4 ms·

Talk about overkill. That's a quad-core x86-64 CPU clocking up to 2.33Ghz. I realize Atom microarchitectures aren't wide as Haswell and ilk, but that's still so

by chroma 12y ago

Talk about overkill. That's a quad-core x86-64 CPU clocking up to 2.33Ghz. I realize Atom microarchitectures aren't wide as Haswell and ilk, but that's still some serious horsepower. It's also interesting that Intel doesn't mention the TDP on their site.[1] I wonder if it eats more power than a comparable ARM CPU. 1. http://ark.intel.com/products/81195/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z3580-2M-Cache-up-to-2_33-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/81195/Intel-Atom-Processor-Z35...

hyp0 12y ago
Atom is less powerful than Celeron, Intel's low-budget/low-power family. Plus, it will be throttled, to reduce power consumption/heat, like all mobile CPU... but... it certainly does seem like a desktop-class CPU. It would be interesting to find the median power of a desktop CPU for each year; and the power delivered by a mobile CPU that's sustainable (i.e. without throttling/overheating - 2.33GHz is the "burst frequency"). Then, for example, you could say it's a "2003 desktop class". As a super-flawed estimate, the first time a PC CPU was available at or above 2.3GHz was in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology (Opteron, AMD) But this Atom may be a bit better, because that was high-end, not median; not 64-bit; not using fast memory or other advances; and single core not quad. How much they offset the crippled architecture of Atom and throttling, I don't know. It also has 2MB cache; my median PC in 2006 had only 512KB cache... I'd guess it's around 2006-8 desktop class.
- stuaxo 12y ago
  It's tricky as RAM was a lot slower, most of those were single core with hyper threading wheras these are quad core. Definitely interested in the same thing.
higherpurpose 12y ago
What do you mean by overkill? That chip is less powerful than an Apple A8 or Nvidia Denver, and probably even the Snapdragon 805 inside the Nexus 6 and latest Motorola phones and Note 4.

by chroma 12y ago

hyp0 12y ago

Atom is less powerful than Celeron, Intel's low-budget/low-power family. Plus, it will be throttled, to reduce power consumption/heat, like all mobile CPU... but... it certainly does seem like a desktop-class CPU. It would be interesting to find the median power of a desktop CPU for each year; and the power delivered by a mobile CPU that's sustainable (i.e. without throttling/overheating - 2.33GHz is the "burst frequency"). Then, for example, you could say it's a "2003 desktop class". As a super-flawed estimate, the first time a PC CPU was available at or above 2.3GHz was in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor_chronology (Opteron, AMD) But this Atom may be a bit better, because that was high-end, not median; not 64-bit; not using fast memory or other advances; and single core not quad. How much they offset the crippled architecture of Atom and throttling, I don't know. It also has 2MB cache; my median PC in 2006 had only 512KB cache... I'd guess it's around 2006-8 desktop class.

stuaxo 12y ago
It's tricky as RAM was a lot slower, most of those were single core with hyper threading wheras these are quad core. Definitely interested in the same thing.

higherpurpose 12y ago

What do you mean by overkill? That chip is less powerful than an Apple A8 or Nvidia Denver, and probably even the Snapdragon 805 inside the Nexus 6 and latest Motorola phones and Note 4.