baxeel (baxeel@gmail.com) on 9/30/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 9/30/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Ungo (a@b.c.d.e) on 9/28/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 9/28/09 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>.. is something I've been wondering about. I mean, face it: to say that power efficiency
>>>>of available Atoms compared to available ULV Core2s is unimpressive is an undeserved compliment.
>>>>
>>>>Power efficiency of Atom's main bins (4W/core, 1.6 GHz, 512k/core)
>>>
>>>http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=29035
>>>
>>>Atom 230 isn't a 'main bin'. It's the bin for leaky parts which Intel salvages
>>>by selling them for use in desktops rather than the main volume driver for Atom (netbooks).
>>>
>>>The Z series Atoms are relatively recent developments, and are now likely the most
>>>representative.
>>
>>The "representative" Z series Atoms are not available from Intel. Period.
>
>Intel not only sells the Z series today but the embedded group offers 7 year product
>support. Your definitive statement is unsupported.

My statement is based entirely on Intel's http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=29035 own page where whole Z series is listed as not available and Intel's price list where Z series is not to be found either.

They likely continue shipping them to several customers in order to fulfil their contractual obligations, not spoil relations, or some other reason.

>>But if you're looking for the most common Atom bin by number of
>>>chips shipped to date, that would be the N270 (2.5W @ 1.60GHz), the backbone of the netbook revolution.
>>
>>Source?
>>
>>>>is clearly worse if you consider there have been 10W DC 1.6 GHz 3M Core2s (SU9600) for some time. And quickly checking for benchmarks vs Core2, e.g. I used this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-efficiency,2069-8.html
>>>
>>>>it appears low-power 2.5W bin hardly makes it a winner on the metric it was allegedly
>>>>optimized for. And power-efficiency at platform level -- just forget it.
>>>
>>>The THG article you linked to compares the performance of a 65W TDP 2.53GHz C2D
>>>to a 4W 1.6GHz Atom 230, not a 10W 1.6GHz SU9600 to a 2.5W 1.6GHz N270 as you imply.
>>
>>Oh, and what would be the performance of the 10W part? :)
>>
>>>And if you think the power figures measured by THG are meaningful, all they really
>>>prove is that chipsets matter.
>>
>>You're reading me wrong. The THG figures I used to look at performance.
>>
>>A lot. Atom 230 is normally paired with the 945GC
>>>GMCH (22.2W) and the ICH7 I/O hub (3.3W), for a total TDP of 29.5W. By "normally
>>>paired", I mean that this is the only Intel-approved chipset for Atom 230 (chipset
>>>pairings are shown for most processors at ark.intel.com). Intel puts (pricing?)
>>>pressure on Atom system designers to get them to use only these approved combos,
>>>and it seems to work because you almost never find anything else. The board reviewed by Tom's was not an exception.
>>>
>>>In other words, for reasons known only to Intel, Atom desktop systems are almost
>>>always crippled (from a power perspective) by a horribly old (130nm!) and power hungry desktop chipset.
>>>
>>>The chipset used in netbooks with the Atom N270 isn't much better: the 945GSE,
>>>a 6W TDP mobile version of 945GC. The I/O hub is still ICH7. The total TDP of
>>>this combo is 11.8W, much less than half the power of the desktop Atom configuration.
>>>
>>>But if you look at what is available for pairing with the more current Z series
>>
>>Available?! I don't see Intel listing a single Z-series Atom as available.
>>
>>>Atoms, Intel has finally come up with a decent chipset: the US15L, a 2.3W TDP single chip MCH+ICH.
>>>
>>>Now consider that the Atom and the US15L still have to communicate by pushing a
>>>huge number of FSB signals through pins and PCB traces. How much of the TDP on
>>>each side is FSB I/O power which will disappear when Atom SoCs arrive?
>>>
>>>If I have a point here, it is this: with a CPU whose TDP is as tiny as Atom's (even
>>>the leaky-bin Atom 230), these chipset details are hugely important to nail down.
>>>Especially if you're trying to talk sensibly about the power efficiency of the
>>>CPU core alone based on measurements of whole-system power. To date, the vast majority
>>>of Atoms have been sold paired with an *I/O hub* (the ICH7) which uses more power than the processor itself.
>>>
>>>Finally, I would note that there has been a rather large blind spot in much of
>>>this discussion: die size. The SU9600 has a die literally 4x bigger than Atom N270.
>>>(And 4x the TDP too.) Even after accounting for the fact that SU9600 has 2x as
>>>many processor cores, it's still not terribly surprising that 2x the die area and
>>>power budget results in a faster CPU core.
>>
>>You must have gotten my point completely wrong. That Atom loses in performance
>>in a big way is not surprizing; surprizing part has to do with it doesn't seem to
>>win in power efficiency either vs Core2.
>>
>>>The flip side: it's economical for Intel
>>>to sell the Atom at much, much lower prices.
>>
>>:) Oh give me a break, Banias derivative moved to 45nm and targeted for power efficiency
>>would have hardly had any problem fitting the space and 4W/core power envelope,
>>and I'm convinced would have looked *much* better on power-efficiency front combined
>with obviously higher performance.
>