http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/ Engadget Comments for Atom 330 is benchmarked, fares slightly worse than expected http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 5:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 5:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 5:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
I'm assuming that the motherboard on which this thing is soldered upon is not the best one to compliment it.

Also most of the tests are not what Benchmark enthusiasts usually look for!

Performs Office 2003 better?

Better 2D?

I mean who gives a ****ing *****!?
The common Office (2003?) user doesn't want faster CPUs as long as the software works!

Faster encoding and multitasking are more meaningful to benchmark enthusiasts but something tells me that those who need FAST CPUs in these areas have already invested in Quad Cores and unless the Atom can compete with Quads they don't give a damn!]]>Nov 13th 2008 5:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
]]>Nov 13th 2008 6:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/You can`t compare a dualcore CPU with a single core in performance in a single-thread application...]]>Nov 13th 2008 6:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
The only thing is that they shouldn't do, is be surprised when it does perform the same/slightly worse.

]]>Nov 13th 2008 7:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 7:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
Doubling the number of cores on a chip while keeping the same Front Side Bus speed reduces the bandwidth available to each core, which in turn can hurt single threaded performance.

Any test that is multi threaded will still see a performance boost, and multi tasking will also be faster so the computer will "feel" faster.

Until Intel transition the Atom over to QPI (probably a long long time from now) its going to suffer the same scalability problems as the Pentium 4. They only got around it in the Core 2 Duos by raising the FSB to insane levels and that's not feasible in a low power environment.]]>Nov 13th 2008 7:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
]]>Nov 13th 2008 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 9:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/That said, I really want to thank you guys for taking the time to explain these things. I built one of these for a friend who needed a low-power, very cool-running little internet box for complex browsing but not power-use. To be honest it's quick but I was disappointed. There were few instances when it felt more than just slightly faster than my single Atom netbook. BUT the times when it was significantly snappier was running like say a dozen programs in OSX. On the single core you'll notice some sluggishness begin in Firefox3 and VMware whereas on the 330 it's still chugging along like it's on caffeine. I do realize that having an extra core is SIGNIFICANT when running virtual environments but I still was surprised at the difference between the two in that category.

Anyway, again, thank you for explaining how these work. I didn't really have a good understanding of how these tiny dual atom mobos work before now.

On a separate note, for anyone doing a benchmark on a processor as unique as the Atom, I think they should also look in to what the processors will likely be used for. That said, the Dual-Core Atom is likely too underpowered to run Vista comfortably on a netbook, while also being too over-powered to be sold with an XP license. This is why if you look on any of the websites selling Atom330 mobos or if you look on the forums you will find that most of the people running these little cheetahs are using them for personal home servers. This is ideal because of their ultra low power draw and that they run extremely cool. And how likely do you think home server people are going to be using virtual environments? Isn't that almost what that technology was designed for? Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here but it makes a lot more sense to me now that these dual-core super low wattage rigs would be ideal for a home server, and I think the chipset handles that pretty well. Let's hope we can see some benchmarks verifying that online here very soon.]]>Nov 13th 2008 11:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 12:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 7:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 8:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 14th 2008 6:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
I've just built a system around this - added 2GB RAM, a boot drive and 2x500GB SATA drives in RAID1, installed OS X 10.5.5 on it and created a Hackintosh.
It's bloody great - home NAS, web/ftp/webDAV/file server, Time Machine backup, redundant storage - and the whole thing draws about 45W of power.

Beat that, Time Capsule.]]>Nov 13th 2008 8:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 8:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.mini-itx.com/reviews/atoms/default.asp?page=7]]>Nov 13th 2008 9:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 12:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/
For a point of comparison, my Core 2 Duo laptop with ffdshow has serious trouble (we're talking 5FPS) with some high-motion scenes in 1080p content. CoreAVC has no problem playing back the scene at full speed, and Haali's keeps things ticking when another app grabs a burst of CPU time every so often.]]>Nov 13th 2008 1:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/I actually think the Haali renderer might be using more CPU power on your system than the regular overlay renderer would and making it harder for you to decode 720P.]]>Nov 14th 2008 1:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 5:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/atom-330-is-benchmarked-fares-slightly-worse-than-expected/Nov 13th 2008 6:57PM