DD99, I updated your charts and added some from my own testing and research.
I was wondering how the new processors compared against the Eee I am now using. This is what I came up with.

The bottom line is the slowest Eee 701 at 630MHZ is about the same performance at the fastest HP 1.6GHZ C7 Mini-Note.

And, at the same clock speeds the Celeron out performs Diamondville and Isaiah. Now if I can just put a 1.6GHZ Celeron in my model 900.

Last edited by JDTucson (2008-04-30 2:49:16 am)

AkBrian wrote:

I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy.  Does anybody know what AMD has coming down the pike for the UMPC market?  If so, how does it compare with Intel's up and coming offerings?

I don't even know if AMD will survive. They have been selling off patents and products and an alarming discount just trying to keep enough cash flow to stay in business. Their stock has dropped from $42/share to $5.60/share in the last 2 years, and they took another loss last quarter. I hope they come out with something new and exciting but I have not heard of anything coming.
  I tried to run CrystalMark on my HP TX2113CL with the AMD X2 TL-62 CPU but I could not get it to pull more than a 35% load on the CPU, so the scores were unusable. Maybe someone else will log in with some new info or specs for us.
JDtucson

Last edited by JDTucson (2008-04-30 3:36:15 am)

JDTucson wrote:

DD99, I updated your charts and added some from my own testing and research.
I was wondering how the new processors compared against the Eee I am now using. This is what I came up with.

The bottom line is the slowest Eee 701 at 630MHZ is about the same performance at the fastest HP 1.6GHZ C7 Mini-Note.

And, at the same clock speeds the Celeron out performs Diamondville and Isaiah. Now if I can just put a 1.6GHZ Celeron in my model 900.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh10 … speeds.jpg

.. still, the Atom 1,6Ghz processors will be faster then the Eee's 1Ghz Celeron!
Not only the processorspeed is important, also the bus speed. If they decide to increase the speed of the FSB of the Atom, (FSB on Celeron = 800Mhz?) tests could be more beneficial towards the Atom processor.

The only reason the Atom is slower is due to it's lack of L2 and L3 cache, but if there's a fast FSB, and dualchannel DDR2 @ 800Mhz (PC6400 or something), the procesor's speed could drastically increase!
Only if you run it at the stock ram with FSB of 400Mhz (PC 3200), or slower, the processor will indeed perform really bad.

I think Intel's idea might have been that ram speed has increased over tripple speed in the past 3 years, and for mobile devices like the EEE which supports faster dual DDR2 ram (hopefully even faster with 10" Atom EEE), you don't really need the L-cache as much anymore, since it's consuming quite some power.

With this decision most of the cached data in the processor now gets shifted to the Ram, meaning the system will need about 2Mb more ram, and battery consumption on the processor drops.

I wonder if it's a good idea battery wise... Since now considerably more amounts of small packages normally stored in the processor's cache, now are being routed through the ram and bridge (was it north- or south-bridge?, anyways one of the two).
The ram and North/southbridge are seen as part of the mobo; so I guess tests will show Eee's mobo's with atom provided processor will consume more energy then celeron platforms.

Last edited by ProDigit (2008-05-01 7:33:14 am)

Good to know that my prediction of the Isaiah being quicker than the atom was correct.  Now lets see what speed processors they actually put into the next gen UMPC/Laptops. I dont think that 1.6 is going to be the standard speed processor.

I'm quite interested how Isaiah scored so high even though it's an in-order processor?

qealot wrote:

Even if Isaiah gets faster CPU benchmarks than Diamondville, I'm still going to avoid VIA like the plague.  The CPU giants are Intel and AMD and those are the only two companies I trust for my laptop or desktop purchases.  Moreover, the integrated-graphics on Intel chipsets have been satisfactory in my opinion.  The same cannot be said of VIA, which is sluggish and terrible (at least in its C7-m platform) when it comes to playing any video feedback.  Does anyone have any GPU benchmarks for the VIA C8?? I'm curious to see how embarrassing they will be.

They say that the isiah can play 720P at 1,4GHz alone, if that´s true I´ll be really happy.

DD99,
I found some power specs on the Isaiah.

3.5W @ 1 GHZ
5W @ 1.2 GHZ
6W @ 1.5 GHZ
16W @ 2.0 GHZ
Those specs are worst-case thermal design power (TDP)-typical power consumption is lower.

Source
JDtucson

Last edited by JDTucson (2008-05-02 7:03:42 pm)

sideways wrote:

ProDigit wrote:

.. still, the Atom 1,6Ghz processors will be faster then the Eee's 1Ghz Celeron!
Not only the processorspeed is important, also the bus speed. If they decide to increase the speed of the FSB of the Atom, (FSB on Celeron = 800Mhz?) tests could be more beneficial towards the Atom processor.

The only reason the Atom is slower is due to it's lack of L2 and L3 cache, but if there's a fast FSB, and dualchannel DDR2 @ 800Mhz (PC6400 or something), the procesor's speed could drastically increase!
Only if you run it at the stock ram with FSB of 400Mhz (PC 3200), or slower, the processor will indeed perform really bad.

I think Intel's idea might have been that ram speed has increased over tripple speed in the past 3 years, and for mobile devices like the EEE which supports faster dual DDR2 ram (hopefully even faster with 10" Atom EEE), you don't really need the L-cache as much anymore, since it's consuming quite some power.

The Eees only have a single ram slot, so don't operate in dual-channel mode, they do take advantage of Intel's Quad Pumping technology though

The fsb on the Celeron Eee is clocked at 100Mhz, quad-pumping gives an effective 400Mhz bandwidth, that's 3200 Mb/s which matches the DDR2-400/PC3200 ram supplied in the Celeron 900s.

The fsb on the Atom Eees will be clocked at 133Mhz, which gives a 533Mhz bandwidth (~4200 Mb/s), so note that the ram in your Celeron Eee 900 won't be compatible with the Atom Eee (Or transferable to any decent laptop for that matter) (Bizarrely, the 701 has a default fsb clocked at 70Mhz = 280Mhz with quad-pumping, but comes with DDR2-667 ram!)

The Diamondville-based N270 will run at 1.6GHz using a 533MHz FSB. This is the chip that will find a home in the previously mentioned nettops. According to Intel's latest roadmaps, the chip will be priced at $44 in quantities of 1,000.

ref http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Announce … e11336.htm

Thanks for pointing out some things.. Allthough it will be possible to switch ram between Atom and Celeron platforms, since if the RAM is too slow, the mobo automatically will run the RAM's fastest clockspeed, which will result in lower FPS in games, and a slower responding system in general.
If the mobo's speed is slower, the ram will autoclock itself slower to the pace of the mobo (meaning most ram modules are downward compatible); and in such situations, you can generally be quite sure that you have an optimized system ramwise.
Often higher clocked Ram modules running at lower frequencies operate only marginally little faster then stock ram.

I'm currently running 2GB 800Mhz memory in my EEE701, and allthough the difference is minimal, it still works faster then older DDR2 modules.
Not only that, it also consumes less energy, because the chips are being manifactured on a smaller die. So my estimation is I win about 2 to 10 minutes on battery life (on 3,5hours), and benchmark tests have shown that I win about 3-7fps on 50fps, and nearly 2fps on 25fps in games compared to a DDR2 stick of 2GB (PC3200).
Not to mention, I'll lose about 2 to 5 minutes batterylife  compared to a 512Mb DDR2 stick IF the EEE is primarily being used for passive things; like reading/writing word documents, browsing or applications that use very little ram.
I also seem to lose about 8-10fps on 50fps, and 4fps to 7fps on 25fps in games (probably due to more swap caching).

I know it sounds silly, but it's just for if you want to spend the 30$ on the upgrade; and I did.

Generally ALL DDR2 memory that fits the socket should work on the EEE.

Last edited by ProDigit (2008-05-03 4:45:10 am)