Comparison Between Intel and AMD Products

Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers : AMD Athlon 64 2000+ At 8 Watts

Table of Contents:
1 – AMD Athlon 64 2000+ At 8 Watts

1. 1 – AMD Athlon 64 2000+ At 8 Watts
2. 2 – AMD Athlon 64 vs. Intel Atom
3. 3 – Chipset Comparison: AMD vs. Intel
4. 4 – Cooling And Temperature
5. 5 – System Power Consumption
6. 6 – Processor Power Consumption
7. 7 – Web Browsing Speed
8. 8 – Real World Use: LAN, DVD And HD Speed
9. 9 – Athlon 64 vs. Atom 230 vs. Celeron 220
10. 10 – Test System, Drivers, Benchmarks, Settings
11. 11 – Lame, iTunes, AVG, Winrar
12. 12 – Cinema 4D, Fritz, PCMark
13. 13 – SiSoft Sandra
14. 14 – Conclusion: Athlon 64 Is More Economical, Faster, And Quieter


With the development of the Atom processor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom , Intel introduced a totally new chip design that consumes very little energy. AMD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices had to strike back, and did so by clocking down its Athlon 64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64 , employing the K8 micro architecture, down to the lowest possible frequency of 1 GHz. The Athlon 64 2000+ runs with a core voltage of 0.90 volts and uses just 8 watts. As a result, the CPU easily operates without a fan. If you drop the 8 W Athlon 64 into a motherboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherboard based on the 780G chipset, then the system hits power consumption numbers that, in our measurements, are below Intel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation ’s Atom desktop solution. We were even able to lower the core voltage by 11%, without stability problems, and the power analyzer read lower numbers. Interestingly, AMD’s Athlon 64 2000+ processor, unlike Intel‘s Atom CPU, is not embedded in the motherboard. It can be run on any board with an AM2 or AM2+ socket.

Compared to Intel’s Atom, which runs at 1.6 GHz, the Athlon 64 2000+ is clocked at 1 GHz—60% lower. Despite this, the Athlon 64 outperforms the Atom in several benchmark tests as a result of its more efficient K8 architecture. In addition, the energy consumption of the entire system is lower, and that’s what really matters most.

We tried to run an AMD Sempron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempron LE-1100 at 1 GHz and 0.90 V, but it crashed due to instability. Either the Athlon 64 2000+ was a pre-selected CPU, or the Athlon core has undergone a different manufacturing process than the normal processors. However, the AMD Athlon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon 64 2000+ will be significantly more expensive to manufacture than the Atom processor because Intel had optimized its energy-saving model to lower production costs.

AMD and Intel both use 300 mm wafer disks in their production lines. At 77 mm², the Athlon 64 2000+ is more than three times larger than the Atom at 24 mm², which means Intel can produce and sell three times as many CPUs. in fact, Intel can get about 2,500 processors per wafer, while AMD can get only about 800.

Intel vs. AMD

CPU	Atom	Athlon 64
Power	4 Watts	8 Watts
Transistors	47 million	122 million
Size	24.18 mm²	77.2 mm²
Core Voltage	1.088 V	0.900 V

The Athlon 64 2000+ has 122 million transistors, and the Atom 230 only 47 million. If you look at the relationship between the number of transistors and energy consumption, a single Athlon 64 transistor uses less energy than an Atom transistor, even though Intel produces it using a 45 nm process while AMD relies on 65 nm manufacturing.

The Athlon 64 2000+ (OPN ADF2000IAV4DRE) runs on the Lima core at stepping G0. The HyperTransport frequency is 1000 MHz. This, of course, saves additional energy versus AMD’s more modern Phenom X3 and X4 CPUs. The Athlon 64 is on the same level as the Atom in terms of multimedia extensions, and the 64-bit instruction set has also been implemented.

Function Comparison Of The Intel And AMD CPU Series

Functions	Pentium Dual-Core	Celeron 220	Atom Z5 Series	Atom N270	Atom 230	Athlon 64 2000+
Core	Allendale	Conroe-L	Silverthorne	Diamondville	Diamondville	Lima
Manufacturing	65 nm	65 nm	45 nm	45 nm	45 nm	65 nm
Socket	775	479	441	437	437	940
L1-Cache	32-KB Data 32-KB Instr.	32-KB Data 32-KB Instr.	32-KB Instr. 24-KB WB Data	32-KB Instr. 24-KB WB Data	32-KB Instr. 24-KB WB Data	64-KB Data 64-KB Instr.
L2-Cache	1MB	512 KB	512 KB	512 KB	512 KB	512 KB
FSB	200 MHz (800QDR)	133 MHz (533QDR)	100 MHz (400QDR) 133 MHz (533QDR)	133 MHZ (533QDR)	133 MHZ (533QDR)	200 MHz 1000HTT
64 Bit	EM64T	EM64T	EM64T	EM64T	EM64T	X86-64
Multimedia Extensions	MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3	MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3	MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3	MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3	MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3	MMX 3DNow! SSE SSE2 SSE3
HyperThreading	-	-	Yes	Yes	Yes	-
Virtualization	VT	-	VT	-	-	-
Energy Saving	C1E Speedstep	-	C1E Speedstep	C1E Speedstep	-	-
Thermal Monitor	TM1&2	TM1&2	TM1&2	TM1&2	TM1&2	-
Virus Protection	XD bit	XD bit	XD bit	XD bit	XD bit	XD bit

Chipset Comparison: AMD vs. Intel

The processor from AMD runs on the 780G chipset. Compared to Intel’s 945G platform, it provides several extra features, and uses less energy.

We compared the Intel and AMD chipsets based on how they were implemented and used on the motherboard.

Northbridge: Intel vs. AMD

Chipset Northbridge	Intel 945GC	AMD 780G
Energy Consumption	22.2 Watts (TDP)	11.4 Watts (TDP)
Dual Channel	Yes	Yes
Graphics	GMA950	Radeon HD3200
H.264	No	Yes
Vista Aero	Yes	Yes
PCIe x16	No	Yes
Dual Monitor	No	Yes
DVI	No	Yes
HDMI + HDCP	No	Yes

The AMD chipset uses only a fraction of the energy that the Atom’s platform uses on the desktop, and offers a whole set of additional functions. The onboard graphics solution performs better, and offers superior video acceleration as well as a DVI/HDMI port.

Southbridge: Intel vs. AMD

Platform	Intel Atom	AMD Athlon 64
Chipset Southbridge	Intel ICH7	AMD SB700
Energy Consumption	3.3 Watt (TDP)	X.XX Watt (TDP)
SATA	2	6
IDE	2	2
USB	4x USB 2.0	12x USB 2.0 2x USB 1.1
PCIe x1	1	1
PCI	1	2

It is hard to comprehend why, though the ICH7 southbridge from Intel technically offers four SATA ports, that manufacturers implement no more than 2 ports on their boards. On the other hand, the AMD solution with six SATA ports offers more options for file servers and other applications.

The better functionality of the AMD solution comes at a price. The board uses the microATX form factor, whereas Intel’s Atom board is available in significantly smaller miniITX and miniDTX versions. The microATX board from AMD is for the desktop market and larger cases. We used the microATX board in the comparison because it is currently the smallest version with most energy-saving chipset for AM2 sockets. This obviously comes with a disadvantage in size.

Conclusion: Athlon 64 Is More Economical, Faster, And Quieter

The AMD Athlon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon 64 2000+ beats the Intel Atom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom 230 in energy consumption and processing power. Each of the systems was based on a desktop platform. The Achilles heel of the Intel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation system is its old system platform with the 945GC chipset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipset , while AMD offers a more modern 780G platform.

The energy-saving solution from AMD offers more possibilities: it has three times as many SATA ports, possesses better onboard graphics performance, and can also support two monitors. Unlike the Intel solution, an HD resolution (1920x1200) with high picture quality is possible through DVI/HDMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multimedia_Interface ports. And early information suggests that the AMD Athlon 64 2000+ should cost close to $90.


In terms of noise level, AMD can again beat the Intel solution: in our test the AMD energy-saving platform was able to run without a fan. Due to the high energy consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption of Intel’s chipset, the Atom board requires active cooling for stable and error-free operation.

Although the Athlon 64 2000+ uses more power than Intel’s Atom 230 CPU, the entire system requires less energy both when idle and during full load operation because of the chipset. AMD currently offers the most energy-saving desktop platform on the market, and requirements could be lowered even further if the manufacturer of a 780G board decided to use a single-phase controller with other energy-saving components.

The AMD platform has one disadvantage, however: at present, the 780G chip set is only available on a microATX board, where Intel offers a significantly smaller miniITX board. It would be sensible if AMD also offered very small embedded boards, which would enable the company to widen the gap even further.