Atom vs ULV and LV

Hello,

I have been thinking lately of buying a 10 or 12-inch notebook and I see more and more of these appear on the market, but I have one question:

What's the difference between the Intel Atom (the dual-core model, which will be released later this year) and the Intel Core 2 Duo ULV and LV - aren't they all for this type of notebooks ?

From what I see, they all have in common the fact that they consume very little power. But which one is the most performant ? And what advantages and disadvantages do each have ?

I'm sorry for asking these noobish questions, but I'm really confused

Thank you for your time.

--
Andrei

 

The Atom is a lower powered processor than even the ULVs and LVs. However, they also do not perform as well and often take more time to accomplish the same tasks.

If you are considering this notebook to be a full time PC, or you are planning on spending a lot of time with it, you really ought to consider ULV and faster processors. ULV processors are fast enough, but only barely fast enough, to be suitable for full time office use.

 

the new penryn 3-M ULVs are out in september i'd wait till then. At this point I would not even consider using an atom, their performance is just to crappy.

 

Isn't the atom N330 be better than ULVs ? It will be a dual core at 1.6 GHz and from what I see ULVs have a lower clock speed.

 

The design between them are VERY different. Clock speeds mean nothing.

Atom < ULV < LV

 

I would go with the UVL or even a Turion X2 ultra
Review of the HP's Pavilion tx2500z
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4511

I think you should read this
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Atom-A...iew-31253.html
credit to 'Bog' for the link

 

Link is broken.

I would appreciate a few more technical details, though. How do you know Atom < ULV ? How did you compare them ? Or where does it say ?

And one more question: Will the ULV be enough for daily usage ? Here's what I plan to use it for: internet browsing, office, perhaps playing HD movies, and coding in C,python,java (all under Unix). Do I need something better than ULV ?

 

I'm doing the same kind of work on my D430 right now. ULV dual core processor.

Except HD videos, which none of these processors will do. You need a (roughly) 2.0GHz AMD or Intel dual core processor, or dedicated graphics, to view HD video without issue.

The single-core processors are a little slower, but bearable. Dual core ULVs are nice though.

I was looking up some scores for Atom and the ULV...I was actually quite surprised. The only bench I can find for all three cores (Atom, single-core ULV, dual-core ULV) are PCMark scores.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/atom-nano-review.ars/6
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4234
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4528

From that (somewhat limited) sample...
(Atom == single-core ULV) << dual-core ULV

Atom is an in-order execution processor, so in real world applications it will be slower than an out-of-order processor like the ULV ones. So Atom is still probably a little less than a single-core ULV but not by much.

 

a dualcore ulv is good enough for close to anything. most systems with ulv processors in feel slow because of their "ulv" mini ultraslow harddrives. but besides that, the cpu performs very well.

anything dualcore is enough for daily business normally.

 

Check out my D430 review with the U7700. That was pretty much what I concluded, that dual-core ULVs and up are more than enough for daily work and most other tasks.

The drives are a bit slow, so here is to hoping SSDs will soon be a cheap 1.8" option (I'll keep dreaming).

 

Atom vs. ULV benchmarks: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4530

 

Those numbers seem to be a bit low compared to ArsTechnica...perhaps they screwed up?

If NBR's numbers are more accurate, than even a single core ULV blows the Atom out of the water.

 

hmm I guess you're looking at PCMark, while I was looking at WPrime. In WPrime they perform similar (single core ulv 1.33 & atom 1.6).

Maybe some other component influences the PC Mark score, like video...

I think wPrime is the more accurate benchmark.

 

Entirely possible.

 

Thank you for your replies.

I still think atom N330 will perform very good, perhaps as performant as dual-core ULV. But I will wait for it to launch and will look at some benchmarks.

Right now, I'm inclining to buy a Dell E4200, but I hope its price won't be too high :-s

 

I'm guessing the Atom will still perform worse, in part because Intel is still offering their ULVs. They aren't going to make a cheaper product perform better!

As for the E4200...it is going to have SSD only options and is a 2.2lbs machine. The SSD is going to cost at least $500-600 by itself, so I'm expecting a starting price of about $1800-2000. Starting.

 

ouch I hope you're wrong

Do you know any 12-inch laptop which is pretty performant, but around $1000 ? ( i realize this question isn't for the hardware forum, sorry )

 

Low end D430 (dual core though) at $1150 Dell US. John Ratsey knows about a few other 12" though I think, I'll see if I can get him to drop in on this thread.

What country? $1000 USD or $1000 GBP or $1000 Euro or what?

 

I believe so too. The single core atom 1.6 performs like a 1.3Ghz ULV single core of the current generation. So a dual core atom 1.6 will perform like a dual core U7700.

The new generation ULV will perform better than the Atoms, making the Atom the budget choice.

 

What do you mean by "low end" ?

I'm not looking for used laptops, I want a brand-new one. I can't imagine how a D430 will cost so little, I see its starting price is 1500.

As for country .. Romania or USA

 

Low end as in brand new, dual core U7700, 1GB RAM, 40GB or so hard drive, CD-RW, 3 year mail in warranty, and a few other necessities like WiFi and Vista Home Basic.

Sorry, but I was wrong. It wasn't $1150. It was $1179 straight off of Dell's website. They are currently on sale.

 

See links in my signature for reviews of (i) Sony G11 with U1500; (ii) Zepto Notus with Intel A110; and (ii) Toshiba R500 with U7600. Unfortunately, I haven't tried any notebook with the Atom. If I remember correctly the ULV CPUs have a 2GB cache and the Atom has only 512MB. That is probably small enough to affect performance.

The U7600 offers the best performance but is the most power hungry. Both the G11 and the Notus showed good power efficiency.

It appears, from what I have seen, that the Atom is (deliberately?) not optimised for power efficiency. A netbook with a single core Atom typically delivers around 5 hours run time with a 6 cell battery in spite of a relatively limited hardware set and small display. Intel will be trying to limit encroachment on its lucrative range for the power efficient CPUs and supporting chipsets.

Maybe you should look at something like the Samsung Q210 which can give 5 hours with a 6 cell battery and is fully-functioning and 999€ (there is the P210 with Intel X4500 and should give even longer battery time). The downside is the extra weight.

John

 

Thank you all for your responses.

I will see what I can find at least now I know what processor to look for.

By the way: only 5 hours of battery life with Atom ? That's stupid. The Apple Macbook Pro, with a 2.6 GHz dual core processor offers 5 hours of battery life (it doesn't say how many cells the battery has, but it says it is a 60W battery).

 

See some reviews such as for the MSI Wind:

John

 

Asus 901 gets little over 4 hours with the 6 cell according to the NBR review.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, I know it's true, but I think it's stupid that with atom these little notebooks have a battery life of 5h, while the Macbook Pro (which is one of the most performant notebooks out there), with a 2.6 GHz dual core, has the same battery life.

 

As I tried to indicate above, if the Atom had excellent power efficiency then Intel wouldn't sell many of its very profitable ULV CPUs.

The only way this will change is if CPUs such as the Via Nano demonstrate better power efficiency. Perhaps someone will be innovate and put two of these on a board, with the power to one being cut off completely when running on battery.

John

 

So what's the real advantage of an Atom ? lower cost and size ? It's not performant, and it's not energy-efficient...

 

Right the Atom is a budget CPU.

by the way, I doubt that the MPB will actually make it for 5 hours when clocked at 2.6Ghz, like you are saying.
Even the 2.2 Ghz doesn't make it over 4 hours.

Battery and Power

Apple claimed six hours of battery life with the MacBook Pro, and I think they were off by a good amount compared to my normal notebook use. With wireless enabled, screen brightness around 40 percent and on the balanced power profile I couldn't break 3 hours and 40 minutes. This power range was similar between both Mac OS and Windows Vista through Boot Camp. Gaming brought the battery life down even further, into the 1 hour and 30 minute range, and most of the power could felt through your legs with the heat the notebook threw out.
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4275

 

2.5w is not energy efficient?

 

i'd LOVE to get one of those!!! thought, i could even accept a 512MB Atom...

i know, just bashing on the typos, but one can dream


i don't know the prices of the new hp compaq 2330s, or if they have ULV in, but they're 12" and should be the "cheap" 12" hp's.. have to look that one up.

 

You are wrong, Atoms are very power efficient. The standard battery for MSI Wind just blows.

The standard 3 cell battery has a capacity of 24W/hr.

Also, the chipset hogs power because it uses the 945 chipset, not the much more efficient US15W chipset.

The N270 Atom has a TDP of 2.5W and Atom 230 has TDP of 4W. The chipset TDP is 22W and 5W for 945GC and 945GU respectively.

Macbook Pro gets 3.5-4.0 hours in real world tests: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3564

 

not ULV, sorry.. http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/321957-321957-64295-321838-306995-3764975.html

 

The Wind gets 2.5 hours on a 3 cell (standard) or 5 hours on a 6 cell (optional)

Asus eee 901 gets little over 4 hours on a 6 cell.

I believe john is right. Considering the small screens these notebooks have, it makes sense that the Atom is not that power efficient. The fact that the Atom has a TDP of 2.5 watt only means it does not get very hot, it does not mean the power saving features are as good as on ULV single core.

 

Ignore TDP which is an indicator of heat generated under full load. [For example, I reckon the U7600 at 1.2GHz uses as much power as an undervolted T7300 at 1.2GHz].

It's the actual power drain of the CPU when the system is idle (usually at least 90% of the time) that matters when running on battery. The Intel A110 (as in the Zepto Notus) used about 1W on idle. Chipset power consumption is another contributor. The 945 chipset is quite power efficient and is used in a lot of the thin-and-light notebooks with the excellent battery performance.

John

 

Again, here are the things you need to know.

1. The standard battery pack for Wind is small.
Wind's 3-cell battery is 11.1V 2200mAh which makes it 24.42Whr.
Wind's 6-cell battery is 11.1V 5200mAh which makes it 57.72Whr.

2. The processor ITSELF is very efficient, N270=2.5W and Atom 230=4W. Wind uses N270

3. Not all battery capacity is same per cell

Wind's 6-cell: 57.72W/hr
EEE 901's 6-cell: 48.84W/hr
Macbook's 6-cell: 60W/hr
Samsung Q210's 6-cell: 57.72W/hr

Battery drain comparison(cnet):

Wind: 12.74W(Battery eater)
EEE 901: 10.85W(DVD battery drain)
Samsung Q210: 17.81W(Battery eater)
Macbook Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz: 20W(DVD battery drain)

The reason it looks like Netbooks have worse battery life is because they also pack a smaller battery. It might be same amount of cells, but the voltage is lower on them for the most part, meaning the real important part, the W/hr is low in the end.

The smaller devices get, the smaller the battery is, get it?

 

A110:

HFM(High Frequency Mode) TDP: 3W
Auto Halt, Stop Grant power: 1.1W/1.0W(HFM/LFM)
Sleep: 0.9W/0.8W
Deep Sleep: 0.7W/0.65W
Deeper Sleep: 0.4W

N270:
HFM TDP: 2.5W
Auto Halt, Stop Grant Power: 1.0W/0.7W
Deep Sleep: 0.5W
Deeper Sleep: 0.5W

[For example, I reckon the U7600 at 1.2GHz uses as much power as an undervolted T7300 at 1.2GHz]

LOL. Thanks for the laugh. That's impossible because the voltages are also lower at all points.

Go look at the datasheet: http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31674505.pdf

The current consumption of U7600 is 1/3 and voltage is 10% lower than the T7300. Current consumption of U7600 at full is similar to T7300 on Deeper Sleep.

U7600:
HFM TDP: 10W
Auto Halt, Stop Grant Power: 3.1W/2.6W
Sleep: 3.0W/2.5W
Deep Sleep: 1.5W/1.3W
Deeper Sleep: 1.0W
Enhanced Deeper Sleep: 0.7W

T7300:
HFM TDP: 35W
Auto Halt, Stop Grant Power: 13.5W/6.9W
Sleep: 12.9W/6.7W
Deep Sleep: 7.7W/4.3W
Deeper Sleep: 2.0W
Enhanced Deeper Sleep: 1.2W

T7300's Sleep consumes comparable power to U7600's TDP.

 

I believe you are confusing power use with TDP. The Thermal Design Power represents the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. It has little to do with how well a CPU can save power.


Another example: Sony G11 single core ULV vs. MSI Wind single core Atom (equal performance in SuperPI).
Sony G11 has 8 hours battery life on a 6 cell 62.64Whr
MSI Wind has 5 hours battery life on a 6 cell 57.72Whr

Sony has 8% higher capacity battery, 60% longer battery life. Some other components could influence it as well I agree, but still.

 

I'm talking about the Penryn models, they really last 5 hours while surfing the internet, with wireless on. And this is probably because of good power management - they are probably not clocked at 2.6 GHz if they don't need to - and they don't if you're just surfing or using it light.

And if you're gaming, then NO notebook will last long on battery.

I think IntelUser has a point - the smaller laptops have smaller batteries and thus last less. But it's not the only reason.

 

It looks nice, and it starts at $1000. I wish it had a SSD. Those 5400rpm are quite slow

But I will consider it.

 

Ok I never used it. I'm just going by the reviews. According to PC Mag they got 3:56 minutes on Mobile mark 2007 which is not bad.

It is a point but I've accounted for that. The Sony G11 has 8% more battery capacity than the MSI Wind, but still it lasts 60% longer. While the MSI comes with a 10" LED, the Sony with a 12" LED.

 

It's not a laugh, but fact. I have measured very similar total power drain for a Toshiba R500 with U7600 under 1.2GHz stress and a voltage of 0.9V and on my 14.1" Zepto with T7300 under stress with the CPU set to 0.9V @ 1.2GHz. the R500 has a 12.1" screen and the Intel 945GMS chipset while the Zepto has the less efficient 965GM chipset.

These are all the same silicon. Intel chooses some and put them in a BGA module and locks down the frequency.

I've read the datasheets, too many times. There are significant voltage ranges for each of the power states and it is lucky dip what voltages are coded into the CPU you get. I've tried 2 U7600s and they were both near the upper end of the range in the datasheet whereas, with RMClock, I can run my T7300 at 1.2GHz at the SLFM voltage.

If those power specs in the datasheets are correct, CPUs may draw more than the TDP. Take the worse case voltage and current for the U7600 and they come to somewhat more than the TDP. See the attached document.

John

 

this is the link for the compatrison between Atlon and Atom

[---]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Atom-Athlon-Efficient,review-31253.html[---]

 

The Athlon uses something like 7-8W chipset while the 945GC is a desktop version with 22W.

You undervolted the T7300 from what it would do by default. Which is what normal users wouldn't do most of the time and certainly not reviewers when reviewing a laptop unless to prove a point.

You are nitpicking. You are assuming that the "HDD and LCD" and idle consumes 5W. The only true way to determine CPU power consumption is put two systems running identical programs and measuring the power consumption of the CPU only.

Other than that, datasheets have to be assumed correct. I've already gave battery size and drain examples couple of posts ago, which says Atom devices in general consumes less power.

You can't assume CPU power consumption based on total power consumption. I've seen bunch of similar Atom based devices that has drastically different power consumption figures. Certain components are more efficient, even among similar technology(LED vs. LED, HDD vs HDD etc)..

 

I can get up to 6.5 hours with mine.

 

Very interesting. I was going by the NBR review. Any idea what caused the difference?

 

• XP helps. Tried Vista vlited, but I could never get above 5 hours with it.
• Turn down screen brightness
• Turn on power saving mode so the Atom never goes above 1.2GHz
• Bluetooth is always off
• Have the wifi card in power saving mode has done nothing to interfere with wifi performance so far (as far as I can tell).

The Atom processor itself is always changing core speed. Watching a youtube video or even changing web pages has the core near 1.6GHz. I have XP SP3 stock install from Asus, so it has a lot of processes running like for the quick launch buttons, power modes, trackpad gestures, and other utilities. I have gotten it down to 33-34 processes on start up. The EEE itself though runs cool, only slightly warm. Despite all that, I still like it a lot and look forward to dual core Atoms next year combined with a chipset made specially for it.