Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:02

AMD E-350 vs Intel Atom D525+ION2 - Power-Consumption

Written by Eliot Kucharik

E-350_vs_D525_ASRock_front_small top-value-2008-lr

Review:
Intel Atom is still dead

Power-Consumption

While the ASRock ION 330HT box is an original one, we used a ITX case with 80W PSU for the E-350 and D525. We also removed the WLAN card of the Zotac board, so Zotac has no disadvantage due to an extra card. First, we take a look at power efficiency in Cinebench, meaning under very high and threaded loads.

 

E-350_vs_D525_CBpower


E-350_vs_D525_CBeff

The efficency of both the Intel Atom and the AMD E-350 are dissapointing. Any Intel desktop CPU is more efficient and of course ARM is also miles ahead.

 

E-350_vs_D525_power

In the power consumption department the old Atom/ION combination still leads slightly but just about 4W more for either Atom D525+ION2 and E-350 are not that bad either. The Zotac board draws 1.7W when switched off, which is dissapointing, while the ASRock ION box did the correct thing and does not use any energy at all. The blu-ray test was done with a file on the SDD, so using a real drive would add about 7-8W.

 

(Page 5 of 6)
Last modified on Saturday, 28 May 2011 00:13
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+16 #1 bunker 2011-05-25 11:52
excuse me?

while i do like the benchmarks i don't like your conclusions AT ALL.
good thing you've added your results...

the E350 completely crushes both atoms in every benchmark other than dual threaded cinebench...

And i LOL'd at your conclusions the old atom uses 4Watts less in far cry. Sure, thats what the graph says, but the E350 accually doubles the 330's framrates. how can you honestly take that benchmark as a standard.

sigh...

maybe you should also add an efficiency score for far cry. that should be fun to watch you justify intel/nvidiass poor results there
 
 
+5 #2 Wolfesteinabhi 2011-05-25 12:03
AND YEAH this site clearly needs a PROOF READER! .. i read the sentence on first page thrice to understand that it actually is saying "512KB of Cache"

"The Atom D525 is clocked at 1.8GHz, has 2x 512MB 2nd Level Cache" LOL :D
 
 
+7 #3 The blue fox 2011-05-25 12:11
I don't understand Gaming bench marks on hardware like this. No one ever going to play games Other then Warcraft on this kind of hardware.
 
 
+8 #4 nele 2011-05-25 12:38
Quoting The blue fox:
I don't understand Gaming bench marks on hardware like this. No one ever going to play games Other then Warcraft on this kind of hardware.


Well it depends really... I'm getting a Fusion HTPC soon and since I'm not into console gaming (or any sort of gaming for that matter), I'm planning to install a few "oldies".

Of course, hardware won't be an issue for Worms or Angry Birds, but there's plenty of older games worth playing, for example some racing titles, fighting games, sports (mainly PES) - basically anything that can be fun with a couple of gamepads and a bunch of drunk people around...

I don't need a console, I just want to run some old, simple and silly games when I feel like it. :-)
 
 
+1 #5 eliot 2011-05-28 00:13
Quoting The blue fox:
I don't understand Gaming bench marks on hardware like this. No one ever going to play games Other then Warcraft on this kind of hardware.


LoL, in the last review I did not bother to include any games and many were outraged... So what is it what you want? If I do one game it's not ok, if I don't it's not ok either... make up your minds. ;-)
 
 
0 #6 eliot 2011-05-28 00:18
Quoting bunker:
excuse me?

while i do like the benchmarks i don't like your conclusions AT ALL.
good thing you've added your results...

the E350 completely crushes both atoms in every benchmark other than dual threaded cinebench...

And i LOL'd at your conclusions the old atom uses 4Watts less in far cry. Sure, thats what the graph says, but the E350 accually doubles the 330's framrates. how can you honestly take that benchmark as a standard.

sigh...

maybe you should also add an efficiency score for far cry. that should be fun to watch you justify intel/nvidiass poor results there


two week CPUs or CPU vs APU does not crash each other... While in WinRAR the difference is noticable (as a user) in any other application you won't notice. So there is no crushing involved. Crushing maybe a word to choose for the single-threaded performance which is still more important nowadays because most software besides games don't bother to utilize that potential. And something like Photoshop is a bit too much for such CPUs either. Even the x264 was just for the fun of it, not really to suggest to any user to do any encoding with it ;-)
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments