is suited perfectly for what 90% of users do. But for most of use around here, the enthusiasts, I would say something like a Celeron Dual-Core or Athlon X2 would probably be a better fit. We would notice the extra performance, and don't care as much about the power usage.

Originally Posted by Meecrob

Have any of you gotten to play with a via nano yet?

I have, and no, its NOT THAT FAST, BUT it is faster then atom, and the platform is more well balanced, the onboard video from via isnt great ofcorse BUT it KILLS INTELS GMA, you can even play basic games on it, it can deal with 1080p video playback without choking, honestly its DECENT for that kinda use, again, it is NOT HIGH POWER, but platform wise nano rigs use LESS ENERGY then atom.....(mostly due to that HORRIBLE chipset intel saddled atom with)

Nano is a good platform, but again you are talking about the processor alone consuming almost as much power as the entire Atom platform.

And the nVidia ION platform kills your complaints about Intel's GMA. But even still, the Intel GMA onboard is capable of basic games, and 1080p is possible with it also(using the dual-core 330).

And the Nano platform does not use less energy than Atom, I don't know where you got that. The entire Atom 330 platform, with Intel's GMA, consumes 33.5w. Just the Nano L2200(1.6GHz Single Core), consumes 17w, the entire Platform tops 40w...

[Meecrob]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Nano is a good platform, but again you are talking about the processor alone consuming almost as much power as the entire Atom platform.

And the nVidia ION platform kills your complaints about Intel's GMA. But even still, the Intel GMA onboard is capable of basic games, and 1080p is possible with it also(using the dual-core 330).

And the Nano platform does not use less energy than Atom, I don't know where you got that. The entire Atom 330 platform, with Intel's GMA, consumes 33.5w. Just the Nano L2200(1.6GHz Single Core), consumes 17w, the entire Platform tops 40w...

The nano PLATFORM uses LESS power at idle when compaired with the ATOM platform, this is due to the stupidly high power use of the CHIPSET, there have been a good number of tests showing that all but the top clocked nano's use less power, the nano's current version dosnt scale well, once u ramp up the clocks it draws more power BUT you do not have to run it at full power all the time, infact my friend has a samsung nano based netbook, and most of the time it keeps itself underclocked, it dosnt even ramp up to full clock when playing 720p anime, where as his old atom based netbook had to run overclocked to play the same anime even using coreavc.

now depending on what chips/platforms you compair the story WILL BE DIFFRENT.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-me...-Intel-Atom/p5

To confirm this we quickly fired up the Photoshop portion of our real world test suite and checked the power consumption used in one run through. Although Atom took a couple of minutes longer to complete the task, both systems used nearly identical amounts of power. Ultimately, this one's too close to call and will depend largely on your usage.

image that goes with this quote is below showing watt use over time(more accurate then other methods of testing)


and heres tweaktowns tests
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/15...ro/index9.html

and http://arstechnica.com/hardware/revi...o-review.ars/8
arstechnica

and [H](dispite the fact I dispise kyle)
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...hlbnRodXNpYXN0

at full load the nano uses more power, but this is (at the time) the top of the line nano, from what I understand the dualcore nano's may be using 45nm prosess insted of the current 65nm prosess they are using that should drop power use at load down to match atom's(chip for chip) if atom dosnt get a better chipset its going to endup pulling more power at load.

most of a computers time(when talking about an alwase on system) is spent at idle, hell even most of its time when in day to day use is at idle, full load as tested by running stuff like prime95 (or the like) is not realistic, its worst case, and the fact is that at full load the nano is getting alot more work done then the atom(3ipc vs 2 ipc+ooe vs ioe)

IF you want a netbook/set top box/exct with decent power to energy use ratio, nano is better period.

the video on neither is great, but the GMA(945 chipset) is HORRIBLE and the chipset draws FAR TO MUCH POWER and produces WAY TO MUCH HEAT for the job its doing.....

if only we could get hd3000 class video paired with nano.....that would be a nice little video box

[wolf]

whats the difference in power useage between;

Atom 330 + ION
Atom 330 + Intel (945?)

cos imo ION is the clear winner for low end gaming capability and 1080p content, be it that Intel GMA can do it, it wont do it as well as a Geforce 9400.

[Meecrob]

not sure, havent found a good reliable ion review with full watt breakdown yet, will look more tomarow.