Results of Atom cpu vs Core2Solo

If video looks choppy enough, who needs a framerate reading? It doesn't matter if its 2 FPS or 12, it still looks terrible. Either it works or it doesn't.

People who purchase a computer with an Atom or Core 2 Solo (hopefully) aren't looking for a gaming machine, or a workstation for CAD. They aren't technology enthusiasts that want to see where their machines stack up to others. To them, it doesn't matter if its 4x faster by numbers and benchmarks if it feels the same.

 

looks erm,pretty close to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGZ-AXOiEo

I needed an excuse to try the video recording on my new Sony Ericsson C905a

 

Im tempted to see if it will run on my desktop if I disable three cores... but then again, I do have sugary donuts to eat...

 

It's really not that slow, the OP is just showing the worst case scenarios.

 

Everyone shall see once I post my video of 800mhz running the asteroid HD video...

 

Aside from the fact that you get a nice, big F as a reviewer, I'll stop here.

 

Everyone shall see....

 

Its kinda like your redneck neighbor getting all excited over a big firework he spent his whole paycheck on,makes a big scene about it going off,and turns out to be a dud.

 

Well, its pegging the desktop at near to 100% in playback.

 

dont you think you've embarrassed yourself enough?

 

Im running the video right now at 800mhz and it runs fine. You all shall see soon....

 

Great. Since my 2.4GHz C2Q with only one core enabled is stuttering at a few places. Its not extremely noticable, but its there. But lets see what happens when I drop the multiplier from x9 to x8, shall we?

Edit: Scratch that. nVidia control center is yelling at me when I change the multiplier, so I'm just dropping the FSB clock down. Stock its at 267. Its at 250 right now. Lets see what happens.

 

Test methods? How did you find this "twice" as fast? Why are you trying to "emulate" a CPU? Emulators are copies, and copies are not perfect; they are not the same as the original design. Get the real thing and then do your tests; itll give your "tests" some credibility.

You mean the fake C2S right?

Where did this come from? How did you get 4x? Did the programs open more than 4x as fast? If so, why didnt you mention it? Even if we assumed you are correct, the only way to actually completely prove this is if you decided to OC an Atom CPU to 3.2Ghz, which is likely impossible. There are too many loose ends; what if the Atom can render the video perfectly fine at 2.2Ghz? 2.4Ghz? 2.6Ghz? Too many places you didnt cover.

I smell buyers remorse; as many netbook owners have when they find out a netbook is not a laptop. You know what this reminds me of? Back in the pentium era where Intel was pushing the megahertz myth even though lower clocked AMDs torched them.

Arguable, but neither you nor I can prove either.

Performance wise, yes, but you as the consumer should have done proper research so you would know that.

This pretty much says you fell for the megahertz myth; you saw the 1.6Ghz and thought "well, it cant be TOO weak" and decided to get one. You were fooled, and because you were, you are now POed.

As per Neweggs current prices ( I dont really feel like searching much )

Cheapest Atom Netbook ( N270 ): $289
Cheapest Neo Netbook ( MV-40 ): $429
Cheapest CULV notebook ( SU2700 ): $549

Less than $100 more eh?

Also, I find it quite funny, ( hilarious in fact ) that you would deny all of these other people including 4 credible sources that you are wrong and yet at the same time you expect us to believe you with your sketchy test methods? You barely even give people here the time of day and yet you actually expect someone to hear you?

On the note of the actual CPU, if you expect to really do anything other than surf the web such as HD ( which reminds me, wasnt it you who was talking about how theres not even a point to running HD on a netbook of any kind in the first place, and yet you now use that as a part of your test method? a little hypocritical is it not? ), or gaming or anything else that could be remotely intensive, then a netbook is not for you. Any one worth their salt that can take an hour of their day to do some research would likely find that to be common knowledge.

 

Dude you don't do benches or run tech sites for a living like Anandtech or the other credible sources that have already proved you wrong.

Ontop of that, two other members who have actual core 2 solo's have proved you wrong also.

Your tests have too many inaccuracies and there is no control group to test if your benches are valid. There is nothing more to see.

 

@NAS Ghost I dunno, what Core 2 Solo model your looking at but the Acer 1410t is going for around $450 all over the net.

I bet he is some how editing his video to make it look like a Core 2 Solo @ 800mhz can run that HD video.

 

at the end of the day: you get what you pay for.

don't expect to spend $250 and get exceptional performance.

thing is, I don't think most people are expecting great performance...yet for what most people do with netbooks (sd videos, web browsing, light office apps, music in the background) it performs darn near as good as a full-priced laptop. it all about your needs and what you plan to do with the device.

 

Note the bolded portion; the Acer 1410T does not exist on Newegg at this time, and whats more is, even at $450, that is still greater than $100 over the cheapest netbook.

 

Wow what device is that, it cost more as the Acer, but uses the SU2700 cpu with like less cache.

 

What method are you using to cap the processor's speed; what is the speed of the FSB? Also, which internet browser are you using, as apparently Internet Explorer has a more efficient flash plug-in than Firefox.

 

I opened this thread hoping to read some decent comparisons between the atom and a culv processor because I have as of yet have not purchased a netbook because the atom was so much slower than the pc's I have gotten used to using the past 3-4 yrs. Instead I've read 12 pages of garbage, why is not closed yet so I wouldn't have wasted my time?

 

Because this "garbage" does not break the forum rules ( at least to my knowledge ). Whats more is, closing does not stop you from reading a thread, just from posting in it.

Also, after reading the first post, I would think it is fairly obvious that the OP does not have any credible tests or proof.

As for what you should get, I would go with the the CULV processor ( if you must choose between the two ); one of the few things that the OP got right is that the Atom processor is quite weak.

 

Please don't compare Atom to Core2Solo like that.
It is the technology difference that contributes to different performance according to the decoding instruction.
As you know Core2Solo feature out of order execution meaning in straight forward instructions in performs better when there are less branching instruction.
In different benchmark the performance difference is different all you need to keep in mind is Atom is generally inferior to Core2Solo regardless of frequencies.

 

The Acer 1410 is $399 at BJs. Even cheaper on ebay once you use cashback.

 

Which is nice if you have a membership ( chances are the average consumer will not ), otherwise you have to pay for that as well. As for ebay, the same can be said for netbooks as well.

I like how you only responded to that portion.

 

That cause he doesn't know to fabricate his video to make it look believable.

 

It's in my sig.

If that video loads up 75% of a 3.4 GHz Q6600 core, it won't play on a 800 MHz C2S.

 

Really as I stated I got around 75%-85% of my cpu and have CULV cpu the SU9300 in my notebook.

 

There have been posted several good benchmarks.

My favorites are the Silent PC Review and Techreport Review.

I agree with you about closing the thread but I am not allowed to.

 

Perfectly happy with my Atom 1.6Ghz. For taking note and browsing the net it is plenty.

 

What?

My Q9550 @ 3.6 ghz is running at 8% right now

after I load up the video in another firefox tab,it goes to 15-20%

My CPU isnt that much more powerful than yours...

 

Yea something is wrong with his benchmark, I am at 6% and that's at 2.67Ghz..

 

I'm going by CPU usage. Firefox.exe was using between 8% and 18% CPU usage, depending on the part of the video.

 

I think I read through the entire thread but one thing I didn't see mentioned all the time was what operating system/Browser was being used.

I have used a million different configurations of cpu's ect, and it seems the last few version of Adobe flash seem to get more cpu intensive while playing the same videos. I've also run into a problem in the recent months with flash videos.

Running windows XP everything runs great less cpu usage required to play videos (HD and SD)

Vista, more cpu usage needed for the same videos, but any time the cursor is moved anywhere on the youtube screen the cpu usage spikes and starts to skip.

Browser wise, I don't use firefox, Just IE and Chrome, and chrome gives me less cpu usage and the cursor stuttering problem does not happen.

So igrim which OS are you using,

The astroid impact HD will play on a T2250 (Core Duo T2250 1.73ghz 2MB 533FSB) at 30-40% under windows Xp using IE

On my DV2 it ran at 65% or so using IE on vista.

As for being slightly more on topic, I can't see an 800mhz anything playing astroid impact hd but if you have proof all the power to you.

 

I bet if I downclock my T7300 to 800mhz it may work.
I'm going to test it right now for you.

EDIT: I get massive stuttering @800mhz with two cores.

 

I also tried out the above mentioned video using a Phenom II 955 locked at 800mhz, and even with all 4 cores enabled it didin't work very well, not that i was expecting flash to be multi-threaded. I also see no difference in performance whether I have the "enable hardware acceleration" box checked or not.