I knew the Intel Atom processors were slow, I didn't realize they were this slow...! - GoFuckYourself.com

Brad Mitchell · 07-02-2009, 10:38 PM

Here's a chart comparing Intel Atoms to other low power processors and also against a consumer Core2 Duo desktop:

The funny thing is that with all the talk and hype about the low power usage for Atoms, most of this is lost with inefficient power supplies and the old chipset they use. I was very surprised to read on Toms Hardware that the smarter thing to do would be to build a Core2 E7200 series (or similar) and one could achieve the same relative low idle power usage of around 40 watts but have a multiple of the performance. So much for 4-8W processors when the motherboard/power supply combos are driving the total Watts up to 40-65!

I thought these might work well in servers as a brilliant saver of power but for only like $50 more one could build a core2 system that uses essentially the same power with 2-6x the performance.

Geek on.

Brad

hypedough · 07-02-2009, 10:55 PM

Holy shit are PCs going backwards?

96ukssob · 07-02-2009, 10:56 PM

arent these made for mobile/web browsing computers? they really dont need the speed of a pen2, but still, thats bad

tony286 · 07-02-2009, 10:56 PM

I have a net book with one in it and its cool for surfing. But I couldnt see someone using a server with atom processors in it.

abshard · 07-02-2009, 11:02 PM

I have an atom server using about 40mbs peak hosting thumbs,load is very low

load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.06

edit actually 47mbs peak 35mbs 95%

LiveDose · 07-02-2009, 11:12 PM

So are those Acer mini notebooks with atom processors ok for video Skyping or will that be lagging?

Brad Mitchell · 07-03-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abshard

I have an atom server using about 40mbs peak hosting thumbs,load is very low

load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.06

edit actually 47mbs peak 35mbs 95%

Well that's just it, for some serving applications something like this will do very well - things like static galleries and large movie files. Bandwidth capability and output in these applications will become more a derivative of the disk speed and available RAM. With today's more average host client where you'll get a fail with any higher usage would be most likely with things that are dynamic (scripts, databases, etc) or any amount of video encoding, perhaps even with too many connections or mixing up varied read and write activity. So, good for some hosting uses but not for others. My more tech point was that one could have the same surprising benefit of low power consumption with a different Intel processor that's still quite cheap with a true multiple on performance/output.

Brad

Darkcrni · 07-03-2009, 01:54 AM

Intel sucks anyhow!

iseeyou · 07-03-2009, 03:32 AM

I recently bought 2 Lenovo S10 netbooks which I use for HD video encoding. It takes 40-48 hours to convert 1 hour of interlaced HDV to 1280x720 on my netbook using virtualdub.

Most atom processors are in netbooks and should be compared with other notebooks or netbooks.

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Leno...etbook/?page=6

Under full load, only 24Watts and that includes the netbook monitor (which will turn off after a short time).

The beauty of the atom is cheap,efficient horsepower. Instead of 1 fast,expensive video encoding machine, you can buy 2-3 or more atom netbooks. And while one video is encoding, you can start the next video on another netbook.

All those tests which compare total energy usage of the atom versus dual core for encoding are misleading. They are only valid if you immediately turn off the dual core machine when it finishes. If the dual core machine is not turned off, then it will continue to consume energy.

I also have an old quad core desktop pc which encodes 1 hour of interlaced HDV to 1280x720 in approximately 10-12 hours. But my quad core runs 24 hours/day because I use it often. Even if I used it only for video encoding and immediately turned it off after, it will still sometimes finish encoding when I am sleeping or not around. I guess it could be set to auto shutdown after encoding is finished.

An atom netbook at full load easily consumes less energy than most desktop dual core systems at idle. And remember that they usually don't include the monitor in those desktop power consumption tests which can consume significantly more power than a tiny netbook monitor.

iseeyou · 07-03-2009, 03:47 AM

One more thing that I love about atom netbooks.

They don't overheat. It is almost impossible to overheat these netbooks.

Some years ago, I was doing video encoding on a Pentium 2 notebook. I remember how if I put my nose near the fan exhaust during encoding, it smelled like burning electronics. It was very hot.

My atom netbook never even comes close to being hot. I elevate the netbook a little while encoding HDV so that the bottom is not sitting flat on the table. This allows air to flow under the netbook. After several hours of HDV encoding, the bottom is just a little warm. The keyboard never feels hot.

Chosen · 07-03-2009, 04:28 AM

I guess that's old news

JFK · 07-03-2009, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Well that's just it, for some serving applications something like this will do very well - things like static galleries and large movie files. Bandwidth capability and output in these applications will become more a derivative of the disk speed and available RAM. With today's more average host client where you'll get a fail with any higher usage would be most likely with things that are dynamic (scripts, databases, etc) or any amount of video encoding, perhaps even with too many connections or mixing up varied read and write activity. So, good for some hosting uses but not for others. My more tech point was that one could have the same surprising benefit of low power consumption with a different Intel processor that's still quite cheap with a true multiple on performance/output.

Brad

you lost me at ....Well

iseeyou · 07-03-2009, 06:27 AM

50 atom processors in one server rack

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wefVRwDmCzs

07-02-2009, 10:38 PM	#1
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,813	I knew the Intel Atom processors were slow, I didn't realize they were this slow...! Here's a chart comparing Intel Atoms to other low power processors and also against a consumer Core2 Duo desktop: The funny thing is that with all the talk and hype about the low power usage for Atoms, most of this is lost with inefficient power supplies and the old chipset they use. I was very surprised to read on Toms Hardware that the smarter thing to do would be to build a Core2 E7200 series (or similar) and one could achieve the same relative low idle power usage of around 40 watts but have a multiple of the performance. So much for 4-8W processors when the motherboard/power supply combos are driving the total Watts up to 40-65! I thought these might work well in servers as a brilliant saver of power but for only like $50 more one could build a core2 system that uses essentially the same power with 2-6x the performance. Geek on. Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

07-02-2009, 10:55 PM	#2
hypedough Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Now running NATS4: HypeDough.com! Posts: 3,743	Holy shit are PCs going backwards? __________________ Ricky D :: Hype Dough President \| XBIZ.net \| ICQ 172-939-826 AIM+Skype HypeDough \| [NATS4] Kayden420: ['09 '10 '11 XBIZ Nominee \| Exclusive & HD] \| ThePornScout: [Exclusive + Reality \| Amateurs Want to Become Pornstars]

07-02-2009, 10:56 PM	#3
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	arent these made for mobile/web browsing computers? they really dont need the speed of a pen2, but still, thats bad __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

07-02-2009, 11:02 PM	#5
abshard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 6,461	I have an atom server using about 40mbs peak hosting thumbs,load is very low load average: 0.06, 0.08, 0.06 edit actually 47mbs peak 35mbs 95% Last edited by abshard; 07-02-2009 at 11:06 PM..

07-02-2009, 11:12 PM	#6
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	So are those Acer mini notebooks with atom processors ok for video Skyping or will that be lagging? __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

07-02-2009, 10:56 PM	#4
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I have a net book with one in it and its cool for surfing. But I couldnt see someone using a server with atom processors in it.

07-03-2009, 01:54 AM	#8
Darkcrni Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Right Around The Corner Posts: 1,704	Intel sucks anyhow!

07-03-2009, 03:32 AM	#9
iseeyou So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 306	I recently bought 2 Lenovo S10 netbooks which I use for HD video encoding. It takes 40-48 hours to convert 1 hour of interlaced HDV to 1280x720 on my netbook using virtualdub. Most atom processors are in netbooks and should be compared with other notebooks or netbooks. http://hothardware.com/Articles/Leno...etbook/?page=6 Under full load, only 24Watts and that includes the netbook monitor (which will turn off after a short time). The beauty of the atom is cheap,efficient horsepower. Instead of 1 fast,expensive video encoding machine, you can buy 2-3 or more atom netbooks. And while one video is encoding, you can start the next video on another netbook. All those tests which compare total energy usage of the atom versus dual core for encoding are misleading. They are only valid if you immediately turn off the dual core machine when it finishes. If the dual core machine is not turned off, then it will continue to consume energy. I also have an old quad core desktop pc which encodes 1 hour of interlaced HDV to 1280x720 in approximately 10-12 hours. But my quad core runs 24 hours/day because I use it often. Even if I used it only for video encoding and immediately turned it off after, it will still sometimes finish encoding when I am sleeping or not around. I guess it could be set to auto shutdown after encoding is finished. An atom netbook at full load easily consumes less energy than most desktop dual core systems at idle. And remember that they usually don't include the monitor in those desktop power consumption tests which can consume significantly more power than a tiny netbook monitor.

07-03-2009, 03:47 AM	#10
iseeyou So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 306	One more thing that I love about atom netbooks. They don't overheat. It is almost impossible to overheat these netbooks. Some years ago, I was doing video encoding on a Pentium 2 notebook. I remember how if I put my nose near the fan exhaust during encoding, it smelled like burning electronics. It was very hot. My atom netbook never even comes close to being hot. I elevate the netbook a little while encoding HDV so that the bottom is not sitting flat on the table. This allows air to flow under the netbook. After several hours of HDV encoding, the bottom is just a little warm. The keyboard never feels hot.

07-03-2009, 04:28 AM	#11
Chosen VIPPay.com \| AdultWebSponsors.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 63,151	I guess that's old news

07-03-2009, 06:27 AM	#13
iseeyou So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 306	50 atom processors in one server rack https://youtube.com/watch?v=wefVRwDmCzs