Intel's Atom Processor Compared to 68 CPUs in Bench
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 20, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Anand
A few months ago I launched something we quickly titled "Bench". The idea behind AnandTech Bench is that it's a publicly accessible version of the database of benchmarks we've run internally. You can currently compare 34 AMD CPUs and 36 Intel CPUs in the engine across 18 benchmarks. I'm working on adding power data as well.
You can access Bench at its own URL: http://www.anandtech.com/bench
Currently Bench only has CPU data in it but there are plans to expand it to storage and GPUs in the future, the former being far easier than the latter due to constantly changing drivers. The data used in bench is the same data used in our reviews, but it has to be entered in manually after a new CPU launches. If you ever see a chip get reviewed on AT but don't see its data in Bench, drop me a line and I'll make sure it gets in there.
Today I added in data for the Atom 230 and 330 processors using Intel's D945GCLF and D945GCLF2 motherboards so you can see exactly how both single and dual-core Atom stack up to modern day desktop microprocessors.
I'm also considering running data on an older CPU. In my recent Zotac Ion review I included performance results from a single-core Northwood Pentium 4 2.66GHz processor, which inspired me to want to run a whole slew of older P4 numbers for inclusion in bench.
I don't think it's wise to spend several weeks rerunning every single old CPU out there, but I figured one or two couldn't hurt.
Any suggestions from the crowd? Is a single-core Pentium 4 good enough or would you like to see some dual-core P4 stuff? What about anything from the Athlon 64 days? Respond in the comments and come to some sort of reasonable agreement and I'll see about getting the data in there :)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
lopri - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
Can we have:- Possibly a couple more benchmarks that measure purely single-threaded performance? Other than Sysmark (which tangles single-thread and multi-thread) and games (which are heavily affected by GPUs)
- Some sort of notes on the platform a CPU was tested on? Granted the difference may be small between 975X and X48, but we're looking at very granular list of CPUs. I think it'd also be relevant, especially if you add power consumption figures. It's not likely anyone will mate E2140 with an X48 board.
- At least one or two Netburst CPUs in the list? There are many folks with P4's and P-D's, and it'll help them to know what to expect. (Believe it or not, people still buy white-boxes with P4's and P-D's)
Regardless, it's an excellent tool overall and I applaud you guys for a great job.
LostPassword - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
bench the nanoAzsen - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
Nice work!GeorgeH - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
I'd actually prefer to see a ~3GHz Prescott instead of a Northwood. From where I'm sitting, the most interesting comparison is between Intel's last real attempt at MHz-centric long pipe spaceheating and its current adventures with super high efficiency.ClownPuncher - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
If not, that was a pretty popular chip for a long time.casey0102 - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
I would like to see some laptop benchmarks added, considering most people are buying laptops nowadays to replace their old desktops. This would give people an idea of what kind of performance to expect out of a laptop CPU versus a desktop CPU that they may be familiar with.cparka23 - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
I like the idea and the exhaustive list of benchmarks, but it'd be nice to be able to whittle down the number of processors to view. For example, an option to show only Core2 Duo processors would be extremely useful if I already have a motherboard to use. Sorting by manufacturer would also be welcome for less specific situations. I realize that there is already a button to hide individual processors, but that's a little impractical with the size of this list, which will only continue to grow.Yes, the results will be more telling if you're deciding between two different microarchitectures rather than different clock speeds. I also know that others will know what's what by simply looking at the product number (E#### vs. Q####). For those of us who don't follow that closely but still have a general idea of the improvements between platforms, it's about real-world practicality. I may not need to see the results of Ion vs. Atom mixed in with P4 vs. Athlon. Having a way to sift through the growing amount of data quickly will make this a better tool for the casual-interest crowd.
Similar to an article that details the performance gains of i7 over its predecessors, I'd like to be able to have the option to see just that data presented in Bench rather than the raw numbers for everything ever tested. If I want to see those results a couple years from now, I want to look it up without having to search through all the old articles in full detail. I might just not need the full article after a quick glance at Bench.
ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/">http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/So I'm guessing this will be similar to the interactive charts available at Tom's Hardware?
Any chance you could through in the best of Netburst architecture as a comparison point. ie. the 3.73GHz Pentium Extreme Edition 965 and the 3.73GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It'd be good to bring out the old top-of-the-line 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-57 as well.
mforce - Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - link
I'd like to see how the Pentium III @ 1 GHz does because I have a strange feeling that even that might beat the Atom. I think there were also some Celerons based on the P III at over 1 GHz.If you could compare it to the 1 GHz CPUs of the old , the P III and Athlon that would be very cool.
Carnildo - Saturday, May 23, 2009 - link
The Atom 230 is said to be comparable to a Celeron 900. I'd like to see that tested, as well as a selection of other old CPUs for comparison.(Specifically, I've got a Pentium MMX 233, a Celeron 450, and a 500MHz UltraSparc IIe that I'd like to see it compared to.)