Athlon 64 2000+ at 8-watts outperforms, draws less energy than Atom

AMD's going through some rough times, no doubt about it, but for fanboys of the CPU maker (wait, do CPU fanboys still exist?) here's your feel-good story of the year. The always-thorough Tom's Hardware has pit Intel's 1.6GHz Atom 230 processor against AMD's Athlon 64 2000+, and the results just might surprise you. The 1GHz Athlon (with a core voltage of 0.90 volts and a power draw of just 8 watts) managed to best the aforementioned Atom in both energy consumption and processing power tests. The gurus at Tom's credited the more modern 790G platform and the highly efficient K8 architecture as big players in the Athlon's strong showing, finally deeming said chip "more economical, faster and quieter" than the Atom. We know you're in disbelief -- good thing there are 14 pages of proof waiting in the read link.

[Thanks, Carl]

[Anthony @ Aug 17th 2008 5:54AM]

YEAAA =] i knew it iii knew it ... intels balls are crushed with AMDs metaphorical foot =]

lifes good once again xD

[maty @ Aug 17th 2008 6:09AM]

So you're one of these aforementioned "CPU fanboys"?

Wow.

Surprising news to hear, but its all about marketshare. With everything small now appearing to use Atom, I doubt it will have any bearing on anything.

Not that I care. Gaming rigs all the way!

[Mark Anderson @ Aug 17th 2008 6:22AM]

Yup. Now AMD have a chip that can power small netbooks... almost all of which use Atom and its form factor boards.

OK.

[yode @ Aug 17th 2008 7:21AM]

i told god i'd be back in a second

[collegekid13 @ Aug 17th 2008 8:09AM]

man its so hard not to act reckless

[d00b @ Aug 17th 2008 8:34AM]

The point isn't that AMD chip "wins" or "loses" against the Atom, but that they have a viable entrant to the MID market, if they so choose. Because the Ath64 uses older tech, they can sell it at cost and still be ahead, since they can stand to gain some market share, and just as important, mind share. Not sure if that chip can be shoehorned into the current MID form factor given its size, though.

What perturbs me is that AMD seem to take a wait-and-see attitude on the emergence of a low-cost mobile platform (from a recent CNet piece) given its low margins. When you are a second banana, you have to take more risk than the market leader, and it seems to me that Intel is doing all leading in opening a new market.

[d00b @ Aug 17th 2008 9:36AM]

To amplify what another has said, this AMD chip/chipset would be good for low-power HTPCs, given the strength of the 780G chipset vs the Intel counterparts. The Dell Studio Hybrid would be much better than it is with this alternative.

[Macro @ Aug 17th 2008 11:24PM]

I hope the next gen Atoms with new chipset and dual core can wipe the smile back off AMD's face.

[JohnTitor @ Aug 17th 2008 11:22AM]

lets not forget that the 2000+ is bigger than the Atom

[Anthony @ Aug 17th 2008 5:57AM]

mmm double post i bet .. stupid internet T_T


QUICK get ice for intels nuts.... AMD used the steel toe boots !

::chuckles::

[johhny @ Aug 17th 2008 6:02AM]

I thought the atom CPU and accompanying chipset were all about small size. Will the AMD 2000+ and chipset fit in a small handheld mobile device?

[Carl Vitullo @ Aug 17th 2008 7:34PM]

They'd have to shrink the chipset, as is it's only available on micro-ATX.

[Austin R. Range @ Aug 20th 2008 4:41PM]

There are some micro-ITX AM2+ boards, but they cost over $200 so they aren't so great. The Athlon 2000+ is good for nettop computers where size of the boards tends to be similar to micro-ATX or mini-ITX or for a low power linux home storage server that doesn't really need a lot of power. I hope some company will make a nettop with AMD though since that is deffinately a good niche for this CPU, but then again consumers in their vast lack of knowledge may compare GHz (worked for P4's) and think that the Atom is better.

[Hellios @ Aug 17th 2008 6:03AM]

Wow, AMD should seriously read that article, and quickly pump out a mobile platform before this netbook craze is over (if it's not already too late)
Although I don't know how cost efficient that would be, probably on the same range as Intels 900MHz CeleronM backstock pushing out with the first netbooks.
Also, is there any CPU that Atom outperforms, like really? (besides the old C7)

[Ridgecity @ Aug 18th 2008 1:52AM]

Netbook craze is over? this thing is going to stay, If a company can't make a $400 laptop before christmas, they can kiss their business goodbye.

Especially since it looks like the a new Macbook Air seems to be the expensive netbook Apple is getting in stores.

[adobochicken @ Aug 17th 2008 6:07AM]

hooboy
here comes eee 900A642000+ version

[P Sin @ Aug 17th 2008 6:11AM]

the problem right now is the chipset the atom motherboard uses. The old chipset draws more power than the CPU itself thus this skews the results. Intel did an amazing job with the atom but now they need to work on a chipset that is specifically tailored to the Atom rather than using the old 965.

btw can this be done to old amd 64 chips? (in motherboards where voltage and multiplier controls are present)

also they should have thrown in some tegra and some via nano stuff just so we can see the results across the board.

[Carl Vitullo @ Aug 17th 2008 7:36PM]

It says in one of the pages that they tried it themselves with an Athlon chip and it was too unstable to use, so they seem to have made some sort of new technology for it.

[TMM @ Aug 17th 2008 6:23AM]

There's two things I don't understand:

1. Wasn't the Atom supposed to be a CPU for Mobile Devices, like smart phones and the likes?
Isn't the AMD cpu MUCH larger?

2. What's the reason for the Atom outperforming the AMD in the CPU benchmarks, by far, and in the "real world" tests losing to it? Faster memory bus and so on, I guess, right?

[DeepKeeper @ Aug 17th 2008 9:40AM]

1. It is a DESKTOP version of Atom. Not the same which is used in MIDs and netbooks.

2.It's because of HT. Atom benefits from it in multitasking - and looses in single threaded tests, like all of the examples, except of antivirus and winrar tests (which both has some optimization for multithreading...)

[A.C.E.R. @ Aug 17th 2008 6:30AM]

I was pretty excited for AMD when I saw the article, but the results didn't really pan out. The Athlon is better at real software, but all the 3DMark and SiSoft Sandra benchmarks were much better for the Atom.

I'd probably still prefer an AMD but I'm kinda leery of those benchmarks.

[cmj2405 @ Aug 17th 2008 6:34AM]

Woot, I was hoping that AMD would have great potential for a mobile platform - I'll hold off getting an Atom netbook now

[Ian @ Aug 17th 2008 9:35AM]

Theres no need to hold off. The Atom is more than adequate. You're not going to be gaming or running scientific computing apps on a MID/Netbook... its just not feasable. The Atom is more than fast enough for every day computing. I have an MSI Wind, and using in stock config with WinXP it doesn't feel ANY slower than my Dell D620 Core Duo 1.83ghz with 2gb of ram and a fast 7200rpm drive. It runs office, browser, IM, that type of stuff just great and it doesn't get hot in the least. Very nice machine.

[Lorin Halpert @ Aug 17th 2008 2:24PM]

If you can hold off on a purchase, then you don't have a real need for it. Only a want.

[Mirrormn @ Aug 17th 2008 6:38AM]

This is not as big a deal as people are making it out to be. The AMD CPU is much larger, much more expensive to manufacture (although I doubt it's still in production since it came out in 2002) and really the only reason it wins at all is because the system with the AMD processor uses a superior motherboard chipset.

The only real-life application where this comparison is relevant is in an HTPC where the slight advantage in performance per watt trumps the large disadvantages in size and cost.

[rahul @ Aug 17th 2008 6:45AM]

They compared desktop versions of atom+chipset with athon 64 2000+ with 780g.
The mobile version of atom uses half the power (2W vs 4W TDP for netbook vs desktop) and the mobile chipset of atom also draws a lot less power (5.5W vs 22W TDP for the netbook vs desktop variant). If they compared it to the atom in netbooks, as opposed to the desktop atom, athlon 64 will still lose probably.

[obo @ Aug 17th 2008 6:54PM]

Which means computers like the Eee Box, HTPCs and AIOs could get better performance per watt with an Athlon 64.

Comparing the Athlon 64 with the mobile Atom is comparing desktops with laptops. Of course the laptop will win in performance per watt. This comparison - two processors not built for mobile use - is fair, especially when factoring in AMD's superior chipset (AMD's six SATA ports to Intel's four, AMD's 12 USB 2 ports to Intel's 4, AMD's better 3D accelerator, AMD's H.264 acceleration, etc.)

Nobody but the Engadget commenters brought up MIDs. Of course the Atom is better for MIDs – no MID needs six SATA ports or 12 USB ports, or the space usage that comes with it. As long as Intel is posting the Atom for energy-efficient non-mobile single-core computing, it'll lose to the Athlon 64.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Aug 17th 2008 9:01AM]

Using older CPU architecture for lower power consumption is nothing new. Intel's using 2005 Pentium M tech to make System-on-a-chip for MIDs.

Different applications require different processing capabilities. If AMD were innovating instead of trying to play catchup, they might look into using this info to make some different applications with their chips.

[Ian @ Aug 17th 2008 9:17AM]

AMD won't gain marketshare because everyone wants Intel Inside, not AMD Inside.

[giuliop @ Aug 17th 2008 9:19AM]

I just wish AMD would drop that silly "2000+"-like names. The clock war has ended, and a processor with a stated 1Ghz clock that is faster than a 1.6Ghz one is much more impressive than saying "2000+" or whatever.

[Benson @ Aug 17th 2008 10:45AM]

I agree; the 2000+ is _so_ 5 years ago.

Oh, wait! This is a 5-year old (or so) processor, with 5-year old tech and (oddly enough) 5-year old nomenclature. And it's spanking Intel's latest/greatest low-power processor, which is why something 5 years old is in the news today.

For the "OMFG it's effing HUGE" group: It's packaged for a desktop, but it's not like the packaging is dominated by the die size; these could be repackaged to fit Atom-sized packaging. Thing is, with practically no R&D, they can bring out an Atom-like contender, and with more R&D, they can plausibly stomp all Atom models, because they've got a core that (without even trying) comes out comparable.

[blarvh @ Aug 17th 2008 2:58PM]

What are you talking about??

The XX00+ name doesn't say anything about the clock. My 6000+ doesn't have over 6ghz.

[giuliop @ Aug 17th 2008 3:49PM]

@blarvh

What I'm talking about is called performance rating: http://ln2.us/9fe7bc

And your 6000+ has two cores running at 3Ghz, that's why it's called that way.

Next time try using that fantastic and mysterious tool called "Google".

[Crp @ Aug 17th 2008 6:53PM]

the athlon series are named by ratings not at their actual clockspeed

[PuBeLeSs @ Aug 17th 2008 9:47AM]

Tom's Hardware has pit Intel's 1.6GHz Atom 230 processor against AMD's Athlon 64 2000+,

pit?????? you mean put?

wow engadget let me write for you.

[pyrthas @ Aug 17th 2008 9:51AM]

pit1
v. tr.
2. To set in direct opposition or competition: a war that pitted brother against brother.

[matt merritt @ Aug 17th 2008 10:00AM]

I believe they mean pitted, as in the past tense of the verb pit. A transitive verb meaning "to set someone or something into competition with".

For example: The Galactic Civil War pitted the Rebel Alliance against the Galactic Empire.

Or: The Romans would frequently pit prisoners against animals for entertainment.

[abelIAN @ Aug 17th 2008 11:08AM]

his point exactly

[Benson @ Aug 17th 2008 10:47AM]

Or in engrammar, "a war that pit brother against brother", right?

[paralipsis @ Aug 17th 2008 12:11PM]

Actually the correct tense is present perfect. ie. "has pitted". "pitted" looks like the past tense, but like many verbs in English the past tense and past participle forms are the same. That said, you can probably find 1000s of published cases where "pit" is used as the past participle of "to pit", so even the way it is written in the article can be seen as correct.

Either way you look at it though, the verb the author was intending was not "put", nor should it have been.

[sinjinn @ Aug 17th 2008 12:13PM]

lol

[loosely_coupled @ Aug 17th 2008 6:51PM]

Attempting to ridicule to the writer for an obvious non-error... FAIL

[XGM @ Aug 17th 2008 10:20PM]

fail

[Markarian @ Aug 17th 2008 9:48AM]

Ah, yeah. Too bad the Atom is smaller than a penny and puts out a lot less heat. I used to be a rabid AMD fanboy, but at this point, it's pretty pathetic what a once awesome company has become. I'm looking forward to my upcoming Core 2 Quad rig.

[Ryan @ Aug 17th 2008 2:22PM]

Oh, that's not called a fanboy, that's called a bandwagon jumper!

[LarryLarryLarry @ Aug 17th 2008 6:29PM]

How can the AMD chip put out more heat when it's using less power? Are there different laws of physics inside the Intel chip?

[Prokanda @ Aug 17th 2008 7:30PM]

@Larry:

I think it's that whole "former fan" thing. Like ex-smokers that are even more brutal and annoying to smokers than people that have never had a cigarette in their life.... same thing. Ex-fans are the worst critics.

Logic does not apply here.

[alur @ Aug 17th 2008 10:40AM]

Turbo button, anyone? :p

[Pinetreehater @ Aug 17th 2008 10:48AM]

Yes Markarian, I agree that the core 2 quad is awesome! Reading the other Engadget story on the over clocking to 5.1ghz shows the potential of this chip.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 17th 2008 8:34PM]

LOL you think you can take any Core 2 Quad to 5Ghz Plus? You'll be VERY VERY Lucky to hit 4Ghz on a Q6600 or Q9450 and probably be using enough volts to quickly kill the chip.